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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–929PDF 2009

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA:

FORMULATING AN ACTION PLAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

Serial No. 111–52

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director

MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member

JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member

JANE WISE Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

September 17, 2009

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 21

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 21

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 22

Witnesses:

Dr. Robert E. Magnien, Director, Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25

Biography .......................................................................................................... 34

Ms. Suzanne E. Schwartz, Acting Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and

Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; accompanied by Dr.

Richard M. Greene, Ecosystem Dynamics and Effects Branch Office of

Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Biography for Dr. Richard M. Greene ............................................................. 40

Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Coastal Shellfish Lead, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42

Biography .......................................................................................................... 45

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

Oceanographic Institution; Director, U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal

Blooms

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47

Biography .......................................................................................................... 60

Dr. Gregory L. Boyer, Professor of Biochemistry, State University of New

York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry; Director, New York’s

Great Lakes Research Consortium

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 61

Biography .......................................................................................................... 67

Page

IV

Dr. Donald Scavia, Graham Family Professor of Environmental Sustainability; Professor of Natural Resources & Environment; Professor of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 67

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 69

Biography .......................................................................................................... 75

Discussion

Statements from Representatives Connie Mack and William Delahunt ......... 76

The Inefficacy of Traditional Water Treatment ................................................. 78

Growing Dead Zones and Their Causes ............................................................. 79

Current Control and Mitigation Strategies ....................................................... 79

Comments from Representative Mack ............................................................... 81

The Economic Costs of Hypoxia and HABs ....................................................... 83

Potential Changes at EPA ................................................................................... 84

Research Funding on the Causes of HABs and Hypoxia .................................. 85

Closing .................................................................................................................. 87

(1)

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA:

FORMULATING AN ACTION PLAN

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:21 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia:

Formulating an Action Plan

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

1:00 P.M.–3:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, September 17, 2009 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a legislative hearing to examine Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and Hypoxia research and response needs to develop and implement action plans to monitor, prevent, mitigate and control both marine and fresh water bloom and hypoxia events. The Subcommittee will also receive

testimony on draft legislation entitled ‘‘The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Re- search and Control Act of 2009.’’ Witnesses will provide their comments on, and sug- gestions to, the bill.

Witnesses

Dr. Robert Magnien is the Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal

Ocean Research in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). Dr. Magnien will discuss NOAA’s current HABs and hypoxia activities, as well as the need for the implementation action plans to address both marine and

fresh water blooms and hypoxia events.

Ms. Suzanne E. Schwartz is Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ms.

Schwartz will discuss EPA’s current HABs and hypoxia activities as well as the

agency’s role in addressing the impacts and research needs of freshwater harmful

algal blooms.

Mr. Dan Ayres is a Coastal Shellfish Manager and Lead Biologist at the

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Region Six Office. Mr.

Ayres will discuss the impacts HABs and hypoxia events impose on the west coastline. He will also discuss research and need for response and implementation plans

regarding HABs and hypoxia for prevention, control, and mitigation.

Dr. Donald Anderson is a Senior Scientist and Director of the Coastal

Ocean Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Anderson will

discuss the impacts HABs and hypoxia events impose on the Nation’s coastlines. He

will also discuss the current research and need for response and implementation

plans regarding HABs and hypoxia for prevention, control, and mitigation.

Dr. Greg L. Boyer is a Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of

New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry and Director of

the Great Lakes Research Consortium. Dr. Boyer will discuss impacts of fresh- water harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and the research and implementation

needs to respond to freshwater HABs events.

Dr. Donald Scavia is a Graham Family Professor of Environmental Sustainability and Professor of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan. Dr. Scavia will discuss the impacts of HABs and hypoxia on the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay areas, as well as the needs for an implementation

strategy for hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River.

Background

Harmful Algal Blooms and Related Impacts

A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is a bloom, or rapid overproduction of algal cells,

that produces toxins which are detrimental to plants and animals. These outbreaks

4

1 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Bush Administration, 2004. http://ocean.ceq.gov/

actionplan.pdf

are commonly referred to as ‘‘red’’ or ‘‘brown’’ tides. Blooms can kill fish and other

aquatic life by decreasing sunlight available to the water and by using up the available oxygen in the water, which then results in a hypoxia (severe oxygen depletion)

event. These produced toxins accumulate in shellfish, fish, or through the accumulation of biomass that in turn affect other organisms and alter food webs. In recent

years, many of the Nation’s coastlines, near-shore marine waters, and freshwaters

have experienced an increase in the number, frequency, duration and type of HABs.

Blooms can be caused by several factors; for example, an increase in nutrients can

cause algae growth and reproduction to increase dramatically. In other instances,

an environmental change in the water quality, temperature, sunlight, or other factors allows certain algae to out-compete other microorganisms for nutrients, which

can result in a bloom of the algae with the advantage.

Harmful algal blooms are one of the most scientifically complex and economically

significant coastal management issues facing the Nation. In the past, only a few regions of the U.S. were affected by HABs, but now all U.S. coastal regions have reported major blooms. These phenomena have devastating environmental, economic,

and human health impacts. Impacts include human illness and mortality following

direct consumption or indirect exposure to toxic shellfish or toxins in the environment; economic hardship for coastal economies, many of which are highly dependent

on tourism or harvest of local seafood; as well as dramatic fish, bird, and mammal

mortalities. There are also devastating impacts to ecosystems, leading to environmental damage that may reduce the ability of those systems to sustain species due

to habitat degradation, increased susceptibility to disease, and long-term alterations

to community structure.

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act and Current Federal Research

Scientific understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events has progressed significantly since the early 1990s; however, there is a need for additional

efforts in monitoring, prevention, control and mitigation of these complex phenomena. Practical and innovative approaches to address hypoxia and HABs in U.S.

waters are essential for management of aquatic ecosystems and to fulfill a stronger

investment in the health of the coasts and oceans called for by the U.S. Ocean Action Plan1 and recent reports on ocean policy. Recognizing this need, in 2004 Congress reauthorized and expanded the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research

and Control Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–383) by passing the Harmful Algal Bloom

and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–456).

The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act

(HABHRCA) established an Interagency Task Force to develop a national HABs assessment and authorized funding for existing and new research programs on HABs.

This includes two multi-year research programs at NOAA that focus on HABs, the

Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program and the

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

These programs involve federal, State, and academic partners and support interdisciplinary extramural research studies to address the issues of HABs in an ecosystem context. HABHRCA was reauthorized in 2004, requiring assessments of

HABs in different coastal regions and in the Great Lakes and plans to expand research to address the impacts of HABs. The law also authorized research, education,

and monitoring activities related to the prevention, reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and reconstituted the Interagency Task Force on HABs

and Hypoxia.

The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce several reports and assessments. The Prediction and Response Report, released in September 2007, addresses both the state of research and methods for HAB prediction and response,

especially at the federal level. The National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan for Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal

Blooms (RDDTT Plan) establishes research priorities to develop and demonstrate

prevention, control and mitigation methods to advance current prediction and response capabilities.

The law also required development of local and regional Scientific Assessment of

Hypoxia and a Scientific Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms. These assessments

were to be initiated at the request of State, tribal, or local governments or for affected areas identified by NOAA. Funding was also authorized for ongoing and new

programs and activities such as: competitive, peer-reviewed research through the

5

2 Anderson, D.,Galloway,S.B., Joseph, J.D. A National Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful

Algae. 1993. http://hdl.handle.net/1912/614; https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/

1912/614/1/WHOI-93-02.pdf 3 HARRNESS, Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science

Strategy 2005–2015. National Plan for Algal Toxins and Harmful Algal Blooms. http://

www.esa.org/HARRNESS/

ECOHAB program; freshwater harmful algal blooms added to the research priorities

of ECOHAB; a competitive, peer-reviewed research program on management measures to prevent, reduce, control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms supported by the

MERHAB program; and activities related to research and monitoring of hypoxia

supported by the competitive, peer-reviewed Northern Gulf of Mexico program and

Coastal Hypoxia Research Program administered by NOAAs National Ocean Service.

The HABHRCA authorized funds were directed to conduct research and seek to

control HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine waters, estuaries and the Great Lakes.

The 2004 reauthorization also required a reporting requirement on The Scientific

Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms that describe the state of the

knowledge of HABs in U.S. inland and freshwaters and presents a plan to advance

research and reduce the impacts on humans and the environment. However, since

the completion of the report, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unilaterally determined its obligations regarding implementation of the report recommendations and the agency has ceased participation in freshwater HAB research

and mitigation activities.

The investigation into marine blooms is critically important, as are HABs found

in the Great Lakes; therefore, there is a need to research and respond to HABs in

inland waterways, such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs. The Environmental Protection Agency oversees a wide array of programs specifically designed to protect and

preserve the coastal and marine waters of the United States, including watershed

protection programs working through partnerships and an array of regulatory programs. EPA currently has no research and development effort that addresses freshwater harmful algal blooms. In conjunction with its statutory responsibilities to ensure water quality under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act,

EPA has a program of research and development on water treatment technologies,

health effects of water pollutants, security from deliberate contamination, and watershed protection. Current annual funding for these activities is approximately $50

million.

Currently, EPA and Louisiana researchers are studying whether the dead zone

pollution violates water quality standards. With EPA’s assistance, the State of Louisiana could set standards using the legal authority of the Federal Clean Water Act,

including non-point source runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. EPA and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are co-leads of a Federal

Workgroup of thirteen federal agencies committed to supporting the Gulf of Mexico

Alliance, a partnership formed by the five Gulf State Governors. In addition, EPA

is also a participating member of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed

Nutrient Task Force. However, at present, there is a lack of significant federal research and development aimed at addressing freshwater HABs. Because of the

agency’s complementary work on inland water ecosystems, the EPA is a logical federal entity to partner with NOAA to develop and implement a research, development, and demonstration program to address freshwater harmful algal blooms and

hypoxia through research, monitoring, prevention, mitigation, and control. As the

lead agency with oversight over freshwater quality, the EPA should ensure the protection of aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife by conducting research to develop HAB prevention, control and mitigation technologies.

Reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act

For the past 12 years, the science community has been guided by the National

Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae (Anderson, et al., 1993)2. This plan

has served as the foundation for the development of national, regional, State and

local programs and the advancement of scientific knowledge on HABs and their impacts. HABs have increased in their type, frequency, location, duration and severity,

yet the decision-making and management systems have not changed. Thus, the national plan was updated to reflect the current state of the HAB problem, needs, priorities and approaches. The new plan, Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005–20153 (HARRNESS) is composed of

6

views from the research and management community and outlines a framework for

actions over a ten-year period. The HABs issue has been approached at a multi-agency level to address its many dimensions. There is presently a range of programs and agencies that address specific aspects of HABs. There have been several reports and assessments on the

range of aspects. The reauthorization of the HABHRCA should build upon and utilize the findings and results of these workings to formulate a national action strategy as well as develop regional research action plans. There is also a need to expand

the work and research of Harmful Algal Blooms to include both marine and

freshwaters.

Draft Legislation:

The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of

2009

Purpose: To establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive strategy to address harmful algal blooms and

hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive

regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

Section 1: Short Title

The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009

Section 2: Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998

Section 2 explains that the text the bill modifies is the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, unless otherwise expressly stated.

Section 3: Definitions

Section 3 provides definitions for the Act, including: Administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency; the National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program; and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Section 4: National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program

Section 4 directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, through the Interagency Task Force, to establish and maintain a National Harmful

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The bill outlines tasks for the Under Secretary

to ensure through the Program: 1) to develop a national strategy to address both

marine and freshwater HABs and hypoxia; 2) to ensure the coordination of all federal programs related to HABs and hypoxia; 3) to work with regional, State, tribal,

and local government agencies; 4) to identify additional research needs and priorities; 5) to support international research efforts on HABs and hypoxia; 6) to ensure

the development and implementation of methods and technologies to protect ecosystems damaged by HABs; 7) to coordinate an outreach, education, and training

program; 8) to facilitate regional, State, tribal, and local efforts to implement response plans, strategies, and tools; 9) to provide resources for training of regional,

State, tribal and local coastal and water resource managers; 10) to enhance observations, monitoring, modeling, data management, information dissemination, and

operational forecasts; 11) to oversee the updating of the Regional Research and Action Plans; and 12) to administer peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant

funding. In addition, Section 4 directs the Under Secretary to work cooperatively with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as well as, with States, tribes,

non-governmental organizations, and other agencies represented on the Task Force.

Section 4 also directs the Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to jointly carry out the duties for the freshwater aspects

of the Program.

This bill also requires the Under Secretary to transmit to Congress an action

strategy that outlines the specific activities to be carried out by the Program, a

timeline for such activities, and the programmatic roles of each federal agency in

7

the Task Force. The action strategy shall be published in the Federal Register and

be periodically revised by the Under Secretary. Section 4 also requires the Under

Secretary to prepare a report to Congress describing the budget, activities, and

progress of the Program.

Section 5: Regional Research and Action Plans

Section 5 directs the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to oversee the development and implementation of Regional Research and Action Plans by identifying the appropriate regions and sub-regions to be addressed by each Plan. The bill

outlines some contents the Plans should identify: 1) regional priorities for ecological,

economic, and social research related to the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and demonstration activities to advance technologies to address the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 3) actions to minimize the occurrence of

HABs and hypoxia; 4) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of HABs events;

5) research and methods to address the impacts of HABs on human health; 6) mechanisms to protect vulnerable ecosystems that could be or have been affected by

HABs; 7) mechanisms by which data is transferred between the Program and State,

tribal, and local governments and relevant research entities; 8) communication, outreach, and dissemination methods used to educate and inform the public; and 9) the

roles that Federal agencies can play to assist implementation of the Plan.

Section 5 directs the utilization of existing research, assessments, and reports in

the development of the Plans. Section 5 also provides a list of individuals and entities that the Under Secretary may work with to develop the Plans. The bill also requires that the Plans be completed within 12 months of the date of enactment and

updated once every five years. Furthermore, Section 5 requires that the Under Secretary submit a report to Congress not later than 12 months after the date of enactment and once every two years after the completion of the Regional Research and

Actions Plans.

Section 6: Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

Section 6 directs the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task

Force to transmit a report to Congress and the President on the progress made toward attainment of the coastal goals of the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan. The initial report is required no later than two years after the date of enactment and every

five years thereafter. The reports are required to assess progress made toward nutrient load reductions, the response of the hypoxia zone and water quality throughout the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin and the economic and social effects. The

reports shall include an evaluation of current policies and programs and lessons

learned. In addition, Section 6 requires the reports to recommend appropriate actions to continue to implement or, if necessary, revise the strategy set forth in the

2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan.

Section 7: Authorization of Appropriations

Section 7 provides a five year authorization to the Under Secretary to carry out

the Program and a separate authorization for the development of the Regional Research and Action Plans. Section 7 also provides a five year authorization to the Administrator for the freshwater HABs Program.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Chairman BAIRD. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us.

We apologize for the delay. It happens here sometimes. We have

clusters of votes, and normally, of course, you have to sit and listen

to us talk at you for far too long, so we are going to dispense with

that so we can hear people who know what they are talking about,

which is actually theoretically the purpose of a hearing on Capitol

Hill.

So I will recognize Mr. Inglis, who I think is going to say the

same thing, and then we will hear from our witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today’s legislative hearing on

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and draft legislation for the reauthorization of the

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act.

Last year the Subcommittee convened and discussed the impact harmful algal

blooms and hypoxia has on our coastlines and in bodies of freshwater. I know in

the State of Washington, HABs have made it increasingly difficult to manage important fisheries. It has also been our responsibility to protect citizens from the threats

that these blooms cause on our beaches and subsequently result in wide area closures.

Harmful algal blooms pose serious threats because of their production of toxins

and reduction of oxygen in the water. These impacts include alteration of the

ocean’s food web, human illnesses, and economic losses to communities and commercial fisheries.

The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and the even more recent occurrences of coastal dead

zones, such as those in Oregon, have also caused many fish, crabs, and other aquatic organisms to either flee or die in suffocating waters.

I believe we have taken some important steps and made great advances in our

research findings due to the 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and

Control Act and in the 2004 reauthorization. However it is now time to build upon

the numerous reports and assessments that came out of these two laws.

This reauthorization calls for action plans to begin responding to the needs of our

communities. This bill establishes a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia

Program, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

tasked as the lead in overseeing the development of these plans. In addition, there

needs to be more work done on the freshwater HABs. HABs affect not only our

coastlines, but our inland waters as well. I think my colleagues will agree that we

expect to see a collaborative effort between NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in addressing the threat of HABs to freshwater.

Since the last reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research

and Control Act in 2004, there has been an increase in the number, frequency, and

type of blooms and hypoxic events in recent years. We need to continue the valuable

ongoing research while now implementing strategic national and regional plans.

We must use our research and advances in our understanding of these blooms and

the hypoxic events they cause to better monitor, mitigate, and control these occurrences and even prevent them, if possible.

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today, and I hope they will offer

us expert testimony on how we can move forward together in responding to this

problem.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. At this time, I would

like to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina

for his opening statement.

Mr. INGLIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to hearing

from the witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Good afternoon and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

In the 110th Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on Harmful Algal

Blooms and Hypoxia issues. We discussed previous legislation and the progress

made on a new national plan, HARRNESS: Harmful Algal Research and Response:

22

A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005–2015, and how it will help coordinate the Federal Government’s efforts on HAB and hypoxia research.

Today we are here to discuss next steps. We will discuss legislation that will push

federal efforts beyond previous statutes and make use of what we’ve learned to date.

Hopefully we can place greater emphasis on the critical areas of monitoring, control,

and mitigation.

South Carolina’s Phytoplankton Monitoring Network is a collaborative effort of

scientists and academics from all over the United States. Since it was started in

2001, the Network has reported over 70 algal blooms. Cooperative efforts like these

and advancements in monitoring coordination are important first steps in dealing

with harmful algal blooms, but we have a lot of work left to do to develop an event

response program.

Once blooms are identified, several questions arise: Could the bloom have been

predicted? How do we control the bloom without causing further harm? What can

we do to mitigate the economic impacts of these blooms?

I’m also interested in how to properly use regional partnerships to leverage greater resources and appropriately differentiate the HAB and hypoxia issues and impacts on our diverse coast line. Moreover, I hope the witnesses can talk to the appropriate level of resources that the Federal Government should invest in an event

response program.

I hope as we discuss this piece of legislation we can keep in mind that the end

goal is to minimize the negative impacts of HABs and hypoxia on our coasts and

economy.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists about all these issues.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent speech.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to review

prevention and response needs of harmful algal blooms (HAB) and hypoxia events

and to receive testimony on draft legislation to reauthorize and expand the Harmful

Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998.

The Subcommittee has examined the ecological and health risks posed by HABs

and hypoxia several times through hearings and legislation. Yet these harmful

events continue to occur in our coastal regions and happen regularly in the Great

Lakes and other major waterways. The spread of HABs and hypoxia to new regions

of the country will require efforts to monitor, prevent, and respond to these outbreaks.

In particular, we must take action to address the development of HABs and hypoxia in our inland waterways, including the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

The Mississippi River serves as a vital transportation corridor for the movement of

goods and as a center for recreation in Illinois. A HAB or hypoxia outbreak in the

Mississippi River could have a severe effect on the economy and cause major health

risks. Previous outbreaks have occurred in the Mississippi River Delta, yet the Environmental Protection Agency has no research program in place to address inland,

freshwater HABs or hypoxia. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how their

research efforts may address these concerns to manage HBAs and hypoxia in our

inland waterways.

I am pleased Subcommittee Chairman Baird has proposed legislation to build

upon the 2004 expansion of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and

Control Act to combat the harmful effects of these occurrences. The guidelines set

forth in the proposed legislation aim to manage HABs and hypoxia more efficiently

by creating a national strategy to address marine and freshwater outbreaks. This

strategy focuses on regional efforts to address HABs and hypoxia and prevent their

spread. I would like to hear from our witnesses if this regional approach will be effective in preventing the development of HABs and hypoxia in areas of the country,

such as the Midwest.

I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. Thank

you again, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. It my privilege to introduce our outstanding

panel of witnesses, who bring great expertise. Dr. Robert

Magnien—and if I mispronounce, please forgive me—is the Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research of the NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ms. Suzanne

Schwartz is Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and

Watersheds at the U.S. EPA. Mr. Dan Ayres hails from my home

state—good to see you again, Dan—the Coastal Shellfish Manager

and Lead Biologist at the Washington State Department of Fish

and Wildlife Region 6 office. Dr. Donald Anderson is Senior Scientist and Director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute. Dr. Greg L. Boyer is Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and Director of Great Lakes Research

Consortium, and Dr. Donald Scavia is a Graham Family Professor

of Environment Sustainability and Professor of Natural Resources

and Environment at the University of Michigan, a state from

whence hails our delightful Dr. Ehlers, who has been a passionate

advocate of this. I should also mention that Representatives Connie

Mack and Kathy Castor of Florida both have been very strong advocates of that. As witnesses should know, you will have five minutes for spoken testimony. Those of you are dying to hear what Mr.

Inglis and I were going to say can find those on our web sites.

Don’t rush out and bookmark that right now.

With that, let us hear from Dr. Magnien and the rest of our distinguished panel.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT E. MAGNIEN, DIRECTOR, CENTER

FOR SPONSORED COASTAL OCEAN RESEARCH, NATIONAL

CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN SCIENCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. MAGNIEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of

the Subcommittee. My name is Robert Magnien and I am Director

of NOAA’s Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research. In this

role, I administer on behalf of the Department of Commerce and

NOAA the five national programs on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia that are authorized by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act (HABHRCA) of 1998. I also coordinate

these programs nationally and internationally.

NOAA views hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, or HABs, as significant threats to the health of the American public and the U.S.

economy. HABs, which now occur in all states, are a growing problem worldwide. They threaten human and ecosystem health and

the vitality of fish and shellfish, protected species and coastal

economies. Similarly, hypoxia, or areas of low dissolved oxygen

called dead zones, have increased 30 fold since 1960. They now

occur in over 300 U.S. coastal systems including the Great Lakes,

signaling severe degradation of water quality and habitats nationwide. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft reauthorization so that we can build upon the many successes of this

legislation.

In 1998, HABHRCA authorized NOAA to take action to address

the growing problems of HABs and hypoxia and coordinate interagency efforts. A major component of this responsibility is NOAA’s

leadership of the Nation’s only competitive research programs focused solely on these issues, three for HABs and two for hypoxia.

HABHRCA also authorizes NOAA to carry out intramural research

24

and assessment activities. Active areas of research include HAB

and hypoxia forecasting, development of new methods for HAB cell

and toxin detection, and understanding the impacts of HABs and

hypoxia on aquatic life and coastal economies. The 2004 reauthorization required five reports. Four have been submitted to Congress

and the fifth is undergoing interagency approval.

Many significant research advances supported by HABHRCA

programs have greatly improved HAB and hypoxia management.

These accomplishments are described in the HABHRCA reports

that were submitted to Congress in my written testimony. Let me

just highlight two.

HAB forecasting has been extended to new areas, an outcome of

many years of sustained research, and shows great promise in providing early warning to public health and resource managers. Forecasts in the western Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of

Maine, Chesapeake Bay and the Pacific Northwest are in various

stages of development. NOAA has preliminary plans for a national

HAB forecasting system which will make routine forecasts, like

weather forecasts, in areas where HABs are a major threat. In

2008, the interagency Mississippi Gulf of Mexico Task Force updated the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan, which reaffirmed the goal of

reducing the hypoxic zone and prescribed 45 percent reductions in

both nitrogen and phosphorus. The recommendations were based in

large part on the many years of NOAA-funded research authorized

by HABHRCA.

Regarding the draft bill, it addresses two issues that are consistent with NOAA goals. First, it will establish an overarching

HAB and hypoxia program within NOAA. This will enhance the

visibility of these issues as a national priority and improve coordination within NOAA and with other federal agencies. Secondly, regional research and action plans will be developed with input from

local experts and managers. These plans will guide future research

priorities toward development of products that are of greatest benefit to those on the front lines of managing these threats as well

as the public. We note, however, that all mention of specific ongoing HAB and hypoxia programs that were identified in prior

versions of HABHRCA have been removed. NOAA has found the

specification of programs helps to clarify the intent of Congress

when implementing this legislation. Much of the Nation’s progress

in improving HAB and hypoxia management and response has

come from information and products developed under these highly

successful programs. Further, one of the HABHRCA reports presented to Congress last year, called ‘‘HAB Management and Response,’’ recommended that progress would be enhanced if event response and infrastructure programs were added.

Finally, the role of research within NOAA is not specified in the

draft legislation as it was in the previously enacted legislation.

Such authorization assures that the valuable research conducted

within NOAA will be continued. We understand that this bill is

only a draft so we would welcome additional opportunities to work

with the Committee to develop the language of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for

this opportunity to comment on the pending legislation and update

you on NOAA’s programs. NOAA strongly supports reauthorization

25

1Lopez, C.B., Dortch, Q., Jewett, E.B., Garrison, D. 2008. Scientific Assessment of Marine

Harmful Algal Blooms. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and

Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.,

62 pp. 2Lopez, C.B., Jewett, E.B., Dortch, Q., Walton, B.T. Hudnell, H.K. 2008. Scientific Assessment

of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms,

Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.

Washington, D.C., 65 pp. 3 Jewett, E.B., Lopez, C.B., Kidwell, D.M. Bricker, S.B., Burke, M.K., Walbridge, M.R.,

Eldridge, P.M., Greene, R.M., Hagy, J.D., Buxton, H.T., Diaz, R.J. In Prep. Scientific Assessment

of Hypoxia in U.S. Coastal Waters. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. Washington, D.C., 149 pp.

of HABHRCA and the new opportunities it will provide. I will be

happy to answer any questions that you may have. [The prepared statement of Dr. Magnien follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. MAGNIEN

Introduction

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Robert E. Magnien and I am the Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR).

CSCOR provides competitive funding for regional-scale, multi-disciplinary research

on understanding and predicting the impacts of major stressors on coastal ecosystems, communities, and economies in order to support informed, ecosystem-based

management. In this capacity, I administer the five national programs solely focused on harmful algal blooms (HAB) and hypoxia that were authorized by the

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA)

and reauthorized in 2004. I serve on the Interagency Working Group on Harmful

Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean

Science and Technology to coordinate NOAA’s programs with other federal agencies.

Additionally, I serve as the U.S. representative for the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission panel on HABs to maximize international opportunities for exchange of relevant research. At NOAA, we work to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans, and provide

products and services that benefit the economy, environment, and public safety of

the Nation. By improving our understanding of, and ability to predict changes in,

the Earth’s environment, and by conserving and managing ocean and coastal resources, NOAA generates tremendous value for the Nation. NOAA’s role is all the

more important given the profound economic, environmental, and societal challenges

currently facing the country. Two of these challenges are HABs and hypoxia, which

together represent a significant threat to the health of the American public and the

U.S. economy.

HABs, which now occur in all U.S. states,1,2 are a growing problem worldwide.

HABs threaten human and ecosystem health, and the vitality of fish and shellfish,

protected species, and coastal economies. Similarly, hypoxia occurs in over 300 U.S.

coastal systems,3 including the Great Lakes. There has been a 30-fold increase in

hypoxia events since 1960,3 signaling severe degradation of water quality and

aquatic habitats nation-wide. HABs and hypoxia are two of the most complex phenomena currently challenging management of aquatic ecosystems. Given the profound, pervasive, complex and growing impacts of HABs and hypoxia, these are important issues NOAA will continue to address in the coming years.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft HABHRCA reauthorization

before this committee so we can maximize the opportunities to reduce or prevent

HAB and hypoxia events and their impacts in an efficient and coordinated manner.

In order to provide context for the importance of HABHRCA reauthorization, I will

first describe the nature of the problem in more detail, discuss NOAA’s role in addressing HABs and hypoxia in our coastal and Great Lakes waters, and highlight

some of the significant advances NOAA has made as a result of HABHRCA.

Harmful Algal Blooms in the United States

Generally, algae are simple plants that in general are beneficial because they provide the main source of energy that sustains aquatic life. However, some algae cause

harm to humans, animals, and the environment by producing toxins or by growing

in excessively large numbers. When this occurs they are referred to as ‘‘harmful

algal blooms’’ or HABs. Sometimes, certain algal species accumulate in such high

26

4 Hoagland, P., and Scatasta, S. 2006. The Economic Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms. In E.

Graneli and J. Turner, eds., Ecology of Harmful Algae. Ecology Studies Series. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Springer-Verlag, Chap. 29. 5 Jin, D., Thunberg, E., and Hoagland, P. 2008. Economic Impact of the 2005 Red Tide Event

on Commercial Shellfish Fisheries in New England. Ocean and Coastal Management 51(5):420–

429. 6GEOHAB, 2006. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, Harmful Algal

Blooms in Eutrophic Systems. P. Glibert (ed.). IOC and SCOR, Paris and Baltimore, 74, pp.

numbers that they discolor the water, and are commonly referred to as ‘‘red tides’’

or ‘‘brown tides.’’ Table 1 lists some of the major HAB-causing organisms in the

United States.

Some algae produce potent toxins that cause illness or death in humans and other

organisms. Fish, seabirds, manatees, sea lions, turtles, and dolphins are some of the

animals commonly affected by harmful algae. Humans and other animals can be exposed to algal toxins through the food they eat, the water they drink or swim in,

or the air they breathe. Other algae species, although nontoxic to humans and wildlife, form such large blooms that they degrade habitat quality through massive overgrowth, shading, and oxygen depletion (hypoxia), which occurs after the bloom ends

and the algae decay. These high biomass blooms can also be a nuisance to humans

when masses of algae accumulate along beaches and subsequently decay.

HABs can have major negative impacts on local economies when, for example,

shellfish harvesting is restricted to protect human health or when tourism declines

due to degradation of recreational resources. HABs can also result in significant

public health costs when humans become ill. A recent conservative estimate4 suggests that HABs occurring in marine waters alone have an average annual impact

of $82 million in the United States. In 2005, a single HAB event in New England

resulted in a loss of $18 million in shellfish sales in Massachusetts alone.5 Economic

impacts can be difficult to calculate as they vary from region to region and event

to event, but they are a primary concern of coastal communities that experience

HAB events.

In addition to impacting public health, ecosystems, and local economies, HABs can

also have secondary social and cultural consequences. For example, along the Washington and Oregon coasts, tens of thousands of people visit annually to participate

in the recreational harvest of razor clams. However, a series of beach closures in

recent years due to high levels of the HAB toxin domoic acid prevented access to

this recreational fishery. These harvesting closures have not only caused economic

losses, they have also resulted in an erosion of community identity, community

recreation, and a traditional way of living for native coastal cultures.

As mentioned above, the geographic distribution of HAB events in the United

States is broad. All coastal states have experienced HAB events in marine waters

in the last decade, and freshwater HABs occur in the Great Lakes and in many inland waters. Evidence indicates the frequency and distribution of HAB events and

their associated impacts have increased considerably in recent years in the United

States and globally.6

Although all coastal states experience HABs, the specific organisms responsible

for the HABs differ among regions of the country (see Figure 1). As a result, the

harmful impacts experienced vary in their scope and severity, which leads to the

need for specific management approaches for each region and species. Some species

need to be present in very high abundances before harmful effects occur, which

makes it easier to detect and track the HAB. However, other species cause problems

at very low concentrations and can in essence be hidden among other benign algae,

making them difficult to detect and track. The factors that cause and control HABs,

from their initiation to their decline, vary not only by species, but also by region

due to differences in local factors such as the shape of the coastline, runoff patterns,

oceanography, nutrient regime, other organisms present in the water, etc. Consequently, the development of HAB management strategies requires a regional approach.

27

7 Heisler, J., Glibert, P.M., Burkholder, J.M., Anderson, D.M., Cochlan, W., Dennison, W.C.,

Dortch, Q., Gobler, C.J., Heil, C.A., Humphries, E., Lewitus, A., Magnien, R., Marshall, H.G.,

Sellner, K., Stockwell, D.A., Stoecker, D.K., and Suddleson, M. 2008. Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Scientific Consensus. Harmful Algae 8(1):3–13.

As noted above, the causes of HABs are complex and are controlled by a variety of factors. While we know the causes of HAB development vary between species and

locations, we do not have a full understanding of all the factors involved, including

the interplay of different contributing factors. In general, algal species grow best

when environmental conditions (such as temperature, salinity, and availability of

nutrients and light) are optimal for cell growth. Other biological and physical processes (such as predation, disease, toxins and water currents) determine whether enhanced cell growth will result in biomass accumulation (or what we call a ‘‘bloom’’).

The challenge for understanding the causes of HABs stems from the complexity and

interrelationship of these processes for individual species and among different HAB

species. The complexity of interactions between HABs, the environment, and other

plankton further complicate the predictions of when and where HAB events will

occur. Knowledge of how these factors control the initiation, sustainment, and decline of a bloom is a critical precursor for advancing HAB management. Human activities are thought to contribute to the increased frequency of some

HABs.3 For example, increased nutrient pollution has been acknowledged as a fac- tor contributing to increased occurrence of several high biomass HABs.7 Other

human-induced environmental changes that may foster development of certain

HABs include changes in the types of nutrients entering coastal waters, alteration

of food webs by overfishing, introductions of non-indigenous species that change food

web structure, introduction of HAB cells to new areas via ballast water or other

mechanisms, and modifications to water flow.1 It should also be noted that climate

change will almost certainly influence HAB dynamics in some way since many critical processes governing HAB dynamics—such as temperature, water column stratification, up-welling and ocean circulation patterns, and freshwater and land-derived

nutrient inputs—are influenced by climate. The interactive role of climate change

with the other factors driving the frequency and severity of HABs is in the early

stages of research, but climate change is expected to exacerbate the HAB problem

in some regions (http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/

CC¥habs.html).

Hypoxia in the U.S.

Hypoxia means ‘‘low oxygen.’’ In aquatic systems, low oxygen generally refers to a dissolved oxygen concentration less than two to three milligrams of oxygen per

liter of water (mg/L), but sensitive organisms can be affected at higher thresholds

(e.g., 4.5 mg/L). A complete lack of oxygen is called anoxia. Hypoxic waters generally

28

do not have enough oxygen to support fish and other aquatic animals, and are sometimes called dead zones because the only organisms that can live there are microbes.

The incidence of hypoxia has increased 10-fold globally in the past 50 years and

almost 30-fold in the U.S. since 1960, with over 300 coastal systems3 now experiencing hypoxia (see Fig. 2). The increasing occurrence of hypoxia in coastal waters

worldwide represents a significant threat to the health and economy of our nation’s

coasts and Great Lakes. This trend is exemplified most dramatically off the coast

of Louisiana and Texas, where the second largest eutrophication-related hypoxic

zone in the world is associated with the nutrient pollutant load discharged by the

Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.

Although coastal hypoxia can be caused by natural processes, the dramatic increase in the incidence of hypoxia in U.S. waters is linked to eutrophication due to

nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and organic matter enrichment, which has been

accelerated by human activities. Sources of enrichment include point source discharges of wastewater, non-point source atmospheric deposition, and non-point

source runoff from croplands, lands used for animal agriculture, and urban and suburban areas.

The difficulty of reducing nutrient inputs to coastal waters results from the close

association between nutrient loading and a broad array of human activities in watersheds and explains the growth in the number and size of hypoxic zones. While

nutrients leaving water treatment facilities can often be controlled through improvements in technology and facility upgrades, diffuse runoff from non-point sources,

such as agriculture, is more difficult to control. Although there have been some welcome efforts to optimize fertilizer applications, agriculture remains a leading source

of nutrient pollution in many watersheds due in part to the high demand for nitrogen intensive crops. Another exacerbating factor is the short-circuiting of water flow

due to drainage practices, including tile drainage and ditching, that have been used

to convert wetlands to croplands. Wetlands serve as filters and the loss of wetlands

increases the transport of nitrogen into local waterways and ultimately coastal waters. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition from fossil fuel combustion remains an important source of diffuse nutrient pollution for rivers and coastal waters.

Unfortunately, hypoxia is not the only stressor impacting coastal ecosystems.

Overfishing, HABs, toxic contaminants, and physical alteration of coastal habitats

associated with coastal development are several problems that co-occur with hypoxia

and interact to decrease the ecological health of coastal waters and reduce the ecological services they can provide.

HABHRCA Today

HABHRCA authorizes NOAA to take action to address the growing problem of

HABs and hypoxia in the United States. The existing statute:

1. Establishes a mechanism for interagency coordination through an interagency Task Force;

29

8 Jewett, E.B., Lopez, C.B., Dortch, Q., Etheridge, S.M., Backer, L.C. 2008. Harmful Algal Bloom Management and Response: Assessment and Plan. Interagency Working Group on Harm- ful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on ocean Science and

Technology. Washington, DC., 76 pp.

2. Requires reports assessing the causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia and plans to improve management and response; and

3. Authorizes funding for HAB and hypoxia research through national competi- tive research programs, and for research and assessment within NOAA.

Since 2005, the Interagency Working Group on HABs, Hypoxia and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology has been meeting monthly to coordinate interagency efforts with regard to HABs and hypoxia. A

major focus for the group has been writing the five reports mandated by the 2004

reauthorization of HABHRCA. Four of the five reports have been submitted to Congress and the fifth is undergoing interagency approval (http://www.cop.noaa.gov/ stressors/extremeevents/hab/habhrca/Report¥Plans.html). These reports provide

guidance for NOAA HAB and Hypoxia programs. Specifically, the HAB Management and Response: Assessment and Plan8 recommended the formation of the Prevention,

Control, and Mitigation of HABs Program, which NOAA established this year. The

Plan also highlights the need for an enhanced HAB event response program and a

new infrastructure program, which have been incorporated into drafts of the 2009

reauthorization of HABHRCA.

NOAA HAB and Hypoxia Programs

The goal of NOAA’s programs is to prevent or reduce the occurrence of HABs and hypoxia and/or to minimize their impacts. Developing useful products for HAB and

hypoxia management is a multi-step process that requires a variety of approaches,

and must be based on a strong scientific understanding of the causes and impacts

of HABs and hypoxia. NOAA leads the Nation’s three competitive research programs solely focused on HABs and authorized by HABHRCA:

1. The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) Pro- gram is focused on research to determine the causes and impacts of HABs.

The ECOHAB Program provides information and tools necessary for developing technologies for, and approaches to, predicting, preventing, monitoring

and controlling HABs.

2. The Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) Program focuses on incorporating tools, approaches, and technologies from

HAB research programs into existing HAB monitoring programs. MERHAB

also establishes partnerships to enhance existing, and initiate new, HAB

monitoring capabilities to provide managers with timely information needed

to mitigate HAB impacts on coastal communities.

3. The newer Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs (PCM HAB) Pro- gram, transitions promising prevention, control, and mitigation technologies

and strategies to end users. The PCM HAB Program also assesses the social

and economic costs of HAB events, and strategies to prevent, control and

mitigate those events, which will aid managers in devising the most cost-effective management approaches.

HABHRCA also authorizes research on hypoxia to assess the causes and impacts of this serious problem in order to guide scientifically sound management programs

to reduce hypoxic zones and thereby protect valuable marine resources, their habitats and coastal economies. NOAA leads the Nation’s two competitive research programs solely focused on hypoxia and authorized by HABHRCA.

1. The Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Program (NGOMEX) supports multi- year, interdisciplinary research projects to inform management in ecosystems

affected by Mississippi/Atchafalaya River inputs. NGOMEX supports research with a focus on understanding the causes and effects of the hypoxic

zone over the Louisiana-Texas-Mississippi continental shelf and the prediction of hypoxia’s future extent and impacts.

2. The Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP) supports multi-year, inter- disciplinary research projects to inform management of hypoxic zones in all

of the Nation’s coastal waters except those covered by NGOMEX. The objective of CHRP is to provide research results and modeling tools, which will

be used by coastal resource managers to assess alternative management

strategies for preventing or mitigating the impacts of hypoxia on coastal ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
30

systems, and to make informed decisions regarding this important environmental stressor.

HABHRCA authorizes NOAA to carry out research and assessment activities,

which has led to a world-class intramural research program on HABs. Much of this

research is conducted in collaboration with external partners, including academic researchers, State and federal resource and public health managers, and private enterprises. Active areas of research include HAB and hypoxia forecasting, development of new methods of HAB cell and toxin detection, and understanding the impacts of HAB toxins on higher trophic levels, including humans.

NOAA’s extramural and intramural research is leading to the development of a

number of operational activities that provide valuable products and assistance. For

example, NOAA currently provides twice weekly HAB forecasts for Florida coastal

waters (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/development.html) and has developed

preliminary plans for a National HAB Forecasting System, which will make routine

forecasts in any areas where HABs are a major threat. Forecasts in the western

Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Maine, and the Pacific Northwest are

in various stages of development through a combination of extra- and intramural

research efforts (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/development.html). NOAA

scientists have been instrumental in developing citizen HAB monitoring networks

around the country. Additionally, the NOAA Analytical Response Team provides

state-of-the-art toxin analyses during HAB events, especially events that involve unusual animal mortality (http://www.chbr.noaa.gov/habar/eroart.aspx).

Other NOAA programs, including the Oceans and Human Health Initiative, Sea

Grant, the Office of Protected Resources, fisheries management programs, and the

Integrated Ocean Observing System Program, collaborate with the HABHRCA-authorized HAB and Hypoxia programs to address specific issues that relate to their

research or operational portfolios. Many of NOAA’s HAB and hypoxia accomplishments have resulted from these coordinated efforts and through external partnerships.

Major Accomplishments

In the decade following the passage of the original HABHRCA legislation, several

significant advances have greatly improved management. Many of these accomplishments are described in the four HABHRCA reports that were submitted to Congress

in the last two years. Rather than list every accomplishment, I will focus on recent

outstanding achievements.

In the last year, HAB prediction and forecasting has been extended to new areas

and shown great promise in providing early warning to public health and resource

managers. In most cases, the ability to provide HAB forecasts is the outcome of

years of research efforts focused on the causes of HABs. Examples of regional HAB

forecasting include:

• In the Gulf of Maine, NOAA-funded researchers issued a seasonal advisory

in the spring of 2009 predicting that there would be moderately severe blooms

of Alexandrium fundyense, the New England HAB organism that produces a

potent neurotoxin, which accumulates in shellfish and can cause human illness and death. That timely prediction provided State managers several

months to prepare for the intensive monitoring required to protect public

health. A severe bloom did, in fact, occur and the researchers provided weekly

forecasts of the bloom intensity and location. Nearly all of the shellfish beds

in Maine and New Hampshire and some of the shellfish beds in Massachusetts were closed to harvesting. There was concern the bloom would spread

to affect more State waters to the south and reach federal waters offshore.

NOAA provided event response funding to support monitoring of the actual

bloom location and intensity so the Food and Drug Administration and State

managers would have the information necessary to make decisions if the

bloom were to spread to new areas.

• In parts of western Lake Erie, blooms of the cyanobacterial HAB Microcystis

are common. Excessive nutrient levels and shallow water depth promotes

Microcystis blooms, which are a potential concern to human health due to

toxin exposure through drinking water or recreational use. In 2008, NOAA

produced the first ever Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom Bulletin, which predicted Microcystis blooms based on satellite imagery in combination with

hydrological, meterological and limnological data. The bulletin aids in notifying users of possible human health risks associated with drinking water

quality and Great Lakes beach conditions.

31

• Along the Washington coast, a toxic diatom, Pseudo-nitzschia, sometimes

blooms and is transported to beaches where razor clams are harvested

recreationally and by tribes. When exposed to such blooms, the clams accumulate the toxin, which can result in illness and death if the clams are eaten.

NOAA-funded scientists have improved early warning of Pseudo-nitzschia

blooms by determining how winds move HABs from their source region to

coastal beaches. Since 2008, they have issued an interactive HAB Bulletin

that managers from the Washington State Departments of Health and Fish

and Wildlife use to determine well in advance of openings whether shellfish

toxin levels will require closures. Managers can communicate this knowledge

to harvesters and owners of coastal businesses catering to harvesters to minimize impacts.

Detection is a critical first step in protecting human health, as it is not possible

to predict and respond to a problem that cannot be easily quantified or tracked.

Many new methods of detecting HAB cells and toxins have been developed, tested,

and in some cases put into routine use for a variety of purposes.

• Local and State shellfish managers needed quick field tests to determine if

shellfish are toxic to humans. Working with commercial partners, NOAA scientists developed, and have now made commercially available, a quick test for

the potent neurotoxin domoic acid, which is produced by Pseudo-nitzschia, a

HAB-causing organism that occurs along all U.S. coasts.

• Long-term, cost-effective HAB monitoring systems require sensors that can be

deployed in the water remotely and left for long periods of time. Recently

NOAA scientists, working with partners at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute, successfully used a robotic underwater sensor, the Environmental

Sample Processor, to detect the HAB organism Pseudo-nitzschia and its toxin

domoic acid. This is the first time that HAB organisms and their toxins have

been measured remotely, which is a critical first step in using Integrated

Ocean Observing Systems to provide early warnings of HABs.

• Similarly, NOAA funding has contributed to the development of automated

sensors for Karenia brevis, the Florida red tide organism, which can be deployed underwater either on gliders or stationary sampling platforms. A number of these sensors have been built and are in routine use for HAB monitoring in Florida, where they provide an efficient means of ground-truthing

satellite observations, a critical element for accurate HAB forecasting.

NOAA is currently funding research on novel HAB mitigation and control measures. For example, research on both the east and west coasts has investigated why

some shellfish accumulate toxins but others of the same species do not when they

are exposed to the HAB species, Alexandrium. Alexandrium produces Paralytic

Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) toxins that can cause severe illness or death in humans.

Small genetic differences in shellfish appear to determine whether an individual

shellfish become toxic. Researchers have mapped what they call the ‘‘toxin resistance’’ of soft shell clams in New England, providing local resource managers with

new insights on why particular harvesting areas become toxic much more quickly

than others. Research into ‘‘toxin resistance’’ may also lead to the development of

shellfish seed stocks that are appropriate for areas that are exposed to Alexandrium

blooms.

NOAA has already begun to develop the Regional Research and Action Plans that

are called for in drafts of the 2009 reauthorization of HABHRCA. As a part of this

work, NOAA organized the 2009 West Coast HAB Summit, which brought together

80 leading scientists, managers, and industry representatives for the first time in

Portland, Oregon, to discuss region-specific HAB issues and begin to develop the

West Coast Regional Research and Action Plan. At the Summit, the representatives

also endorsed the vision of the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean Health

to establish a regional HAB monitoring, alert and response network and forecasting

system. Seizing on the opportunities of new and emerging technologies, this system

will provide advanced early warning of HABs, minimize fishery closures, protect the

economy of coastal communities, mitigate the impacts to marine life and protect

public health.

Through its HABHRCA-authorized hypoxia programs, NOAA has provided the research foundation upon which management of the ‘‘dead zone’’ in the Gulf of Mexico

is based as described in the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient

32

9Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2008. Gulf Hypoxia Action

Plan 2008 for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and

Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin. Washington, DC.

Task Force Action Plan.9 Ongoing targeted regional research is furthering our understanding of impacts on fisheries and local economies and filling gaps in our understanding of the factors driving the size and location of the hypoxic zone, including climate change. This information is vital to support the Task Force’s adaptive

management approach to addressing this major coastal problem.

NOAA has collaborated closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in

developing and promoting implementation of management strategies to reduce nutrient pollution contributing to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. The Undersecretary

of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator (Dr. Jane

Lubchenco) sits on the EPA-chaired interagency Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico

Watershed Nutrient Task Force, and NOAA also plays a leading role on the Task

Force’s Coordinating Committee, and co-chairs its Monitoring, Modeling and Research Workgroup. The Task Force released the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan,

which reaffirmed the goal of reducing the hypoxic zone and suggested 45 percent

reductions of both nitrogen and phosphorus.

NOAA-funded research has demonstrated that widespread reproductive impairment occurs in a common marine fish, Atlantic croaker, in the hypoxic zone west

of the Mississippi River. More recently, the actual molecular mechanism behind the

reproductive impairments in fish was identified. Atlantic croaker exposed to hypoxia

had significantly less of the hormone progestin, which is critical to the croaker reproductive cycle. The reduction in progestin resulted in reduced ovarian and testicular growth in adults, and a decrease in hatching success and larval survival. Identification of this molecular mechanism adds to a growing body of evidence that nonlethal hypoxia impacts pose long-term threats to living resource populations in the

hypoxic zone.

NOAA-funded researchers are providing predictive modeling tools to resource and

water quality managers in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island to help mitigate hypoxia events, which have led to major fish kills and resulted in nutrient reduction

criteria for waste water treatment facilities (WWTF). These predictive modeling

tools will provide alternative management options for WWTFs (such as relocation

of outfall pipes to locations where outward currents would speed nutrients out of

the ecosystem) and will generate ecological impact scenarios for various nutrient

loading estimates, thereby helping to determine allowable nutrient loadings for

WWTFs into local rivers that drain into Narragansett Bay.

NOAA Comments on the House Bill

We only just recently received a copy of the draft bill to review, and therefore

have not had a sufficient amount of time to fully review and comment on its content. However, based on an initial review, the House HAB and hypoxia bill addresses two issues that are consistent with our goals for improving out HABs and hypoxia efforts:

1. It will establish an overarching HAB and Hypoxia Program within NOAA.

This will enhance the visibility of these issues as a national priority and improve coordination within NOAA between programs that primarily address

HABs and hypoxia and those that conduct research and response as part of

a larger mission, such as Sea Grant, OHHI, OPR, IOOS and the NOAA labs.

Coordination with NOAA partners in other federal agencies will also be improved.

2. Regional Research and Action Plans will be developed with input from local

experts on HABs and hypoxia. These plans will help further coordinate federal, regional, State, and local entities and recommend specific actions they

can undertake to prevent, reduce or minimize HABs, hypoxia, and their impacts. The plans will also provide guidance for NOAA research and operational programs to better target regional needs.

We note that all mention of specific ongoing HAB and hypoxia programs that

were specified in prior versions of HABHRCA have been removed. NOAA has found

that the specification of programs helps to clarify the intent of Congress when implementing this legislation. Much of the progress in improving HAB and hypoxia

management and response has come from information and products developed

through these highly successful programs. Further, the HAHBRCA report presented

to Congress last year, HAB Management and Response: Assessment and Plan, recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

ommended that progress would be enhanced if an Event Response and Infrastructure Program were added.

Additionally, the role of research within NOAA is not specified in the legislation.

In the previous legislation, specific authorization was given for research and assessment in NOAA. Such authorization assures that the valuable research conducted

within NOAA will be continued.

We understand that this bill is only a draft. As such, we would welcome additional opportunities to work with your Subcommittee as you continue to work on

the language of this bill.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the pending legislation and to update you on NOAA’s HAB and hypoxia programs. NOAA strongly supports reauthorization of HABHRCA and the new opportunities it will provide. With this legislation

in place, NOAA and its many partners and affected communities will be able to

build on its numerous accomplishments. Over the last ten years we have made enormous progress in understanding the causes and consequences of HABs and hypoxia,

leading to the development of many tools and information products which, in turn,

have directly improved HAB and hypoxia management, particularly in the area of

prediction and mitigation. We anticipate that in the next ten years we will continue

to make progress and our ability to prevent and control, as well as mitigate, HAB

events will be greatly enhanced.

34

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBERT E. MAGNIEN

Robert Magnien has been Director of NOAA’s Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR) since 2003. CSCOR is responsible for administering the competitive research programs called for in the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research

and Control Act (HABHRCA), which include the only three national programs devoted solely to Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) research. CSCOR also administers the

two national competitive Hypoxia research programs called for in HABHRCA and

other regional-scale applied research programs to provide the predictive capabilities

necessary for management of coastal systems in an ecosystem context. Dr. Magnien

has served as the NOAA lead on HAB and hypoxia coordination internally, across

the Federal Government, and internationally.

35

From 1983 to 2003 Dr. Magnien held several positions in the State of Maryland’s

Chesapeake Bay Program from its inception and served in numerous leadership

roles (technical and policy) for the EPA-led regional Chesapeake Bay Program. He

last served from 1995 to 2003 for Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources as

Director of the Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment (TEA) Division and, additionally,

from 2002 to 2003 as Director of the Resource Assessment Service, which oversees

the Maryland Geological Survey and three other Divisions which include most of the

State’s science capabilities related to the management of the Chesapeake Bay and

freshwaters. In these capacities Dr. Magnien led Maryland’s efforts to respond to

threats posed by HABs and reported to the Governor and his cabinet as needed. He

also provided both scientific and policy leadership on regional efforts to understand

and manage the Chesapeake Bay’s hypoxia problem as well as numerous other

issues such as water quality, habitat restoration, dredging operations, toxic contaminants, ecological forecasting, and information management.

Dr. Magnien has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications, technical reports, agency documents and workshop reports and has also made numerous invited

and submitted presentations at international, national, and regional scientific conferences. These publications and presentations include his work on harmful algal

blooms, hypoxia, large-scale monitoring programs, environmental assessments and

the interactions between science and policy.

Dr. Magnien received a Ph.D. in Aquatic Ecology from Dartmouth College and a

B.S. in Biology from the State University of New York at Albany.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Magnien.

Ms. Schwartz.

STATEMENT OF MS. SUZANNE E. SCHWARTZ, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND WATERSHEDS,

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. RICHARD M. GREENE, ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS AND EFFECTS BRANCH OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of

the Subcommittee. I am Suzanne Schwartz, the Acting Director of

the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds within the Office

of Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I

would also like to introduce now to you Dr. Rick Green of our Office of Research and Development, who is sitting behind me, who

is the Agency’s technical expert on the subject of hypoxia and

harmful algal blooms. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss

some of the things that EPA is doing to address the threats to

human health and our marine and freshwater resources from

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

Obviously, everyone here knows the problems associated with

harmful algal blooms. I would, however, just note that the second

largest hypoxic zone in the world is located in the northern Gulf

of Mexico. It is not something we are proud of. There is very strong

evidence connecting hypoxia and algal blooms with nutrient pollution, excessive nitrogen and phosphorus in the water, with the

most significant sources of nutrients coming from agricultural runoff as well as residential and commercial fertilizers, animal waste,

sewage treatment plants and air deposition from utilities and vehicles. EPA’s focus, while we have done research, has largely been to

look at ways to control those sources of this pollution.

EPA has statutory authority under the Clean Water Act and the

Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act to protect oceans

and coastal waters as well as freshwater lakes, rivers and streams.

We have a number of programs under the Clean Water Act that

look specifically to regulating discharges into waters of the United

36

States and establishing limits for pollutants that can go into waters of the United States. We regulate discharges of sewage from

vessels as well as discharges of other materials. Under the Safe

Drinking Water Act, we promulgate drinking water standards for

the protection of human health from exposure to contaminants.

It is clear that the discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus and

their effects on the development of hypoxia and harmful algal

blooms is a problem now more than ever. In response, since the introduction of HABHRCA, we have worked to adopt a watershed approach to reducing nutrient discharges that involves identifying

high-priority watersheds and applying both voluntary and regulatory tools to achieve water quality goals. In the Mississippi River

basin states, EPA has approved a total of about 3,500 nutrient-related TMDLs, total maximum daily loads, which identify a maximum amount of pollutant that a water body can receive and still

achieve water quality standards. We are also working closely with

the states on developing nutrient management and nutrient reduction strategies. Just today EPA is seeking public input on a draft

nutrient TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay, which again we will be

looking at innovative ways to address the non-point sources in particular as well as the point sources that are causing the problems.

We also have non-point source grant program and other grant programs where we provide some financial assistance for nutrient

management.

We are working with the states on assessing the Nation’s waters.

The National Lakes Assessment Report, which is due for release in

December, will include for the first time the occurrence of

microcystin, the most commonly measured algal toxin in lakes

across the country. The surveys will provide information on nutrient levels in our waters as well. EPA is also working with the

states to support the development of numeric nutrient water quality standards. We are engaged in rule-making for that purpose in

Florida. We are carefully considering our response to a petition to

do the same in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River basin and we

have just recently provided to EPA’s Science Advisory Board methodologies for states to use in developing their own criteria.

EPA has a long history of doing research whether it is in the

Great Lakes, through the ECOHAB program or through other programs. We are also in the process of reviewing the addition of algal

toxins on the EPA Candidate Contaminant list for drinking water.

We have worked with EPA’s Science Advisory Board as well as the

National Academy of Sciences, and I would just highlight that they

found that while the Clean Water Act had much reduced direct discharges from point sources into the Mississippi River, problems

stemming from urban runoff, agriculture and other non-point

sources have proven difficult to address. This is an issue that confronts the EPA because our statutory authority is focused primarily

on point source pollution and we have limited regulatory authorities over non-point source pollution.

The Office of Research and Development is working to guide the

science on Gulf hypoxia and nutrient management decisions, to

help forecast the effects of nutrient management actions that are

taken and provide options to guide restoration and decision-making. As part of the Task Forces, we have been actively participating

37

as well and we chair the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.

In conclusion, EPA is an active participant in research and control of freshwater and marine hypoxia and harmful algal blooms,

and particularly their primary cause, excess nutrients. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s efforts in this area. We look forward to

working with you further on the bill. We do have some comments

that I won’t provide at this time and I thank you very much. I will

be happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schwartz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE E. SCHWARTZ

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Suzanne

Schwartz, Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, within

the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I would also like

to introduce to you Dr. Rick Greene of our Office of Research and Development, who

is here with me as the Agency’s technical expert on the subject of hypoxia and

harmful algal blooms. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss some of the things

EPA is doing to address the threats to human health and our marine and freshwater resources from harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia.

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA—THREATS TO HUMAN

HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS

Harmful algae and hypoxia, or low dissolved oxygen, represent a serious and

growing threat to freshwater and marine mammals and fisheries, as well as to

human health. While the understanding of the causes and impacts of harmful algal

blooms and hypoxic events is not complete, it is known that the death and decay

of algal blooms can lead to oxygen depletion in the water, resulting in widespread

mortality of fish, shellfish and other invertebrates. These algae can grow, displacing

native species, and altering habitat. Public health officials and ocean resource managers have had to increasingly respond to the adverse impacts of harmful algae by

sensitive public.

There are over 405 hypoxic zones around the world (Science, 2008), and the second largest zone in the world is located in the Gulf of Mexico. There is strong evidence connecting hypoxia and algal blooms with nutrient pollution—excessive nitrogen and phosphorus—in the water, with the most significant sources of nutrients

coming from agricultural runoff, largely from the upper Mississippi River Basin, as

well as residential/commercial fertilizers, animal waste, sewage treatment plants,

and air deposition from utilities and vehicles. NOAA has provided a conservative

estimate that the cost of hypoxia and algal blooms to the U.S. seafood and tourism

industries is approximately $82 million annually.

EPA RESPONSE

Programmatic

EPA has statutory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Marine

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) to implement programs designed

to provide protections for oceans and coastal waters and freshwater lakes, rivers

and streams. For example, EPA and delegated States may issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S., including the territorial seas, under section 402 of the CWA. In addition, EPA may issue section 402 permits for discharges

to ocean waters beyond the territorial seas. For discharges to coastal and marine

waters, section 403 of the CWA includes additional requirements related to permitting such discharges. CWA section 303 directs states to adopt water quality standards for their waters establishing the designated uses and water quality criteria to

protect those uses. By regulation, publishes scientific information related to water

pollution. CWA section 312 addresses discharge of sewage and other materials from

vessels. EPA also works with the Army Corps of Engineers to manage ocean dumping of dredged material under the MPRSA. Also under the MPRSA, EPA regulates

the dumping of materials (other than dredged materials) into the ocean. Additionally, EPA has authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to promulgate drinking

water standards for the protection human health from exposure to contaminants,

possibly including toxins created by harmful algal blooms, which might be present

in public drinking water systems.

38

It is clear that the discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus, and their affect on the development of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms is a problem, now more than ever.

In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone was among the largest ever recorded since

measurements began over twenty years ago. Last year, while it was smaller in size,

it was more severe in terms of oxygen depletion. In response, since the introduction

of HABHRCA, EPA has worked to adopt a watershed approach to reducing nutrient

discharges that involves identifying high-priority watersheds and applying both voluntary and regulatory tools to achieve water quality goals. In the Mississippi River

Basin States, EPA has approved a total of about 3500 nutrient-related TMDLs

(Total Maximum Daily Loads), which identify the maximum amount of pollutant

that a waterbody can receive and still achieve water quality standards. The nonpoint source grant program under CWA section 319, and the Targeted Watershed

Grants provide financial assistance to states that are implementing their own nutrient management programs. EPA is also working with the states to assess the condition of the Nation’s waters through a series of statistical surveys on rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs,

coastal waters and wetlands. The National Aquatic Resource Surveys are beginning

to contribute significant information we can use to evaluate the extent and impact

of toxic algae, nutrients and other key indicators. The National Lakes Assessment

report, due for release in December, will include the first national picture of the occurrence of microcystin (the most commonly measured algal toxin), in lakes across

the country. These data will provide valuable information in assessing the scope of

toxic algal problem nationally. The Surveys also provide information on nutrient

levels in our waters which can be related to land use, harmful algal bloom risk levels and other issues such as hypoxia. EPA is also working with the States to support implementation of Clean Water

Act regulatory tools through the development of numeric nutrient water quality standards. EPA is engaged in proposed rule-making for numeric nutrient criteria for

the State of Florida, following the Agency’s January 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are needed in Florida. EPA is also at this time carefully considering its response to a petition to establish nutrient criteria within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin. The great distances between the sources of nutrients contributing to hypoxia in the Gulf, and the impact that factors other than nutrients—temperature, precipitation and storm events—have on the size of the

hypoxic zone, complicate the regulatory issues. Harmful algal blooms are of concern in the Great Lakes and other waters because of their toxicity and impact on human and ecosystem health. A particularly toxic

species is present in have significant cyanobacterial blooms. These blooms cause

fouling of the beaches and shoreline, economic and aesthetic losses, taste and odor

impairments of drinking water, and direct risks to human, fish and animal health.

EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office funds research on harmful algal blooms

research and coordinates with NOAA’s Center of Excellence for Great Lakes and

Human Health (CEGLHH).

EPA has had a long-standing collaboration with NOAA through the Interagency Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program, authorized by

HABHRCA in 1998 and 2004. A Memorandum of Understanding that is still in effect allowed the participating agencies, EPA, NOAA, NSF, NASA, and ONR, to fund

competitive research on the causes and impacts of HABs and to develop methods

of detection, prevention and control EPA funded nearly 30 projects between 1997

and 2006, several of them joint efforts with NOAA. EPA continues to evaluate the human health implications from harmful algal blooms and the toxins they produce in drinking water. The Agency included

cyanotoxins as a group and discussed the three algal toxins, anatoxin, microcystin,

and cylindrospermopsin, on the draft Candidate Contaminant List published in February 2008. The CCL identifies contaminants that may occur in public water systems and may require a drinking water regulation. The Agency sought public comment and review by the Science Advisory Board of the draft CCL 3. EPA is reviewing comments on the draft CCL 3 and anticipates publishing a final list soon.

Scientific

In 2006, EPA’s Office of Water requested that the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) convene an independent panel to evaluate the state of the science regarding

hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and potential nutrient mitigation and control options in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River basin (MARB).

The SAB Panel found that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem appears to have gone

through a regime shift with hypoxia such that today the system is more sensitive

to inputs of nutrients than in the past, with nutrient inputs inducing a larger response in hypoxia than has been evidenced in other coastal marine ecosystems such

39

as the Chesapeake Bay. Further, the SAB suggested that changes in benthic and

fish communities exposed to hypoxia are cause for concern. The recovery of hypoxic

ecosystems may occur only after long time periods or with further reductions in nutrient inputs. If actions to control hypoxia are not taken, the SAB warned that further ecosystem impacts could occur within the Gulf. In 2008 the National Academy of Science (NAS), published ‘‘Mississippi

Water Quality and the Clean Water Act,’’ which found that while the Clean

Water Act had much reduced direct discharges from point sources into the Mis- sissippi River, problems stemming from urban runoff, agriculture and other nonpoint sources had proven difficult to address. A second NAS study, supported by the

EPA entitled, ‘‘Nutrient Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico,’’ recommended more

collaborative action between EPA and USDA. A third study, ‘‘Clean Water Act Implementation Across the Mississippi River Basin’’ is currently underway. To respond to the challenge posed by hypoxia, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development has ongoing hypoxia research and modeling activities that will help

guide the science needed to address Gulf hypoxia and support nutrient management

decisions. The goal of that effort is to develop a suite of model applications, data

products and other tools to assess and predict the relationships between nutrient

loads and Gulf hypoxia, quantify sources of error and uncertainty associated with

nutrient load reduction targets, forecast the effects of nutrient management actions

in the Basin on Gulf hypoxia, and provide defensible options to guide restoration

and decision-making. In addition, the Office of Research and Development has published multiple regression models that describe the relationship between the Gulf hypoxic area and

nitrate and phosphorus concentrations and spring discharge in the MississippiAtchafalaya Rivers. These models explain much of the variability in the size of the

hypoxic zone over the past 25 years and provide improved capabilities for evaluating

dual nutrients management strategies to address Gulf hypoxia. However, model predictions indicate that with gradual nutrient reductions (e.g., 45 percent over 10

years), much more than a decade would be required before a significant downward

trend in hypoxic area could be observed.

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia/Gulf Hypoxia Task Forces

In response to the human health and environmental risks posed by the threat of excess nutrient pollution to the Nation’s fresh and marine waters, EPA, NOAA, and

other federal and State agencies have been working collaboratively to better understand, and ultimately, manage or respond effectively and efficiently to nutrient pollution and hypoxia in particular. EPA is an Interagency Working Group on HABs,

Hypoxia, and Human Health (IWG–4H) led by NOAA, which, among other responsibilities, implements the reporting requirements of HABHRCA 2004. Recently a Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms was developed through the Interagency Working Group on HABs, Hypoxia and Human

Health (IWG–4H), which examined the causes, ecological consequences, and economic costs of freshwater HABs. It was based, in large part, on a workshop report

from the International Symposium on Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms (ISOC–

HAB) sponsored by EPA, and other agencies, held September 2005, which focused

on: 1) occurrence of freshwater blooms and toxins, 2) causes, prevention, and mitigation, 3) toxins, toxin kinetics and dynamics, 4) human health and ecological effects,

5) analytical methods for identifying and quantifying freshwater HAB organisms

and toxins, and 6) risk and/or impact assessments for freshwater HABs.

In addition, the EPA chairs and manages the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, comprised of fifteen States and Federal Agencies,

which work together to reduce, mitigate, and control hypoxia in the northern Gulf

of Mexico and improve water quality in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins.

In 2008, the Task Force published their second Action Plan, identifying three goals

and eleven actions designed to accelerate the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus

in the Mississippi watershed, and ultimately reduce the Gulf hypoxic zone to 5,000

km. On September 23rd and 24th, the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force will meet in Des

Moines, IA, to discuss a variety of strategic proposals that have the potential for

significant reductions in nutrient discharges to the Gulf. The Task Force will also

be presenting its first Annual Report, and FY 2010 operating plan in a public forum.

In conclusion, EPA believes that harmful algal blooms and hypoxia represent serious threats to human health and the environment and we have robust research ongoing that is targeting the causes and their impacts. In addition, EPA is using its

regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (including the Beach Act) to address

the causes of harmful algal blooms where necessary, and ultimately to protect

human health and the environment. The Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, which engages

40

federal agencies and the states in a voluntary collaborative effort, is proposing innovative approaches to reducing nutrient discharges that could have significant results. At the same time, EPA appreciates the Subcommittee’s efforts to improve the

effectiveness of this overall effort, and to increase the focus on the freshwater impacts of HABs and hypoxia. We look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. We will be happy

to answer your questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR SUZANNE E. SCHWARTZ

Suzanne Schwartz is the Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

within the Office of Water. OWOW promotes a watershed approach to manage, protect, and restore the water resources and aquatic ecosystems of the Nation’s marine

and fresh waters. OWOW’s programs include wetlands regulation and restoration,

regulation of ocean dumping and vessel discharges, monitoring and assessment, including the National Aquatic Resource Surveys, non-point source pollution management, TMDL oversight, and building capacity of State and local governments and

watershed organizations. Suzanne has served as the Deputy Director of OWOW since April 2007. Pre- viously she was the Director for EPA’s Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. In

this capacity she was responsible for the Clean Water Act Nation Estuary Program;

the regulation of disposal of wastes in the ocean, and other ocean, marine and coastal programs.

Since Suzanne joined EPA in 1980 she has worked on a number of water issues

in a variety of staff and management positions. Prior to coming to EPA, Suzanne

was the founding editor of the Environmental Law Institute’s National Wetlands

Newsletter. She holds a law degree from Columbia University School of Law.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RICHARD M. GREENE

Dr. Greene is the Chief of the Ecosystem Dynamics and Effects Branch, Gulf Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in

EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He is the EPA lead for Gulf of Mexico

Hypoxia research and water quality research supporting nutrient criteria development in estuarine and coastal waters. Dr. Greene serves as the EPA representative

on numerous federal/State science teams, advisory committees and task forces, including the interagency Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task

Force Coordinating Committee. He recently co-chaired the symposium ‘‘Hypoxia in

the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Assessing the State of the Science’’ which was conducted as part of the Task Force’s reassessment of the 2001 Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

Dr. Greene holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Oceanography from the State University of New York, Stony Brook, a Master of Science in Biological Sciences from California State University, Fullerton, and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Oregon

State University. In addition, he was a postdoctoral researcher in the Oceanographic

and Atmospheric Sciences Division at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and a research faculty in the Oceanography Department, Texas A&M University. His research interests and expertise include estuarine and coastal water quality; nutrient

dynamics and eutrophication; improving the science supporting numeric nutrient

criteria development; phytoplankton production and bloom dynamics; and coastal

oceanographic processes.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.

Mr. Ayres.

STATEMENT OF MR. DAN L. AYRES, FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, COASTAL SHELLFISH LEAD, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

As the Washington Coastal Shellfish Manager, I am here today

to represent the many State and tribal fishery managers, aquaculture industry managers and human health experts who, like me,

work hard to manage important shellfish resources, allowing for

41

the maximum socioeconomic value these resources can provide to

the small communities along the Washington coast. We each have

responsibility in our respective areas to manage the harvest of the

bountiful natural resources we have been blessed with in the Pacific Northwest.

The West Coast aquaculture industry, which produces a large

portion of the Nation’s oysters, mussels and hardshell clams, is valued at more than $110 million annually. In an average year, landings in the West Coast Dungeness Crab Fishery have a value just

to the fishermen of between $25 million to $45 million, making this

fishery an important coastal economic driver for the hundreds of licensed fishers, both State and tribal, and many more people involved in shoreside processing operations, and the fishery that I

know so well, Washington State’s Recreational Razor Clam Fishery, that draws very large numbers of participants from great distances to the small communities along our coast during the October

to May period when few visitors would otherwise be present. The

2008–2009 season recorded just under 250,000 digger trips and

generated an estimated $12.5 million to the many small tourist-related coastal businesses.

However, all of us find our jobs are made much more difficult by

the ever-present threat of harmful algal species that are naturally

occurring in the waters of the West Coast and the potential harm

they pose to human health. When the growth of these species

bloom and produce dangerous toxins, then the fisheries we manage

are disrupted and the activities and income of those who depend

on them are greatly impacted.

This last winter, NOAA hosted the first ever West Coast Harmful Algal Blooms Summit. This three-day workshop in Portland,

Oregon brought together West Coast scientists, State and tribal

fishery managers, human health experts and aquaculture industry

members to design a West Coast regional HAB monitoring, alert

and response network as well as a West Coast regional HAB forecasting network. In addition, workshop participants also began developing a West Coast HAB research and action plan. Joining regional expert scientists and managers to address regional HAB

problems is very valuable. The solutions to these problems can best

be found within each region with the help, support and guidance

of federal agencies. We applaud NOAA’s efforts along with representatives of the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean

Health to organize and execute the West Coast HAB summit. Direction to federal agencies to continue to organize and fund regional workshops that result in regional HAB research action plans

around the Nation should be an integral part of future legislation.

In 2007, I participated in a NOAA-sponsored workshop that

brought together a group of HAB researchers and coastal managers

from all around the Nation to provide input into the National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration and Technology

Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms,

the RDDTT plan. The major result was a call for three new federal

programs. First, a program that focuses on methods for prevention,

control and mitigation of HABs, second, a comprehensive national

HAB event response program, and third, a core infrastructure program. While we see all three programs as important to move the

42

1http://www.pcsga.org/pub/farming/farm¥benefits.shtm

Nation ahead in addressing HAB-related issues, as a State fishery

manager, I worked hard on the HAB Event Response Program.

Today we want to strongly encourage you to consider this as a potential new program that federal agencies are directed to implement. Such a program will improve access to existing resources for

better response through information sharing, communication, and

coordination and will provide essential new resources. However,

improving our national response to regional HAB events is only

half the battle. We want to encourage you to include in any future

HAB legislation support for continued research into ways to mitigate for and some day actually prevent HAB events. The other two

programs proposed in the RDDTT plan will certainly move the Nation in that direction. The Prevention, Control and Mitigation Program will focus on moving promising technologies and strategies

that arise through basic research programs from development to

demonstration to technology transfer for field application by managers. The Core Infrastructure Program will increase availability of

adequate analytical facilities, research and reference materials,

technical training and access to data.

Finally, in reviewing the Committee’s draft legislation for the reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research

and Control Act, we are very concerned that two key existing HAB

programs administered by NOAA are not specifically identified. On

the Washington coast, we are now enjoying the results from the

work of two important projects that were funded through these programs, the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal

Bloom, the MERHAB program, and Ecology and Oceanography of

Harmful Algal Blooms, the ECOHAB program. My written testimony includes specific examples of why these programs should be

continued.

So in the end, the ability to predict the onset of these harmful

algal blooms, to better respond on a region-wide basis and to find

innovative ways to mitigate and even prevent them will be a huge

step forward in allowing us to better accomplish our mission: to

provide our citizens access to some of the best seafood in the world.

Thank you.

[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 Energy and Environment of the United States House of Representatives.

As a Washington State coastal shellfishery manager, I represent the many State

and tribal fishery managers, aquaculture industry members, and human health experts, who like me, work hard to manage important sustainable shellfish resources,

allowing for the maximum socioeconomic value these resources can provide to the

small communities along the Washington Coast. We each have responsibility in our

respective areas—to manage the harvest of the bountiful natural resources we’ve

been blessed with in the Pacific Northwest.

Each of us can tell you the story of how important these resources—and the ability to harvest them—are to the citizens of our State and tribal communities.

The West Coast aquaculture industry, which produces a large portion of the Nation’s oysters, mussels and hard-shell clams, is valued at more than $110 million

annually.1

43

2http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/crabreg/comcrab/coast/index.htm; http://www.oregon dungeness.org/general-info/ODCC¥the¥fishery.htm; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/dungeness.asp 3Washington State has actively managed razor clam populations along 58 miles of its Pacific Ocean coastline for more than 70 years. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/razorclm/ razorclm.htm 4http://209.206.175.157/index1.htm

5 Eating of fish and shellfish containing domoic acid causes the human illness known as amne- sic 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. Eating of fish and shellfish containing

saxitoxin causes human illness known a paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Symptoms include

tingling of the lips followed by paralyzing of the diaphragm and possible death. 6http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/HAB¥Summit09/west¥

coast¥summit.html

In an average year, landings in the West Coast Dungeness crab fishery2 have a

value—just to the fishermen—of between $25 to $45 million, making this fishery a

very important coastal economic driver for the hundreds of licensed fishers (both

State and tribal) and many more people involved in shore-side processing operations.

And the fishery that I know so well, Washington State’s recreational razor clam fishery3 is a very popular activity that draws very large numbers of participants from great distances to the small communities along the Washington coast during

the October to May season when few visitors would otherwise be present. The most

recent 2008–09 season recorded just under 250,000 digger trips and generated an

estimated $12.5 million to the many small tourist-related coastal businesses. Razor clams also provide an important source of sustenance and much-needed income to members of the Quinault Indian Nation4 who have a very long history of depending on safe sources of shellfish. However, all of us find our job is made much more difficult by the ever present threat of harmful algal species that are naturally occurring in the waters of the

Washington coast and the threat they pose to human health. When the growth of these species takes off—or bloom—and produce dangerous

toxins,5 then the fisheries we manage are disrupted and the activities and income of those who depend on them are greatly impacted. For example, the Washington and Oregon razor clam fisheries have seen numer- ous closures—often erasing an entire season for State and tribal recreational and

commercial fishers and creating a big economic loss for the tourist communities who

depend on these visitors.

In Puget Sound, not a year goes by when some areas are closed and the harvest and shipment of shellfish is banned because of harmful algae. Some of these closures can last for many months—perhaps affecting a shellfish grower’s entire annual income.

This last winter, the NOAA Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research hosted the first-ever West Coast HAB (Harmful Algal Bloom) Summit.6 This three day workshop, in Portland, Oregon, brought together a large group of West Coast scientists, State and tribal fisheries managers, human health experts and aquaculture

industry members to design a West Coast Regional HAB Monitoring, Alert and Response Network as well as a West Coast Regional HAB Forecasting Network. In addition, workshop participants also focused on beginning the process of developing a

West Coast HAB Research and Action Plan.

The concept of joining regional expert scientists and managers to address regional HAB problems has proven to be very valuable. The solutions to these problems can

best be found within each region—with the help, support and guidance of federal

agencies. We applaud NOAA’s efforts, along with representatives of the West Coast

Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health to organize and execute the West Coast

HAB Summit.

Much work remains on these important regional plans and NOAA remains the collaborative yet driving force that will ensure these plans reach their goals of completion and implementation.

Direction to federal agencies to continue to organize and fund regional workshops that result in regional HAB research action plans around the Nation should be an

integral part of future legislation. I was honored to be invited in 2007 to participate in a NOAA-sponsored workshop

that brought together a group of HAB researchers and coastal managers from

44

7www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=43464&pt=10&p=19132

8http://bioloc.oce.orst.edu/strutton/hab¥intro.html 9http://www.ecohabpnw.org/

around the Nation to provide input into the National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts from

Harmful Algal Blooms,7 (RDDTT Plan). The major result of this plan was the call

for three new federal programs. First, a program that focuses on development, demonstration, and technology transfer of methods for prevention, control, and mitigation of HABs; also, a comprehensive national HAB Event Response program: and

finally, a Core Infrastructure program.

While we see all three new programs as important to move the Nation ahead in

addressing HAB-related issues, as a State fishery manager I worked hard on the

HAB Event Response Program. Today we want to strongly encourage you to consider this as a potential new program the federal agencies are directed to implement. Such a program will improve access to existing resources for response through

better information sharing, communication, and coordination and provide essential

new resources. Our proposal lays out a regionally based, federal HAB Event Response Program linked to a network of Regional HAB Coordinators.

However, it is true that improving our national response to regional HAB events

is only half of the battle. We would like today to also encourage you to include in

any future HAB legislation support for continued research into ways to mitigate for

and someday actually prevent HAB events.

The other two programs proposed in the RDDTT Plan will certainly move the Nation in that direction. The Prevention, Control and Mitigation Program will focus

on moving promising technologies and strategies that arise through basic research

programs from development to demonstration to technology transfer for field application by managers or other end-users. The Core Infrastructure Program will increase availability of adequate analytical facilities, reference and research materials,

technical training, and access to data; improve integration of HAB activities with

existing monitoring and emerging observational programs; and enhance communication and regional and national coordination.

We are concerned that two key existing HAB programs administered by NOAA

are not called out specifically in the Committee’s draft legislation for the reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. On the

Washington Coast we now are enjoying the results from the work of two important

projects that were funded through these programs, the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Bloom (MERHAB) program and Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program.

MERHAB provided five years of funding that allowed Seattle-based NOAA HAB

researchers, University of Washington oceanographers and algae experts, State and

tribal fishery managers and human health experts to form a successful partnership

we call the Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom project. MERHAB funding allowed

us to ramp up our ability to monitor for harmful algal species in our marine waters—providing much needed advance notice of potential HAB events. This endeavor

started with MERHAB funds in 2000 and transitioned to State dollars (generated

by a surcharge on shellfish licenses) in 2005. In addition, on-going MERHAB funded

programs in our region continue to add to our ability to monitor for and respond

to potential HAB events. In just the last few days, data collected by the Oregon’s

MOCHA (Monitoring Oregon Coastal HABs)8 project—funded by MERHAB—alerted

our staff to watch closely for increases in the harmful algae species that could

produce PSP (paralytic shellfish poison) in shellfish.

ECOHAB funding of an ambitious five-year project, ECOHAB–PNW,9 has provided us with valuable understanding of how HAB events initiate in Washington’s

northern off-shore marine waters and how and why they then move to our nearshore waters, potentially affecting Washington’s coastal shellfish resources.

ECOHAB is also funding a new project (PNW–TOX) that will allow University scientists in both Washington and Oregon to look specifically at HAB events that initiate in Oregon’s off-shore waters and then move to both Oregon and southern

Washington’s near-shore waters affecting shellfish resources on the coasts of both

states.

Programs such as MERHAB and ECOHAB are vitally needed by Washington

State and the other states of our region.

As you continue to work on the draft of the reauthorization of the Harmful Algal

Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act we urge you to specifically direct

NOAA to continue the very valuable MERHAB, ECOHAB and the newly started

PCM HAB programs.

45

In the end, the ability to reliably predict the onset of these harmful algal blooms—both when and where they can be expected—to better respond on a regionwide basis and to share expertise, and to find new innovative ways to mitigate and

even prevent these dangerous blooms will be a huge step forward in allowing us to

better accomplish our mission—to provide our citizens safe access to some of the

best seafood found anywhere in the world.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DAN L. AYRES

Dan Ayres is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist who leads the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s coastal shellfish unit based in Montesano and Willapa Bay.

He manages Washington’s very popular 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. He has also worked closely with other State and federal agencies on harmful algal bloom issues since the marine toxin domoic acid was first found along the Washington Coast in 1991. Dan is currently serving his second term on the National

Harmful Algal Bloom Committee. He has represented WDFW in testimony on this

topic at both the State and federal level. He has collaborated on several national

HAB plans including: Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environ- mental Science Strategy (2005); Harmful Algal Research and Response: a Human Dimensions Strategy (2006); Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Development, Dem- onstration and Technology Transfer—National Workshop Report (2008). He also

worked to organize the recently held West Coast HAB Summit (2009) and is currently working with the team developing the reports that will be products of the

summit.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Ayres. Dr. Anderson.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD M. ANDERSON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION; DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL OFFICE

FOR HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS

Dr. ANDERSON. Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Inglis, my

name is Don Anderson and I am a Senior Scientist at the Woods

Hole Oceanographic Institution where I direct the U.S. National

Office for Harmful Algal Blooms. I am also Co-Chair of the National HAB Committee and have been actively involved in research

on HABs and in formulating our national HAB program.

I was asked to talk about technologies used to mitigate and control HABs. Mitigation is a term that includes well-proven strategies

such as monitoring programs for toxins in shellfish, public education and outreach, scientifically based siting of aquaculture facilities, and other activities that reduce HAB impacts. In a major advance for the United States, we are now forecasting HABs over

time scales ranging from weeks to months. For example, an

ECOHAB program in the Pacific Northwest has identified an eddy,

or a circulating water mass, off Puget Sound that serves as an incubator for the toxic cells that cause amnesic shellfish poisoning.

This is a debilitating illness that can cause death or permanent

memory loss in some victims. As the water spins off of that eddy,

it carries cells to shore, causing sudden and significant outbreaks

that are now easier to manage, given this understanding.

On the East Coast, again with ECOHAB and MERHAB support,

we have taken forecasting a step further and now have computer

models that allow us to evaluate conditions that caused past outbreaks, but we can also look forward with forecasts. For the last

two years, we successfully forecast major regional red tides months

in advance and have provided weekly forecasts as well. The value

46

of this information is evident in the commitment by Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire to pay nearly one-half million dollars

for the collection of data needed to initiate these forecasts for the

next two years.

Another important mitigation tool relies on DNA probes for identifying and enumerating HAB species. In a very exciting development this technology is now being incorporated into robotic instruments that can be deployed remotely, collecting water and conducting the manipulations needed to detect and count HAB cells

and measure their toxins. This brings us one step closer to a dream

that I share with many in my field—arrays of instruments deployed along a coast that can detect HABs, monitor their development and provide real-time data to the computer models that then

predict landfall and impacts. This is the approach used by the

Weather Service to provide accurate weather forecasts. There are

significant challenges to do this with biological systems in the

ocean but I think we are up to that challenge.

In the area of control of marine HABs, I am afraid progress has

been regrettably slow. This is not for a lack of strategies, as there

are methods to kill HAB cells using bacteria, parasites, viruses,

chemicals or even minerals such as clay that can be sprayed over

a bloom to capture the toxic cells and carry them to bottom sediments. The stumbling block has been transitioning these laboratory

studies to the field. And why is this? One reason is that given a

choice, scientists will propose fundamental research on bloom dynamics, for example, rather than undertake the risky, controversial

and highly visible task of trying to control a bloom. Another reason

is that we do not have a separate program with its own funding

line and yet another is that we have no agency that currently has

a clear mandate to control marine nuisance organisms just like the

Agricultural Research Service has for control of terrestrial pests.

To jump-start progress, this HABHRCA legislation needs to explicitly call for a program on prevention, control and mitigation of

HABs and authorize funds for that specific program. If the funding

is significant and targeted, scientists and engineers will participate

and move this field forward. This is also an area where the HAB

community should work with those who seek to manage invasive

species or again with agencies such as the Agricultural Research

Service.

A related comment is that we need to authorize two other programs as detailed in my written testimony and as you have also

heard so far today. One is the National HAB Event Response Program and the other an infrastructure program. The need for the

former was clearly evident this year when a red tide closed shellfish beds in Maine, New Hampshire and much of Massachusetts,

leading to requests to NOAA from Senator Snowe and from the

FDA for information on the offshore extent and status of the bloom.

This led to a scramble for funds to support cruises and personnel

on a very short notice. Had there been a national program other

than response, this would have been much more effective and timely.

I will close by saying that I am strongly supportive of the involvement of EPA in our national HAB program. The inclusion of

freshwater HABs is important as well. This committee, I believe,

47

has shown great foresight and initiative in recognizing this need

and acting upon it.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.

[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 30 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 Harmful Algal Blooms, co-Chair of the National HAB Committee,

and have been actively involved in formulating the scientific framework and agency

partnerships that support and guide our national program on HABs. Today my testimony will briefly summarize HABs and their impacts and provide some examples

of the nature of our national HAB program and the technologies that have been developed to help mitigate and control these outbreaks. I will also provide my perspective on the research, programmatic, and legislative needs to move towards a National HAB action plan, and will offer some comments about the Committee’s draft

legislation for the reauthorization of HABHRCA (Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia

Research and Control Act). Other than a few general comments, I will restrict my

comments to marine HABs, as testimony on freshwater HABs is being provided by

my colleague Dr. Greg Boyer.

Background

HABs are caused by algae—many of them microscopic. These species sometimes

make their presence known through massive ‘‘blooms’’ of cells that discolor the

water (hence the common use of the term ‘‘red tide’’), sometimes through illness and

death of humans who have consumed contaminated shellfish or fish, sometimes

through mass mortalities of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals, and sometimes

through irritating aerosolized toxins that drive tourists and coastal residents from

beaches. Macroalgal or seaweed blooms also fall under the HAB umbrella. Excessive

seaweed growth, often linked to pollution inputs, can displace natural underwater

vegetation, cover coral reefs, and wash up on beaches, where the odor of masses of

decaying material is a serious deterrent to tourism. As you will hear from Dr. Boyer,

there are also HABs in freshwater systems that pose threats to human, animals,

and ecosystems as a result of toxins present in drinking and recreational waters.

With regard to human health, one major category of HAB 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. 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. 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 beach-goers and coastal

residents, typically along the Florida and Texas shores of the Gulf of Mexico.

Distribution of HAB Phenomena in the United States. With the exception of

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. Until recently, DSP

was virtually unknown in the U.S., but a major outbreak was recently reported

along the Texas coast, resulting in an extensive closure of shellfish beds in that

48

area. 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, it is estimated that nearly

50 percent of the adults 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, Texas, Hawaii, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and

many Pacific Territories). As tropical fish are increasingly exported to distant markets, ciguatera has become a problem for consumers far from the tropics. For example, recent poisonings of restaurant patrons in the Washington, DC area and elsewhere were linked to fish caught in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine

Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico south of Texas. The FDA subsequently issued a letter of guidance to seafood processors that recommends that certain fish species

caught around that sanctuary should be avoided.

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 marine algal species, whereas 30–40 years ago, the problem was

much more scattered and sporadic. In inland states, HABs in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and other water bodies have increased as well. Overall, 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 (Ramsdell et al., 2005).

There are many reasons for this expansion, some of which involve human activities. 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. 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. 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.

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). Some

49

HAB outbreaks occur in pristine U.S. waters with no influence from pollution or

other anthropogenic effects, but in other areas, linkages between HABs and eutrophication have been noted (Anderson et al., 2008). Coastal waters are receiving

massive and increasing quantities of industrial, agricultural and sewage effluents

through a variety of pathways. 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. Nutrient enrichment of such

systems often leads to eutrophication and increased frequencies and magnitudes of

phytoplankton blooms, including HABs.

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 $82 million (Hoagland and Scatasta, 2006).

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.

Furthermore, individual bloom events can approach the annual average, as occurred

for example in 2005 when a massive bloom of Alexandrium species along the New

England coast closed shellfish beds from Maine to southern Massachusetts. The impact to the Massachusetts shellfish industry alone was estimated by the State Division of Marine Fisheries to be $50M, with similar large impacts occurring in Maine.

Additional unquantified losses were experienced by the tourist industry and by restaurants and seafood retailers, as consumers often avoided all seafood from the region, despite assurances that no toxins had been detected in many of these seafood

products.

HAB Program Development

In addition to providing background information on HABs, I was asked to comment on the technologies that are used for the mitigation and control of HABs. I

was also asked to comment on the draft HABHRCA legislation and the need for action plans and research strategies, including those at the regional level. Below I will

highlight some of the technologies that have been developed under past funding initiatives. This will demonstrate some of the extraordinary progress that has been

made in our ability to monitor and manage HABs, but it will also help to demonstrate where there are gaps in our national program that need to be filled

through specific, thematic funding programs that I believe should be specified in the

draft legislation.

Our national HAB program is viewed by many colleagues in other disciplines as

a model program that has succeeded because of its organization and planning. As

recently as 20 years ago, this was not the case, however, as there was very little

research on HABs, and that being conducted in the academic community was scattered and unfocused. To help rectify this problem, we formulated a National Plan

(Anderson et al., 1993) that guided activities in this field for the next 10–15 years,

identifying major impediments to progress and identifying the steps that were needed to overcome those impediments. The National Plan was broadly based, however,

encompassing ecology, physiology, toxicology, human health, economics, ecosystem

health, and many other topics. This breadth exceeded the mandate and resources

of any single agency or program, and thus for implementation purposes, it was necessary to break the plan into a series of programs on complementary topics that together would meet all needs. The first thematic area was the ‘‘Ecology and Oceanography of HABs,’’ which was addressed by the ECOHAB program. This was followed

by MERHAB (Monitoring and Event Response of HABs), and then by Ocean and

Human Health (OHH) programs. The latter began with a partnership between the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National

Science Foundation (NSF), who have supported four Centers for Oceans and Human

Health that include significant HAB research and outreach activities. This program

is in transition at the moment, due to the decision of NIEHS not to participate in

the renewal process for the Centers due to budgetary issues. NSF has provided interim support, and efforts are underway to encourage NIEHS to re-join the program.

NOAA has also created an Oceans and Human Health Initiative (OHHI) that supports extramural research and focused activities at three federal OHHI centers. As

50

discussed below, several other programs are needed to complete the national program.

Research progress and technological advances

ECOHAB projects have been highly successful in unraveling the fundamental

mechanisms behind the blooms or outbreaks of toxic and harmful algae throughout

the U.S. In some cases, the advances represent the accumulation of knowledge that

leads to a conceptual understanding of the dynamics of blooms that can stretch for

1,000 km or more. Imagine the complexity of the biological, chemical, and physical

phenomena that underlie blooms that occur on that scale. Yet as a result of the

ECOHAB program’s sustained investment in regional survey cruises and multi-disciplinary research teams, we now have what I believe is the best fundamental understanding of several regional HABs anywhere in the world. In the Northeastern

U.S., for example, this has led to our ability to forecast toxic PSP outbreaks on an

annual basis, which we have done quite successfully for the last two years, and

which we will continue to do in the future. (See www.whoi.edu/

page.do?pid=24039&tid=282&cid=41211). We also provide weekly numerical model

predictions of bloom status that are posted on the Internet and widely used by resource managers within the region. The value of these long and short-term forecasts

is seen in the actions of three states (Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire)

who contributed nearly $500,000 of emergency (‘‘failed fishery’’) funds for the collection of data needed to initialize the models that will be used to forecast the regional

blooms for 2010 and 2011.

In a similar manner, a regional ECOHAB program on the west coast of the U.S.

has identified an eddy or circulating water mass off Puget Sound that serves as a

reservoir or incubator for the toxic cells that cause ASP poisonings on that coast.

(ASP is a debilitating illness that includes permanent loss of short-term memory in

some victims). As water spins off of that eddy, it carries the cells to shore, causing

sudden and significant outbreaks that are now easier to manage given this understanding of the source. I expect that Dan Ayres will provide more information on

the value of this type of information in his accompanying testimony.

In the Gulf of Mexico, a second phase of the ECOHAB–Florida program is investigating nutrient uptake by the toxic red tide organism Karenia brevis, and is conducting surveys of nutrient concentrations in the region that are addressing the sensitive and highly controversial issue of the potential link between red tide blooms

and nutrient inputs from land, including those associated with agriculture and other

human activities. This ongoing research has obvious implications to policy decisions

concerning pollution and water quality in the region.

These are but a few of the advances in understanding that have accrued from

ECOHAB regional funding. Equally important are the discoveries from smaller, targeted research projects, as well as those that provide management tools to reduce

the impacts of HABs on coastal resources. The most effective HAB management

strategies 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 faced with flat or declining budgets and yet 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. This need is being addressed through the MERHAB program. MERHAB

projects have contributed valuable technologies to these ongoing monitoring programs, such as the application of species-or strain-specific DNA ‘‘probes’’ that can

be used to label only the HAB cells of interest so they can then be detected visually,

electronically, or chemically. With technological advances that often started with

ECOHAB projects and moved to MERHAB applications, 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, and these are now used routinely in monitoring programs run by State and local authorities, greatly improving counting time

and accuracy.

51

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 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 the Integrated Ocean Ob- serving System (IOOS) for U.S. coastal waters, and through a targeted research program on HAB prevention, control, and mitigation (see below). 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. Just as in weather forecasting, data from instrumented networks can also be assimilated into numerical models to improve forecast accuracy. This capability is consistent with ECOHAB and MERHAB goals to develop and incorporate forecasts or predictions of bloom development and movement into management and mitigation programs. Prediction of HAB outbreaks requires 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 incorporate HAB dynamics as 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 (McGillicuddy et al., 2005), and

is now being transitioned from academic use towards an operational mode. Here

again, congressional support is needed to provide the appropriations needed to turn

these academic tools into operational programs, as discussed below. Note also that

scientists from the New England region are working with colleagues in Washington

State to help them adapt the Gulf of Maine numerical model for use in Puget Sound

waters, since closely related organisms cause PSP outbreaks in both regions. In the Gulf of Mexico, satellite images of ocean color are now used to detect and track toxic red tides of Karenia brevis. Bloom forecast bulletins are now being pro- vided to affected states in the Gulf of Mexico by the NOAA NOS Center for Coastal

Monitoring and Assessment. The combination of warning and rapid detection is a

significant aid to the Gulf states in responding to these blooms. As is the case with

the Gulf of Maine HAB forecasting system and one for the Great Lakes, Congressional attention is needed to provide the mandate and funding to make these HAB

forecasting systems operational within NOAA. In FY 2010, funds were requested for

this purpose in the President’s budget, but were not included in either the House

or Senate appropriations. I would like to see this operational HAB forecasting

capacity within NOAA authorized in the HABHRCA legislation, and a specific funding line recommended.

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 through ECOHAB, but further advances would occur if they are

moved to practical application through a new program on the prevention, control,

and mitigation of HABs.

Several approaches to directly control or suppress HABs are under study as

well—similar to methods used to control pests on land—e.g., biological, physical, or

chemical treatments that directly target the bloom cells. Here however, progress towards direct field applications has been slow, and efforts are needed to change the

nature and the pace of this line of investigation. To date, other than one study in

which copper sulfate was dropped from crop dusting planes to control a Florida red

tide over 50 years ago, there has not been a single effort to control a natural HAB

in U.S. waters. Another sign of the lack of progress in this topic area is seen in the

submissions of scientific papers to the forthcoming 5th U.S. HAB Symposium—a national meeting of U.S. HAB researchers and managers. Of the nearly 200 abstracts

submitted to this conference, only two involve bloom control studies.

The reasons for this lack of progress in bloom control will be discussed below, and

recommendations will be offered for ways to change this worrisome trajectory, but

it is not for lack of possible strategies. One example is work conducted in my own

52

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

have been conducted, 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 in the Long Island region was that hard clams and other shellfish

stocks have been depleted by overfishing. 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. In general, bloom control is an area where very little research effort has been di- rected in the U.S. (Anderson, 1997), yet considerable effort is needed before these

means are used to control HABs in natural waters given the high sensitivity for possible damage to coastal ecosystems and water quality by the treatments. The U.S.

lags behind countries like Japan, China, South Korea and Australia in pursuing and

implementing bloom control strategies. At the current pace of research and development, options for HAB control may not be in place for many years unless a concerted effort is made to encourage and promote these kinds of studies. As discussed

below, this could be accomplished as part of a national program on HAB prevention,

control, and mitigation, and through cooperation with other fields of science where

control of aquatic or terrestrial pests is more common.

Comments on the draft legislation

It is my belief that the 1993 National Plan provided the guidance and perspective that led to the creation of several multi-agency partnerships for HAB studies, and

to many individual agency initiatives on this topic. Together, ECOHAB and

MERHAB have funded over $100 million in marine and freshwater (Great Lakes)

HAB research since the programs began in 1996 and 2000, respectively. Significant

funding has also been provided by the COHH and OHHI programs. After more than

10 years of strong program growth and diverse research activities, the 1993 National Plan became outdated, however, and thus was replaced by HARRNESS

(Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy

2005–2015; Ramsdell et al., 2005). Several hundred scientists and managers, from a wide array of fields, contributed to the knowledge base on which this new national

science and management strategy is based. HARRNESS is the plan that will guide U.S. HAB research and monitoring well into the future, and is one that I enthusiastically support. At the conceptual level, HARRNESS is a framework of initiatives and programs that identify and address current and evolving needs associated with HABs and

their impacts. At the programmatic level, several of the existing national programs

will continue to function, and new programs will need to be added. In the former

category, ECOHAB should continue to address the fundamental processes underlying the impacts and population dynamics of HABs. Research results have been

brought into practical applications through MERHAB, a program formulated to

transfer technologies and foster innovative monitoring programs and rapid response

by public agencies and health departments. MERHAB should also continue under

the new HARRNESS framework.

Two relatively new programs (the Centers for Oceans and Human Health (COHH) initiative of NIEHS and NSF and NOAA’s OHHI) should also continue under

HARRNESS. They fill an important niche by creating linkages between members

of the ocean sciences and biomedical communities to help both groups address the

public health aspects of HABs. The COHH focus on HABs, infectious diseases, and

marine natural products, whereas the NOAA OHHI Centers and extramural funding include these subjects in addition to chemical pollutants, coastal water quality

and beach safety, seafood quality, sentinel species as indicators of both potential

human health risks and human impact on marine systems. The partnership between NIEHS, NSF, and NOAA clearly needs to be sustained and expanded in order

to provide support to a network of sufficient size to address the significant problems

under the OHH 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, EPA, NASA, FDA, and CDC.

53

A number of the recommendations of HARRNESS are not adequately addressed by existing programs, however. As a result, the HAB community needs to work with

Congressional staff and agency program managers to create new programs, as well

as to modify existing ones, where appropriate. Specific recommendations are given

below in this regard.

Freshwater HABs. With the exception of the Great Lakes, which fall under NOAA’s

jurisdiction, freshwater systems that are impacted by HABs have not been comprehensively addressed in ECOHAB, MERHAB, or the OHH HAB programs. This

is because NOAA’s mandate includes the Great Lakes and estuaries up to the freshwater interface, but does not include the many rivers, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs

that are subject to freshwater HAB problems. Freshwater HABs are an important

focus within HARRNESS, and therefore I strongly support the inclusion of EPA in the draft HABHRCA legislation before us. More direction should be provided, however, so that EPA and NOAA move this program forward in a

productive and efficient manner. As the draft legislation reads now, the direc- tion of the freshwater HAB program will be determined by the Regional Research

Action Plans. There is certainly a need for prioritization and planning at the regional level, but national planning workshops and a national research agenda for

freshwater HABs are also needed, as was done with the 1993 National Plan and

HARRNESS for marine HABs. This is particularly true given that two federal agen- cies will be involved. Coordination and the division of responsibilities will be important issues to resolve.

It is critical however that appropriations be increased to include this new area

of investigation. If appropriations remain level, and a new freshwater program is

established, resources will be drawn away from marine issues that are already thinly funded, and research progress will decrease dramatically and the productive scientific community working on HABs will grow smaller and less effective. 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.

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 exper- tise 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. This is possible if we work within the guidelines of HARRNESS and with the

inter-agency effort that has been guiding its implementation.

New Programs to be Established and Sustained. The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and

Hypoxia Research Control Act (HABHRCA) and the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (2004 HABHRCA Reauthorization) authorized the

establishment of three national programs on HABs: 1) ‘‘Ecology and Oceanography

of Harmful Algal Blooms’’ (ECOHAB) (HABHRCA Sec. 605 (2) ); 2) ‘‘Monitoring and

analysis activities for HABs’’ (renamed Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful

Algal Blooms or MERHAB) (HABHRCA Sec. 605 (4) ); and 3) ‘‘A peer-reviewed research project on management measures that can be taken to prevent, reduce, control, and mitigate HABs.’’ (HABHRCA Sec. 605 (3) ). Under HABHRCA the

ECOHAB program was authorized as an interagency (NOAA, NSF, EPA, NASA,

ONR), competitive research program, led by NOAA, and the MERHAB program was

established as a NOAA competitive research program. A Federal Register Notice

(FRN), published 5/04/2009 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-10187.htm), announced that NOAA was establishing the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of

Harmful Algal Blooms (PCMHAB) Program.

Guidelines for the PCMHAB are given in the National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts from

Harmful Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan; Dortch et al., 2008). The proposed RDDTT

program has two other essential components. These are: 1) a comprehensive national HAB Event Response program: and 2) a Core Infrastructure program. Together with the PCM component, these are interdependent and critical for

improving future HAB research and management, and I therefore urge the

Committee to include these as specific, named programs in the draft legislation. Justification for this emphasis is as follows.

54

Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs. Congress mandated a program for HAB Prevention, Control and Management in the legislation reauthorizing the

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 and again in the 2004 reauthorization. Further 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 less effort has been directed towards practical

issues such as resource management strategies, or even direct bloom suppression or

control (Anderson, 1997). As discussed above, progress in the area of bloom suppression or control has been very slow. I have attached a commentary that I wrote for

the journal Nature more than 10 years ago (Annex 1) that discussed why progress in bloom control was advancing so slowly. Unfortunately, many of the points in that

discussion are still valid today. Among the impediments to progress is that scientists have chosen to focus more on less controversial, and therefore more easily

funded lines of work. Societal concern about bloom control strategies that might involve the use of chemicals or engineered or non-indigenous organisms is significant,

and therefore it has been difficult to move research from the laboratory to the field.

In the case of my own laboratory’s work on the use of clay dispersal to control

blooms, we have seen that a few vocal opponents can raise environmental concerns

that delay or stop field applications, even though this method is environmentally benign in comparison to the damage from the HAB itself, and that this same bloom

control strategy is used routinely elsewhere in the world to protect fish farms (e.g.,

Korea).

Yet another impediment is that there is no specific funding specified for PCM re- search. As a result, PCM proposals compete with ECOHAB and MERHAB submissions for funds. Given the controversial nature of many PCM strategies, it is not

surprising that peer reviews of the proposals are variable and sometimes negative,

and that more conservative projects on bloom dynamics, toxin chemistry, or other

topics are selected. I therefore strongly recommend that specific wording be inserted in the draft HABHRCA legislation to establish and sustain a national program on Prevention, Control and Mitigation of HABs, and that

specific funds be authorized for that program. In this context, Congressional oversight may be needed to establish an agency mandate for control of marine and freshwater nuisance species. Unlike the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, which has a mandate for control of terrestrial plant pests, there is no federal agency with this responsibility for

marine waters. This is an area where the growing concern about invasive species

could be of great help to the HAB field, as technologies, regulations, policies, and

environmental concerns are common to both fields. I can see a great deal of value

in the convening of a workshop to in which HAB investigators would meet with

those working on control strategies for invasive species, insects, aquatic vegetation,

other pest infestations, as well as with those working on bioremediation strategies

used for oil spill and pollution events.

Event Response. A major HAB outbreak in the Gulf of Maine in 2009 highlighted

the need for an Event Response program as part of the national HAB program. During this event, virtually the entire coastline of the State of Maine was closed to

shellfish harvesting due to dangerous levels of toxicity. The same was true for New

Hampshire, and for portions of Massachusetts. Government officials, resource managers, and the general public were anxious for information on the offshore extent

of the bloom, and it’s potential duration, yet there were no research programs ongoing to provide such information. Senator Snowe made a direct request to NOAA to

provide this type of information, resulting in a scramble to find funding for ships

and research personnel on short notice. Had there been a national HAB Event Response Program, as described in the RDDTT report (Dortch et al., 2008), the response would have been significantly more comprehensive, rapid, and efficient.

This is but one example of the need for rapid response to HABs that occur

throughout the US. In some cases, local resources are sufficient, but in unexpected

events, or those that are more significant and dangerous than normal, additional

resources are needed that can be rapidly mobilized and used to protect the public

health and fisheries resources. It is therefore my recommendation that specific

wording for a national HAB Event Response program be included in the

HABHRCA legislation, and that specific funds be authorized for that program.

Infrastructure. Researching and implementing new PCM strategies and improving

event response will not be possible without certain types of infrastructure, including

chemical analytical facilities, reference and research materials, toxin standards,

HAB culture collections, tissue banks, technical training centers, and databases. At

the present time, many of these facilities or resources are maintained by individual

55

investigators or laboratories, with no centralized coordination or support. Personally, I maintain a culture collection of HAB species that exceeds 400 strains, yet I

do not receive direct funding for its expenses. For other infrastructure needs, the

necessary resources to not exist, and therefore funds are needed to provide these

to the HAB community. For example, analytical standards for some HAB toxins are

not available, severely restricting research and management progress. Likewise, molecular probes that allow the accurate and rapid identification of HAB species are

also not universally available.

The RDDTT report (Dortch et al., 2008) identifies and prioritizes infrastructure

needs for the national HAB program. What is needed is the Congressional recognition of the need for such a program, and therefore I recommend that specific

wording for a national HAB infrastructure program be included in the

HABHRCA legislation, and that funds be authorized for this specific program.

Although PCMHAB will be the program that the public will most readily perceive

as ’progress’ in the management of HABs, the program is part of an integrated approach to HAB risk management that must include Event Response and Infrastructure programs. Furthermore, since many agencies are involved in HAB research and response, it will be necessary to specify that these new programs should be interagency partnerships, and funding should be provided

to agencies with major roles. In addition to NOAA, NSF, and EPA, other agencies, such as FDA, CDC, NSF, and NIEHS also contribute substantially and should

be named as partners in the national HAB program.

Regional Research Action Plans. As emphasized above, HAB phenomena are diverse throughout the US, and therefore impacts and research needs will vary across

regions. I therefore support the congressional directive to create regional research

action plans through a series of meetings involving managers, scientists, government officials, industry, and other stakeholders. My only concern here is the

timescale for these meetings. Having participated in a very successful meeting of

this type in Florida, I know that a significant cost is involved, and that considerable

time is needed to plan, convene, and then report on the results of such a meeting.

Given the inclusion of ‘‘freshwater’’ regions involving inland states, of which there

may be many, I can envision NOAA HAB program officials struggling to organize

and run a large number of meetings in a short period of time, and having to commit

significant funds that would otherwise be directed to research. I would thus recommend a more gradual approach to the regionalization.

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 will depend upon how well federal agencies 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 science plan (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, exemplified in HARRNESS. 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:

• Marine HABs are a serious and growing problem in the U.S., affecting every

coastal state; freshwater HABS are an equally significant problem in inland

states. HABs impact public health, fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and coastal aesthetics. HAB problems will not go away and will likely increase in severity.

• 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 fishVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

eries and ecosystems are likely occurring that are far more difficult to discern.

• A coordinated national HAB Program was created over 15 years ago and partially implemented. That National Plan has been updated with a new plan

called HARRNESS that can guide the next decade or more of activities in

HAB research and management.

Recommendations:

• Sustain and enhance support for the national HAB program HARRNESS.

• Sustain and enhance support for the ECOHAB, MERHAB and OHH programs, and authorize new programs. In the latter context, a separate program on the practical aspects of HAB prevention, control and mitigation

(PCMHAB) needs to be authorized, as it was in past HABHRCA legislation,

and two new programs (HAB Event Response and HAB Infrastructure)

should be authorized as well, each with a specific amount of funds to insure

that resources are indeed directed to these programs by NOAA and EPA.

• Recognize that NOAA will require funds for operations in support of HAB

management, such as HAB forecasting; authorize these activities with specific

language, and specific funding allocations.

• Encourage interagency partnerships, as the HAB problem transcends the resources or mandate of any single agency.

• Freshwater HABs are an important focus within HARRNESS, and therefore

EPA should be included in the draft HABHRCA legislation. More direction

should be provided, however, so that EPA and NOAA move this program forward in a productive and efficient manner. For example, national planning

workshops and a national research agenda for freshwater HABs are needed,

given that two federal agencies will be working on the topic. The direction of

the freshwater program should not be determined solely by Regional Research

Action Plans.

• Encourage methods and instrument development for land-and mooring-based

HAB cell and toxin detection, and for bloom forecasting through instrument

development support for the Integrated Ocean Observing System.

• Recommend appropriations that are commensurate with the scale of the HAB

problem in both marine and fresh waters. The national HAB program is well

established and productive, but it needs additional resources if new topics, responsibilities and tasks are added through new legislation. Research should

be peer-reviewed and competitive, and should take full advantage of the extensive capabilities of the extramural research community.

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., J.M. Burkholder, W.P. Cochlan, P.M. Glibert, C.J. Gobler, C.A.

Heil, R. Kudela, M.L. Parsons, J.E. Rensel, D.W. Townsend, V.L. Trainer, and

G.A. Vargo. 2008. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Examining linkages from selected coastal regions of the United States. Harmful Algae 8:39–

53.

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.M. Glibert, and J.M. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful algal blooms and

eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries

25(4b):704–726.

Dortch, Q., Anderson, D., Ayres, D., and Glibert, P., editors, 2008. Harmful Algal

Bloom Research, Development, Demonstration and Technology Transfer: A National Workshop Report. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA.

http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=43464&pt=10&p=19132

57

Hoagland, P. and S. Scatasta. 2006. The economic effects of harmful algal blooms.

In E. Grane ́li and J. Turner, eds., Ecology of Harmful Algae. Ecology Studies

Series. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer-Verlag.

McGillicuddy, D.J., Jr., D.M. Anderson, D.R. Lynch, and D.W. Townsend. 2005.

Mechanisms regulating large-scale seasonal fluctuations in Alexandrium

fundyense populations in the Gulf of Maine: Results from a physical-biological

model. Deep-Sea Res. II 52(19–21):2698–2714.

Ramsdell, J.S., D.M. Anderson, and P.M. Glibert (Eds). 2005. HARRNESS. Harmful

Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy

2005–2015. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC, 96 pp.

58

Annex 1. Turning back the harmful red tide. (Nature 388:513–514. 1997)

59

60

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONALD M. ANDERSON

Don Anderson is a Senior Scientist in the Biology Department of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), where he also serves as Director of the Cooperative Institute for the North Atlantic Region. He served as Director of WHOI’s Coastal Ocean Institute, from 2004 to 2008. He earned a doctorate from MIT in 1977 and

joined the WHOI scientific staff in 1978. In 1993, he was awarded the Stanley W.

Watson Chair for Excellence in Oceanography, in 1999 was named a NOAA Environmental Hero, and in 2006 received the Yasumoto Lifetime Achievement Award

from the International Society for the Study of Harmful Algae. Anderson’s research focus is on toxic or harmful algal blooms (HABs). His re- search ranges from molecular and cellular studies of toxin genetics and regulation

to the large-scale oceanography and ecology of the ‘‘blooms’’ of these micro-organisms.

Along with an active field and laboratory research program, Anderson is heavily involved in national and international program development for research, monitoring, and training on marine biotoxins and harmful algal blooms. Anderson is author or co-author of over 240 scientific papers and 13 books.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Boyer.

STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY L. BOYER, PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, COLLEGE

OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND FORESTRY; DIRECTOR,

NEW YORK’S GREAT LAKES RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

Dr. BOYER. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing. My name is Greg Boyer

I am a Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of New

York College of Environmental Science and Forestry and Director

of New York’s Great Lakes Research Consortium. I have worked on

harmful algal blooms for more than 35 years including marine and

freshwater toxins, but today I would like to specifically address

freshwater harmful algal blooms in this draft legislation. The written testimonies provided will expand on many of the facts and details, so let me briefly review just a few key points. Marine and freshwater blooms are caused by the very rapid growth of

microscopic plant-like organisms, but unlike marine systems, most

freshwater blooms are caused by blue-green algae, which is actually a photosynthetic bacteria. This makes them similar but not

identical to their marine counterparts, so therefore some of the

treatment options will be the same, but many of the approaches for

prevention, control and mitigation of these freshwater blooms will

be different than those for marine systems. Some marine blooms produce very toxic compounds. Saxitoxin, a neurotoxin found in both marine and freshwater systems, is one of

the most toxic nonprotein toxins known and is a regulated biowarfare agent. Microcystins, a common liver toxin found in blooms in

every state of the union, goes by the trivial name of ‘‘fast death factor.’’ An outbreak in the Potomac River caused 5,000 to 8,000 cases

of human gastrointestinal illness. Anatoxin-A, another neurotoxin

produced by blue-green algae, goes by the trivial name is very fast

death factor. A recent bloom in Lake Champlain resulted in the

deaths of several family pets. These dogs barely made it off the

beach before collapsing and dying in front of the family’s children.

Simply put, these are not nice compounds.

Toxic blooms are becoming much more common and being reported in new locations each year. A recent study from my own laboratory found 50 percent of the samples collected from western

Lake Erie over the last five years had measurable levels of toxin.

61

That number is probably typical for any impacted water body in

the United States.

Our existing HAB research programs have been very successful

for coastal waters. This is especially true for marine systems where

their interagency program, ECOHAB, has made tremendous strides

in understanding the ecology of harmful algal blooms in the western Gulf of Maine and in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, NOAA’s

MERHAB program has developed exciting new technologies for

monitoring blooms both in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes

region. I am also strongly supportive of NOAA’s new program in

prevention, control and mitigation. These programs need to be continued and all three programs adequately funded so they can continue to provide for essential research in their respective areas.

However, freshwater algal blooms offer an additional challenge.

Most of the pictures you have been watching did not occur in the

Great Lakes and are thus not under NOAA’s jurisdiction. The

Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act clearly give the

U.S. EPA oversight of our nation’s freshwater resources; thus, U.S.

EPA needs to be more actively involved in both development and

implementation of a freshwater harmful algal bloom research and

control program. The bill under discussion needs to provide clear

direction to U.S. EPA as to their role. It needs to provide sufficient

authority and it needs to allocate funds necessary to carry out that

work. It should clearly delineate U.S. EPA’s responsibility for

freshwater HABs and direct NOAA and the U.S. EPA to cooperatively administer the program where they have overlapping jurisdictions so that duplication can be avoided. I also want to emphasize that providing funds for extramural research is absolutely essential to the success of the HAB programs and the best way to

harness the vast talents of the scientific community at large.

Freshwater HABs adversely impact all segments of U.S. society:

north, south, east, west and in the middle, and the impacts on

health, ecology and economics on affected communities is large.

These programs require a federally directed program with interagency cooperation and the recognition that different research will

be needed for different areas. We cannot borrow from one program

to pay for another. Therefore, I would like to thank the Committee

for having the foresight to understand the gaps in our efforts and

work towards trying to improve the Nation’s water quality, both in

marine and freshwater systems. With that, I will end my comments. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Boyer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY L. BOYER

Introduction

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is

Gregory Boyer, and I am a Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of New

York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY–ESF). I am also the

Director of New York’s Great Lakes Research Consortium (NY–GLRC), a Consortium of over 300 scientists located at 18 New York academic institutions and seven

Canadian affiliate institutions with interests in all aspects of Great Lakes Science

and Policy. However more importantly, I am a career scientist who has worked on

the chemistry and ecology of harmful algal blooms (HABs) for more than 35 years,

starting from my Ph.D. work on the chemistry of paralytic shellfish poisons, the

neurotoxins produced by selected marine red tides, and continuing in my current

work on the toxins produced by freshwater HABs. In 2002, I became the lead sciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

entist for MERHAB–Lower Great Lakes, a NOAA-sponsored regional program to develop monitoring and event response protocols for harmful algal blooms in the lower

Great Lakes. Working with MERHAB–LGL, NOAA’s Oceans and Human Health

Initiative (OHHI), and with the US–EPA Great Lakes National Program Office

(GLNPO), I have spent many thousands of hours on our Great Lakes and inland

waterways examining and responding to freshwater harmful algal blooms. I also operate a rapid response laboratory at SUNY–ESF for toxic HAB samples submitted

from hospitals, health departments, State environmental conservation agencies, lake

monitoring organizations and concerned citizens from across North America. These

efforts give me a unique ground-up perspective from the needs of our national program to address both marine and freshwater HABs. Today, my colleagues, Donald Anderson and Dan Ayres, will speak to you about marine harmful algal blooms so I would like to confine my comments to the issue

with Freshwater HABs. This topic was first brought to your attention in a hearing

last summer by Dr. Ken Hudnell. Here, I would like to summarize the types and

impacts of freshwater harmful algal blooms in the United States, as well a comment

specifically on the proposed legislation that is being developed by Chairman Bart

Gordon that directs the EPA to participate in freshwater HAB research and authorizes funds for freshwater research applications.

BACKGROUND

Blooms of freshwater algae occur across the United States and around the world. Under the proper conditions of light, temperature, and nutrients, these small aquatic plant-like organisms can grow to extremely dense concentrations, blocking out

light from reaching the water below the surface, clogging the water intakes of our

nation’s power and industrial plants, and leading to taste and odor issues with our

drinking water. Unsightly and smelly surface accumulations interfere with the use

of local beaches and recreational parks, leading to a decrease in the recreational and

tourism dollars flowing to small businesses and local municipalities. Upon their

death, the decay of these blooms can consume the available oxygen in the water column, leading to fish kills and local hypoxia [low oxygen concentrations]. Freshwater HABs are not simply a nuisance issue. In addition to those general- ized effects described above, there are a number of freshwater algal species that

produce extremely potent toxins. When these occur in natural systems, bad things

can happen, including illness and mortalities to domestic animals, widespread loss

of fish and wildlife, and potential harm to humans using the waters for drinking

or recreational purposes.

Toxins and Their Health Effects

There are currently more than 300 different toxins reported to be produced by freshwater algae. These toxins vary widely in their chemistry, their effect on ecosystems, and in their potential effect on animals and humans who are exposed to

them. Most toxins are produced by a group of 20 or more species of blue-green algae

(a.k.a. cyanobacteria); however there are also species that are not blue-green algae

that produce of toxins that have dramatic impacts on aquaculture and fish communities. Some of the major toxins and species include:

Peptide Liver Toxins. The peptide liver or hepatotoxins called microcystins are

probably the most common toxins produced by blue-green algae. Microcystins are

named for the genus of cyanobacteria (Microcystis) from which they were first identified. Subsequent work has shown that they can be produced by a number of different genera and species. The peptide toxins also include a second, closely-related

group of compounds (nodularins) that are usually associated with more saline environments such as marine systems, the Great Salt Lake in Utah, or the Salton Sea

in California. Microcystis is an extremely common genus of cyanobacteria and it is

likely this toxin will be found in every state of the United States. It has been associated with recent animal fatalities in the Midwest, Northeast, and Oregon, and is

of major concern to drinking water suppliers that must use impacted waters (example: western basin of Lake Erie) as their source water. One of the first describe toxic

events in the United States (1931) refers to an outbreak of Microcystis in the Ohio

and Potomac Rivers that caused intestinal illness in an estimated 5,000–8,000 people. Nebraska (2004) recently experienced a similar event on a smaller scale with

a number of dog, livestock, and wildlife fatalities, and more than 50 accounts of

human skin rashes, lesions and flu-like gastrointestinal illness.

Microcystins have been linked with animal deaths and human illnesses all over

the world. The acute human toxicity of these toxins was graphically observed in

Brazil in 1996, when naturally occurring concentrations of toxin in the water supply

for a hemodialysis center led to the death of over 50 patients. There are also conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
63

cerns over long-term sub-acute exposure. Microcystin–LR, the most studied member

of the class, was recently reclassified by the International Agency for Research on

Cancer into risk group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) based on a review of

existing scientific evidence. This raises further questions about the risk from chronic

exposure to this group of toxins through drinking water supplies. To date, the

United States does not have regulatory standards or guidelines for the concentrations of cyanobacteria toxins allowed in drinking water. However standards exist at

both the international level (World Health Organization), national level (e.g., Australia Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain), and

exist or are under development at the State Level (CA, FL, IA, NE and OR). The

US–EPA, as a first step for issuing such as standard, placed microcystins on its

Critical Contaminant List or CCL as described under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) as amended in 1996. The drinking water CCL is a list of priority contaminants, known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, where further research may be necessary before US–EPA can decide if a regulatory ruling is needed

under the SDWA. Microcystins have been on the US–EPA’s CCL–1 (1998), CCL–2

(2005), and now CCL–3 (2008). They remain on the CCL, in part, because of missing

information in terms of their health effects, routes of exposure and analytical methodology. The US–EPA, as part of their toxicological assessment associated with the

CCL, has determined that microcystins, anatoxin-a and cylindrospermopsin (discussed below) are the cyanobacterial toxins of most concern (highest priority), followed by paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins and anatoxin-a(S).

Freshwater Cytotoxins. The second group of cyanobacterial toxins is the

cylindrospermopsin derivatives. This group is also produced by a number of different

genera of cyanobacteria, including members of the genus Cylindrospermopsis for

which they are named. The major toxin, cylindrospermopsin, results in generalized

cell death (cytotoxin) but have also been linked to DNA damage as well as possible

tumor initiation. However, in accordance with US–EPA ‘‘Guidelines for Carcinogen

Risk Assessment’’ (2005), this toxin should be listed as ‘‘inadequate information to

assess carcinogenic potential’’ until further studies have been completed.

Cylindrospermopsin-producing species are generally associated with tropical or

arid environments, and toxic Cylindrospermopsis blooms are common in the warmer

drinking water reservoirs of Florida. Recently, the major potentially-toxic species (C.

raciborskii) has been identified in temperate Europe and in several of the Great

Lake States (MI, OH, WI), suggesting that its observed range has expanded from

southern states (FL, NC) to more northern temperate climates. The factors responsible for this potential spread and the production of toxins in these more northern

climates are an area of active investigation.

Freshwater Neurotoxins. A third class of toxins are the neurotoxic cyanobacterial

toxins; anatoxin, anatoxin-a(S), and the PSP toxins discussed below. The most important member of the class, anatoxin-a, was originally reported from an Anabaena

species (hence the name), but like the microcystins, this toxin can be produced by

a number of different species and genera. Blooms containing anatoxin-a in many

states across the United States. They have recently been associated with domestic

animal (dog) and livestock (cattle) fatalities in NY, VT, OR, and in the mid-western

states. A toxic bloom containing anatoxin-a occurred as recently as this last month

in Elk Creek (Douglas County, OR). This bloom resulted in the deaths of several

household pets and widespread media coverage of the event.

A second neurotoxin, anatoxin-a(S), is very distinct in both its chemistry and

mode of action from anatoxin-a. Originally differentiated from anatoxin-a because

the affected dogs showed extremely salivation (hence the S), this toxin is commonly

reported in the prairie states. However anatoxin-a(S) symptoms are identical to

organophosphate pesticide intoxication and hence its occurrence is likely under-reported in this and in other regions of the country.

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Toxins. These freshwater toxins are produced by selected strains of blue-green algae and are very similar or identical to

the PSP neurotoxins produced by marine red-tide dinoflagellate species. Blue-green

algae produce a larger variety of PSP toxins than their marine counterparts, with

almost twice as many different variations in chemical structures. Several toxins, including saxitoxin, are produced by both freshwater and marine algae. Saxitoxin is

considered one of the most potent ‘‘non-protein’’ toxins known with a toxicity about

1,000 times greater than cyanide. Saxitoxin is a regulated biological warfare agent

listed in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response

Act of 2002 through the ‘‘Select Agents’’ program. Production of PSP toxins have

been associated with domestic and wild-life fatalities in the United States, but a

major bloom {to my knowledge} has never occurred in a drinking water supply resVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

ervoir. Such blooms have occurred in Australia, leading to the deaths of tens of

thousands of livestock and forcing entire communities to shift to bottled or tanker

water supplies.

Golden Algae Fish Toxins. Most toxic freshwater blooms are caused by cyanobacteria; however there are a number of non-cyanobacterial toxic species that

are important in saline or aquaculture facilities. Perhaps the most problematic are

the blooms of the fish-killing species Prymnesium parvum, which is also referred to

as a ‘‘golden algae’’. These blooms were first suspected of causing massive fish kills

in Texas in the mid 1980’s. Since that time, the blooms of golden algae have expanded and been reported in nine southern states (TX, NM, CO, NC, SC, GA, AR,

AL and OK) and are suspect in two others (NE, FL). These blooms have been estimated to kill more than 17 million fish worth over $6.5 million dollars in Texas

alone and now threaten the survival of several endangered or threatened fish species. They continue to result in the loss of millions of dollars to local economies due

to a decrease in fish-related tourism each year.

In addition to these major categories described above, there have been a large

number of different toxic events where either the bloom was not directly associated

with the die-off of an easily observable species, or where a definitive cause and effect relationship has not be established. Harmful algal blooms can cause dramatic

changes in ecosystems through the effect on the lower food web. They may also be

responsible for many of the common ailments (e.g., swimmers itch) experienced by

recreational users that come in contact with these blooms.

Occurrence and Causes of Freshwater HABs in the United States

As evidenced from the discussion above, freshwater toxic algal blooms are not confined to any geopolitical boundaries. Blooms of toxic blue-green algae are widespread and have occurred in all 50 states of the United States (Figure 1). While not

all blooms of cyanobacteria are toxic, many of the toxic species are cosmopolitan or

widely distributed between ecosystems. Blooms are not confined to large lakes such

as the Great Lakes, but occur in all sorts of water bodies ranging from smaller prairie potholes, rivers, reservoirs, impoundments to large lake ecosystems.

A recent study by a NOAA-sponsored regional program to look at the occurrence

of toxic algal blooms in the lower Great Lakes (MERHAB–LGL) has found that 50

percent of the samples collected from western Lake Erie over the last decade contained detectable levels of blue-green algal toxins. A significant fraction of these

samples also exceeded the World Health Organization’s guidelines for safe drinking

water. As the Great Lakes in total contain more than 84 percent of North America’s

fresh surface waters, 22 percent of the world’s fresh surface waters, and currently

provide drinking water for more than 40 million people, broad scale efforts to protect these essential resources from HABs are essential.

These studies in the Great Lakes are not an exception. Similar to the Great

Lakes, there has been a rapid proliferation of toxic cyanobacteria blooms in other

freshwater ecosystems, including those in the Northeast (VT, NY), Midwest (NE,

IA), southern (FL), and western states (NM, CO, OR). Broad scale studies in Europe

and the mid-western United States have shown a similar high percentage (∼50 percent) of their blooms contain toxic species and/or toxins. Each year, new toxic blooms

are reported in areas where they have not been previously reported. The increased

65

number of scientific papers on freshwater harmful algal blooms over the last several

decade, the increased numbers of reports in the popular press, and the increase in

health advisories due to cyanobacterial toxins all suggest that, if anything, the occurrence of toxic freshwater blooms has increased over the past 30–40 years.

Causes and Costs of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms.

Blooms of freshwater algae, especially cyanobacteria, are triggered by a number

of factors. These include, but is not limited to:

• Increases in nutrient loading from point and non-point sources. Like all plant

species, freshwater algae must obtain the basic building blocks of nitrogen

and phosphorus needed for growth. These are often obtained through runoff

due to agricultural or land-use practices in the surrounding watershed. For

example, the US–EPA has recently started extensive efforts to look at nutrient inputs from the watersheds surrounding the Maumee River region [near

Toledo, OH] in western Lake Erie as a causative factor for the large blooms

of toxic blue-green algae that occur in the western basin.

• Extended periods of high solar radiation that promote photosynthesis. This

means bright, sunny days such as those that often come at the end of the

summer season.

• Warm temperatures that can accelerate the growth of the organisms and lead

to thermal stratification or separation of the water column into distinct layers.

• Calm wind conditions that also lead to a stable water column with little mixing. This can allow buoyant species to rise to the surface and shade competing

species. Changes in hydrology, such as the formation of an impoundment in

a normally flowing river may also increase the intensity and occurrence of

bloom events.

• Changes in the ecosystem through the introduction of invasive species such

as dreissenid mussels that selectively feed on non-cyanobacterial species. This

can provide a selective pressure for the formation of selected species.

These general conditions lead to increased blooms of all algae, not specifically

harmful or toxic algal species. We have a very poor understanding of those environmental factors that specifically lead to the formation of a toxic bloom over a nontoxic bloom. This lack of basic scientific research has hampered our efforts to design

specific remediation techniques for freshwater HABs, to forecast the occurrence of

toxic blooms, and to predict the effects of large- scale ecosystem changes such as

global climate change on freshwater harmful algal blooms.

For the same reason, it is difficult to provide an economic assessment for the costs

associated with a toxic freshwater algal bloom in comparison to the costs associated

with a non-toxic bloom. Dodds and co-workers from Kansas have calculated that the

annual value of losses in recreational water usage, waterfront real estate, alteration

of ecosystem structure, loss of endangered species, fish kills, and impacts on drinking water exceed $2.2 billion dollars annually as a result of eutrophication in U.S.

freshwaters due to increased nutrients and the resulting algal growth. Not all of

these expenses are due to harmful algae, but anecdotal information provided by

large water providers in states such as Florida suggest that their treatment costs

needed to ensure water safety may increase more than a $100,000 per week in response to a toxic cyanobacteria bloom. Added to this would be the millions of dollars

in lost recreational activities, monitoring and response expenses, health care costs,

and damage to the aquaculture/fishing industry. In addition, there are also costs

where it is difficult to assign a monetary value, e.g., what is the value for the loss

of an endangered or threatened species or permanent changes to an ecosystem? Our

nation’s freshwaters have faced increasing stress due to rising population pressure,

land use changes, and the increased demand for freshwater resources. Once a harmful algal bloom becomes established in a given ecosystem, it is very difficult and

costly to reverse the situation. Research funds spent understanding the basic science

surrounding a toxic bloom, followed by translation of that knowledge into specific

prevention, control, and mitigation technologies are funds well spent in the long

run.

NEED FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FRESHWATER HABs.

Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act

in 1998 to authorize funds for research on marine HABs and hypoxia. This Act was

expanded in the 2004 Reauthorization Act to include all freshwater bodies. This latter act also calls for a series of reports to clearly assess the status and outline our

66

research needs. Members of the scientific community and the Interagency Working

Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia and Human Health (IWG–4H) have prepared a number of reports, including the ‘‘Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms,’’ ‘‘Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms, State of the Science and

Research Needs,’’ and the ‘‘Harmful Algal Blooms Research Development Demonstra- tion and Technology Transfer’’ (HAB RDDTT) report. These reports clearly docu- ment an increased awareness on a national scale of impacts such as toxin-contaminated drinking water or seafood, mortality of fish and wildlife, damages to aquaculture enterprises, economic losses in coastal and lake-side communities from

HABs and the impacts on Public Health. They also clearly identify the research

needs and limitations to progress, as well as provide a path forward to protect

against long-term ecosystem change. The marine HAB community has benefited tremendously from the initial 1993 na- tional plan for harmful algal blooms and the subsequent formation of the competitive, peer-reviewed, merit-based interagency research program in Ecology and

Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) and NOAA’s Monitoring and

Event Response of Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB), as called for in the Harmful

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendment Act of 2004. These programs have led to dra- matic increase in our understanding of marine bloom events, increases in detection

technology, improvements in event response, a better understanding of the societal

aspects of harmful algal blooms, and an overall improvement in coordination between agencies. Freshwater HABs and their root causes do not respect geopolitical and agency boundaries. Thus a regional and multi-agency approach is again required. We need

a similar emphasis on freshwater ecosystems, including, but not limited to, the

Great Lakes ecosystems. As called for in the Scientific Assessment of Freshwater

Harmful Algal Blooms, prepared by the IWG–4H, a successful freshwater HAB pro- gram must foster collaboration between agencies, minimize unnecessary duplication,

and provide the essential resources for those agencies to carry out their mission.

Furthermore, Congress must all authorize sufficient funding levels for each of these

programs (Freshwater HABs, ECOHAB, MERHAB and Prevention Control and

Mitigation) if they are collectively to have a chance for success, not simply shift

funds from one to another.

Of key importance is the question of which agency should direct this important endeavor for freshwater systems. The Department of Commerce through NOAA has

a mandated requirement to protect our marine environments, the Great Lakes and

estuaries. However, the Clean Water Act of 1968 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (and amendments) provide for US–EPA oversight of our nation’s freshwater resources that we use for drinking, swimming and recreational purposes. Previously,

EPA, NOAA and other agencies joined together in soliciting research proposals for

funding from the ECOHAB competitive research-grant program. Each agency reviewed and selected research proposals for funding by their agency that were appropriate for the agency’s mission. Unfortunately, due to a lack of clear authority from

Congress and limited funding resources to research, monitor, control and prevent

freshwater HABs, the EPA has withdrawn or limited its support for HAB research

grant programs over the past several years. EPA participation in HAB-related programs and funding HAB research is essential and EPA needs to reestablish their

participation in those grant programs. Critical research is needed to assess the frequency and concentrations with which cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins occur in recreational and finished drinking waters. Health research is needed to obtain the

dose-response data needed to set limits for safe exposure to cyanobacterial toxins,

and for determining cancer assessments. Alternative routes of exposure such as fish

consumption need to be carefully evaluated in these risk assessments. Risk management research is needed to assess the efficacy and sustainability of ecological and

chemical approaches to freshwater HAB control, to develop improved and less expensive control technologies, and to devise enhanced mitigation strategies. New

techniques in molecular biology, biochemistry and chemistry need to be applied to

this problem as we constantly challenge the classical definitions of what is a ‘‘toxic’’

or ‘‘non-toxic’’ bloom. Thus, all of these recommendations and technologies need to

be based on the best available science in this rapidly changing field.

The organisms and causes of freshwater HABs are very different from those that

cause marine HABs, and therefore potential control and remediation technologies

are also likely to be very different between marine and freshwaters systems. A

freshwater HAB program that specifically addresses those differences is needed.

These freshwater locations needs to extend beyond the Great Lakes into other impacted large water bodies such as Lake Champlain (VT) and Lake Mead (NV, AZ)

and even to smaller freshwater ecosystems such as the Klamath River (CA, OR) or

Elk Creek (OR) which suffer from freshwater HABs. Congress needs to provide the

67

US–EPA with a clear statutory mandate to participate in freshwater HAB research,

and authorize funding for that research. The EPA, working with other affected

agencies, needs to develop a comprehensive National Freshwater-HAB Research and

Control Program, just as NOAA has done for HABs in oceans, estuaries, and the

Great Lakes, and the US–EPA needs to work with NOAA in administering this program for the betterment of all. Congressman Baird’s and this committee’s legislation

accomplishes all of these goals related to freshwater HAB programs and I commend

you for recognizing this deficiency.

Smaller freshwater lakes and rivers are very different from larger freshwater systems such as the Great Lakes, which are in turn very different from our estuaries

and coastal systems. In spite of these differences between freshwater, estuarine, and

marine HABs, it is essential to realize that these water-body types are intimately

interconnected; nutrients that enter waterways through their upland watersheds

continually stimulate HABs as they flow from the smaller streams, to the larger

freshwater lakes, to estuaries and finally to our coasts. Holistic legislation that addresses both marine and freshwater HABs is needed if we are to understand, control

and remediate the problem of harmful algal blooms that occur within all our nation’s waters.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my viewpoint.

BIOGRAPHY FOR GREGORY L. BOYER

Gregory L. Boyer is a Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of New

York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY–ESF) in Syracuse,

NY.

Dr. Boyer received his B.A. Degree in Biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and his Ph.D. degree in Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin. After postdoctoral fellowships at the Plant Research Labs at Michigan State

University and in the Department of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia, he joined the Faculty of Chemistry at SUNY–ESF in 1985. Dr. Boyer’s expertise line in the area of biologically active natural products produced by algae and

he has more than 35 years experience working with toxins, hormones and

siderophores produced by marine and freshwater algae. He was Director of NOAA’s

MERHAB–Lower Great Lakes project to develop a Tier-based Monitoring for Toxic

Cyanobacteria in the Lower Great Lakes’’ and is the current Director of New York’s

Great Lakes Research Consortium. The NY–GLRC consists of 18 New York Universities and nine Canadian Universities, almost 400 scientists in total, working on all

aspects of Great Lakes Science, education and outreach. He is the Great Lakes CoChair of the Science Advisory Council for New York Oceans and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council, a member of New York’s Great Lakes Basin Advisory

Council and an active advocate for Great Lakes protection, outreach and public education.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Scavia.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD SCAVIA, GRAHAM FAMILY PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; PROFESSOR

OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT; PROFESSOR OF

CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN

Dr. SCAVIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the formulation of an action plan for harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

My name is Don Scavia. I am the Graham Family Professor of Environmental Sustainability as well as Professor of Natural Resources and Environment and Professor of Civil Engineering at the

University of Michigan. Prior to joining Michigan’s faculty five

years ago, I also held several positions in NOAA, most recently as

the Chief Scientist of the National Ocean Service. While there, I

was responsible for implementing NOAA’s portions of this statute

and leading the assessments on behalf of the White House. I also

directed the office that established several of the NOAA and interagency programs under the statute, including the ECOHAB proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
68

gram, the MERHAB program and the northern Gulf of Mexico research program.

While much has been accomplished in the past 10 years since enactment of the first law, much remains unfinished, and I am

pleased that the Subcommittee is considering reauthorizing this

Act. Because the other witnesses have focused on harmful algal

blooms, I am going to focus my comments on the causes, consequences and controls of hypoxia.

In 2008, a report documented hypoxia in more than 400 ecosystems across the globe, affecting a total of more than 245,000

square kilometers, and most of those problems are driven by nutrient pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus. The U.S. national assessment called for in this original statute, reported in 2003, that twothirds of the Nation’s estuaries showed symptoms of nutrient pollution and a 2007 update of that study indicated that those conditions have not improved and that worsening conditions are expected in two-thirds of our estuaries with only about 20 percent potentially improving in the future. And again, the primary driver of

this problem is the overloading of the system with nitrogen and

phosphorus.

If we consider three iconic systems, Lake Erie, the Chesapeake

Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, we see that while there is lots of yearto-year variability, the dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and the

Gulf have not gotten smaller, even after decades of research, management discussions and plans, and the dead zone in Lake Erie,

once thought to be under control and shrinking, has grown again

to sizes that we haven’t seen in decades. Clearly, the nutrient pollution problem is not under control, and if more is not done to reduce this pollution, we can expect further degradation of our coastal and Great Lakes waters and loss of important recreational and

commercial resources. We know that much of the end-of-the-pipe

sources of pollution have been regulated and reduced so most of the

nutrient pollution now comes from diffuse sources, a large portion

of that from agricultural sources. Currently, policy instruments to

control these sources are mostly voluntary and incentive based and

clearly are not fixing the problem. These instruments are the jurisdictions of other statutes like the Farm Bill and the EPA programs,

and while the algal bill cannot do what these statutes are supposed

to do, the provisions in the current draft can actually help in some

very important ways. They can independently identify the geographies and the needed actions in these areas and then measure

and report progress from an ecosystem perspective. As we all know,

what gets measured and reported gets done; however, we are not

reporting at the right scale or in the right context to influence the

impacts of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms.

I have outlined some recommendations for the reauthorization in

my written testimony and I will only emphasize one here. The current draft calls for a report on the progress of the Gulf Action Plan

two years after enactment of the reauthorization and every five

years thereafter. This system has been studied for decades. The action plan has been in place since 2001, so I recommend the task

force report progress one year after enactment and every two years

thereafter. But reporting should be focused at scales that matter.

For example, the report should include details on the specific manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
69

agement metrics and expenditures and updates on environmental

conditions at sub-basin or State levels. These reports should be

matched up with USGS estimates of nutrient contributions from

these sub-basins and these states to ensure that the actions and

the management measures that are taking place are actually targeted in the areas that matter most. The biannual reports from the

regional plans should also follow this approach.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in reauthorizing

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act.

Conditions in our nation’s coastal and Great Lakes waters have unfortunately not improved in the past 10 years since the original enactment, and in some cases, like Lake Erie, have gotten worse. It

is time to increase implementation accountability and to ensure we

have the research and monitoring programs in place to track

progress. This bill is an important step in that direction, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on it. That ends my testimony. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Scavia follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD SCAVIA

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

to testify today on formulating an action plan for dealing with Harmful Algal blooms

and Hypoxia. My name is Donald Scavia and I am the Graham Family Professor

of Environmental Sustainability, as well as Professor of Natural Resources & Environment and Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Michigan.

Prior to joining Michigan’s faculty, I held several positions in the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, the most recent as the Chief Scientist for the National Ocean Service.

While in NOAA, I was responsible for implementation of NOAA’s components of

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, as well

as leading several of the mandated assessment reports on behalf of the White House

Office of Science and Technology Policy. I also directed the office that established

several NOAA and interagency research programs under this statute, such as the

Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) research program,

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

program, and the Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia (NGOMEX) research program.

While much has been accomplished, much remains unfinished. So, I am pleased that

the Subcommittee is considering a bill to reauthorize this Act.

Because other witnesses will be focusing on harmful algal blooms, I will focus my

remarks on hypoxia—its causes, consequence, and controls—and how this reauthorization can help address the problems.

Hypoxia—coastal and Great Lakes ‘‘dead zones’’

Hypoxia, regions of lakes and oceans with seriously depleted oxygen, has become

an issue of global importance. A 2008 review[1] reports hypoxia from more than 400

ecosystems, affecting a total area of more than 245,000 square kilometers, and that

most of these problems are driven by nutrient pollution. The U.S. National

Assessment[2] called for in the original statute reported that in 2003, two-thirds of

the Nation’s estuaries showed symptoms of nutrient pollution, and a 2007 update[3]

of that study indicated those conditions have not improved and that worsening conditions are expected in 65 percent of the estuaries, with only 20 percent likely to

show improvements. Recent studies in the Great Lakes have shown that the dead

zone in Lake Erie, once thought to be under control and shrinking, has grown again

to sizes not seen in decades. Clearly, the nutrient pollution problem is not under

control, and if more is not done to reduce this pollution to coastal and Great Lakes

waters, we can expect further degradation and loss of important recreational and

commercial resources.

I will focus my comments on three iconic sites of hypoxia—Chesapeake Bay, Lake

Erie, and the northern Gulf of Mexico, and then draw some common conclusions in

the context of the pending legislation.

70

The Chesapeake Bay

The causes and consequences of oxygen depletion in Chesapeake Bay have been

the focus of research, assessment, and policy action over the past several decades.[4]

During that period, this 11,000 km2 estuary has been the subject of a series of intergovernmental agreements[5–8] focused on reducing the impacts1,[9] of nutrient

over-enrichment[10] from its 167,000 km2 watershed. The Chesapeake 2000

agreement[8] recommitted the parties to nutrient reduction goals established under

the 1987 agreement that called for a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loads. In addition, Chesapeake 2000 adopts the broader goal of taking sufficient action by 2010 to correct nutrient- and sediment-based water quality problems,

such that Chesapeake Bay is no longer designated as ‘‘impaired’’ under the U.S.

Clean Water Act.

This goal will obviously not be reached. For example, while significant commitments and efforts have taken place over these decades, summer hypoxia in the

Chesapeake Bay has changed little from its long-term average since 1985. My colleague Donald Boesch, President of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, summarized some of the reasons why in reflecting on recent Government Accountability Office and EPA Office of the Inspector General reports in

testimony before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment: limited

control over air emissions that impact water quality, uncontrolled land development,

and limited implementation of agricultural conservation practices. Earlier this year,

the regional governors and the EPA Administrator recommitted to increasing the

pace of progress in reducing nutrient pollution based on achieving two-yield milestones.[11] Furthermore, President Obama issued an executive order calling on the

Federal Government to lead a renewed effort to restore and protect the Nation’s

largest estuary and its watershed.[12]

Among the three systems, the Chesapeake is most vulnerable to nutrient loads

from air emissions because of the amount of high density population centers compared to those of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Erie. While uncontrolled land development and increased impervious surfaces contribute nutrients and sediments from

urban areas, agricultural sources of nutrient loads are the largest contribution to

the Bay, and traditional best management practices, often designed for other reasons, are apparently not doing the job. Research has shown that the Chesapeake

Bay has gone through a regime shift such that the system is now more sensitive

to nutrient inputs than in the past, with nutrient inputs inducing a larger response

in hypoxia, the inability to effectively and efficiently reduce nutrient run-off from

agricultural lands is thus more important than in the past, and a common thread

among all three iconic systems, as well as many other coastal, estuarine, and lake

systems.

Climate change could also affect the run-off of nutrients and sediments in a number of ways. Climate models for precipitation in the Mid-Atlantic region project increased precipitation during the winter and spring. This would likely result in flushing more nutrients through river flow to the Bay during the critical January-May

time period, exacerbating water quality problems, including summertime oxygen depletion.[13] So, changes in practices and policies today to reduce nutrient loads may

not be sufficient in a different climate regime. We may already be seeing this in

Lake Erie.

Lake Erie

Lake Erie has seen significant impacts cause by high nutrient loads—phosphorus

as opposed to nitrogen because phosphorus is the most critical nutrient in freshwater systems. These excessive loads resulted in harmful and nuisance algal

blooms, poor water clarity, and summer hypoxia in the hypolimnion of the central

basin.[14, 15] Excess phosphorus entered the lake primarily from agricultural runoff

and point source discharges.[16] The extent of hypoxia in the 1960s was one of the

motivations for significant environmental legislation, including the Clean Water Act.

In addition, U.S. and Canada signed a Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement[17]

to reduce phosphorus loads at a scale unprecedented in any region of the world.[18]

Unlike the Chesapeake and the Gulf of Mexico, a combination of point and nonpoint phosphorus load reductions achieved the target load of 11,000 metric tons per

year and the Lake responded rapidly and close to that predicted by models. We

thought the problem had been solved.

However, despite this apparent success at reversing summer hypoxia, the extent

of oxygen depletion in the central basin of Lake Erie recently enlarged and reemerged as a potential hazard to ecosystem health.[19] Several natural and anthropogenic factors have been proposed for causing this resurgence, including changes

in climate and hydrology,[20] invasion of zebra and quagga mussels,[21] and

71

changes in agricultural loading. While investigations are still underway to evaluate

the potential effects of invasive mussels, recent analyses have shown that, to date,

the direct climate effect of warming has not been the cause of increased hypoxia.[22]

However, new evidence is pointing to the intersection of agricultural practices and

changes in precipitation patterns as a primary cause.

Colleagues Peter Richards and David Baker at Heidelberg College have been monitoring loads to Lake Erie for decades and have shown that, after the significant

decrease in response to the Water Quality Agreement, the amount total phosphorus

entering the Lake has remained relatively constant while the proportion of that load

that is in the form algae are most responsive to has increased dramatically since

the mid 1990s.[23, 24] They suggest that while increases in fall and winter broadcasting of phosphorus fertilizers is a important cause, it is compounded by increasing intensity of winter and spring rainfall events. Thus, phosphorus can be lost from

fields prior to interacting with soil particles. They also report that current practices

are leading to increased phosphorus concentrations in the upper layer of the soil

and, combined with the increased storm intensity, also contribute to this reversing

trend in loads of available phosphorus. It is important to note that, while most climate models project increases in the intensity of winter and spring storms, such

trends are already found in the climate records of the Midwest.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, proposed in the President’s budget for

$475 million in the upcoming fiscal year, if focused appropriately should provide significant funds for action in the working lands of Lake Erie’s watersheds. While agriculture is now the dominant source of nutrients from Lake Erie watersheds, nowhere has this become more significant than in the lands draining to the northern

Gulf of Mexico.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

The development, extent, and persistence of hypoxia in bottom waters of the

northern Gulf of Mexico were first mapped in 1985. Since then, a large volume of

data has been collected and a wide range of papers and reports have been published

that increased our understanding of the seasonal and inter-annual distribution of

hypoxia and its variability, history, and causes. An Integrated Assessment[25] of the

causes, consequences, and actions needed to reduce hypoxia, mandated in

HABHRCA–1998, was completed in 2000 and an Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,[26] also mandated

in that law, was endorsed by federal agencies, states, and tribal governments and

delivered to the President and the Congress in 2001. That Action Plan set a goal

of reducing the size the hypoxic region to less than 5,000 square kilometers by 2015

and called for a long-term adaptive management strategy coupling management actions with enhanced monitoring, modeling, and research. The Action Plan also called

for an assessment every five years of ‘‘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.’’

The most recent reassessment conducted under the EPA Science Advisory

Board[27] focused instead primarily on the scientific basis for the original plan and

it reconfirmed the relationship between the nitrogen load from the Mississippi

River, the extent of hypoxia, and changes in the coastal ecosystem (e.g., worsening

hypoxia). They recommended that nitrogen load reduction targets be increased from

30 percent to 45 percent, recommended that phosphorus loads also be reduced by

45 percent, and emphasized that significant time had been lost because of a lack

of implantation of the original Action Plan. The panel also cites several studies[28,

29] that suggest climate change will likely create conditions where larger nutrient

reductions, e.g., 50–60 percent for nitrogen, would be required to reduce the size of

the hypoxic zone.

The SAB Panel affirmed the major findings of the original Integrated Assessment;

although, they point out that while the 5,000 km2 target remains a reasonable endpoint, it may no longer be possible to achieve this goal by 2015. Further, they said

that it is even more important to proceed in a directionally correct fashion to manage factors affecting hypoxia than to wait for greater precision in setting the goal

for the size of the zone. The panel also found that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem appears to have gone through a regime shift such that the system is now more sensitive to nutrient inputs than in the past, with nutrient inputs inducing a larger

response in hypoxia, and if actions to control hypoxia are not taken, further ecosystem impacts could occur within the Gulf, as has been observed in other ecosystems.

The panel concluded:

72

‘‘In sum, environmental decisions and improvements require a balance between

research, monitoring and action. In the Gulf of Mexico, the action component

lags behind the growing body of science. Moreover, certain aspects of current agricultural and energy policies conflict with measures needed for hypoxia reduction. Although uncertainty remains, there is an abundance of information on

how to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and to improve water quality in

the MARB, much of it highlighted in the Integrated Assessment. To utilize that

information, it may be necessary to confront the conflicts between certain aspects

of current agricultural and energy policies on the one hand and the goals of hypoxia reduction and improving water quality on the other. This dilemma is particularly relevant with respect to those policies that create economic incentives.’’

Even though the Action Plan has been in place for eight years, nutrient loads to

the Gulf have not been substantially reduced and the size of the hypoxic zone has

not decreased. In fact, in recent years, it has set new records. So I fully support

these findings of the EPA panel that immediate action be taken to reduce nutrient

loads, and that an effective process be put in place to track progress and adjust over

time. I also support the recommendations of the recent report of EPA’s Office of the

Inspector General that asks EPA to identify significant waters of national value—

like the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and Lake Erie—and establish appropriate

nutrient criteria for them as drivers for more effective upstream criteria. I will return to these thoughts when commenting on the Bill under consideration.

Common issues/Common impacts/Common needs

There is a growing body of literature[30–37] pointing to hypoxia impacts on fisheries in all three systems. While to date no major species collapses have been documented in these systems as a direct result of hypoxia, much of this literature points

to pending impacts and the need to avoid a tipping point, where critical species populations collapse and may not be recoverable. Regime shifts reported in all three

systems may portend such tipping points.

Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from agricultural sources is the primary driver

of hypoxia in these three iconic systems, as well as many of the other coastal and

estuarine regions suffering from hypoxia and other symptoms, such as harmful algal

bloom and loss of fish habitat. This is well documented in the numerous publications, reports, and assessments for these specific systems, and more generally for

the Nation in the assessment[2] carried out under the statute being considered here.

It is clear for most of these stressed systems, that more effective policies and practices are needed for reducing the loss of nutrients from working agricultural lands.

There are of course, USDA conservation programs that can be brought to bear on

these issues, but funding for them is not adequate to meet the need and it is important to increase the targeting of those resources to areas that can do the most good.

For example, an analysis of the Environmental Working Group[38] points out that

within the five percent of the Mississippi drainage basin supplying 40 percent of the

nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico, the ratio of crop subsidies to conservation spending

is 500:1. Even a modest change in that ratio, would make a significant difference.

Such targeting is also consistent with the recent report of EPA’s Office of the Inspector General, calling for EPA to set nutrient criteria first for significant waters

of national value in a way to guide upstream targets.

I underscore that it is farm policy, not farmers that make it difficult to reach

these environmental goals. For example, to understand how farmers might respond

to different practices that could affect water quality, my Michigan colleague Joan

Nassauer, and her collaborators conducted in-depth interviews with Iowa farmers

in 1998 and in 2007 completed a web survey of more than 500 Iowa farmers on

farming preferences. Their analyses demonstrate that Corn Belt farmers understand

the difference between current cropping practices and future innovations that could

result in dramatically improved water quality. Given adequate technology to adopt

conservation innovations and assuming their income is unaffected, farmers prefer

a more diverse landscape that shows better conservation and improved water quality.

Specific Comments on the Draft Bill

I understand that much of the discussion above falls under different jurisdictions

and different statutes, but the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and

Control Act reauthorization can help frame more action, coordinate and track

progress, and ensure adequate research and monitoring is in place to support adaptive management approaches.

73

I believe most elements of the current draft bill represent positive steps forward

and I applaud the Subcommittee’s effort to reauthorize this important law. With regard to specific sections:

Section 603A(b)—Specifically including the Environmental Protection Agency in

the reauthorization is important, both because that agency chairs the Gulf of Mexico

Task Force and because of its broader freshwater responsibilities. I would suggest,

however, that explicit mention be made in this section of the need for a NOAA–EPA

partnership in the Great Lakes because NOAA already has significant investments

in both harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research there.

Section 603A(c)6—This refers only to freshwater harmful algal blooms. It should

probably apply to both freshwater and marine blooms.

Section 603A(e)—This calls for regional plans to be completed in 12 months. This

may be difficult to do depending on the number and scale of the regions. It may

be better to require a staged implementation such that all are completed in three

years.

Section 603A(f)—Biennial reports from the Regional Research and Action Plans

should follow the recommendations provided below for the Gulf Task Force to ensure appropriate tracking of implementation and progress.

Section 604(a) and 604(b)—These sections call for a report on Gulf Action Plan

progress two years after enactment of the reauthorization and every five years

thereafter. The EPA Science Advisory Hypoxia Panel, EPA Office of the Inspector

General, and many individuals and organizations working on the Gulf hypoxia problem since enactment of the original law have identified lack of progress in implementing the Action Plan. For better accountability, I recommend Task Force reports

to Congress every year, and that the reports include both details on specific management actions called for in the plan as well as updates on environmental conditions (e.g., river nutrient concentrations, nutrient loads from each sub-basin and to

the Gulf, etc.). These reports should include estimates of expenditures by sub-basin,

as well as metrics of action such as new acres enrolled in each conservation program. To help guide targeting of actions to the most important regions, implementation expenditures and actions should be reported juxtaposed with USGS estimates

of nutrient contributions to the Gulf from specific sub-basins and states.

Section 605—The current draft does not yet specify spending authorizations; however, I recommend the following considerations:

• Authorize at least $40 million to NOAA and at least $5 million to EPA.

• To avoid duplication, it would be good to identify several efforts already administered by NOAA in support of this legislation (e.g., ECOHAB, MERHAB,

PCM, NGOMEX and CHRP).

• Require research funds appropriated to NOAA be allocated through a competitive, peer review process, and that the funds are restricted to extramural

grants. NOAA has strength in its own labs and offices, but those entities are

funded adequately through other appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in reauthorizing the Harmful Algal

Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. Conditions in our nation’s coastal

and Great Lakes waters have unfortunately not improved in the past 10 years since

its enactment, and in some cases, like Lake Erie, have gotten worse. It is time to

increase implementation accountability and to ensure we have the research and

monitoring programs in place to track progress. This bill is an important step in

that direction, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on it.

This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions you

or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Footnotes

1. Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for

marine ecosystems. Science, 321:926–929.

2. CENR 2003. An Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and

Natural Resources, Washington, D.C.

3. Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J.

Woerner. 2007. Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries: A Decade of Change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26.

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 328 pp.

74

4. Boesch, D.F., R.B. Brinsfield, and R.E. Magnien. 2001. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration and challenges for agriculture. J. Environ. Qual. 30:303–320.

5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1983. 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

7. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Chesapeake Bay Agreement: 1992

Amendments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program

Office, Annapolis, MD.

8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Chesapeake 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

9. Brietburg, D.L., T. Loher, C.A. Pacey, and A. Gerstein. 1997. Varying effects of

low dissolved oxygen on trophic interactions in an estuarine food web. Ecol.

Monogr. 67:489–507.

10. Malone, T.C., W. Boynton, T. Horton, and C. Stevenson. 1993. Nutrient loading

to surface waters: Chesapeake case study, pp. 8–38. In M.F. Uman (ed.), Keeping pace with science and engineering. National Academy Press, Washington,

DC.

11. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/EC¥2009¥allmilestones.pdf

12. http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/page/About-the-Executive-Order.aspx

13. Boesch, D.F., V.J. Coles, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller 2007. Coastal Dead Zones

& Global climate change: Ramifications of Climate Change for Chesapeake Bay

Hypoxia, In: Regional Impacts of Climate Change: Four Case Studies in the

United States. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

14. El-Shaarawi, A.H. 1987. Water Quality Changes in Lake Erie , 1968–1980. Journal of Great Lakes Research 13:674–683.

15. Rosa, F. and Burns, N.M. 1987. Lake Erie Central Basin Oxygen Depletion

Changes from 1929–1980. Journal of Great Lakes Research 13:684–696.

16. Dolan, D.M. 1993. Point source loadings of phosphorus to Lake Erie: 1986–1990.

Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:212–223.

17. GLWQA 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

18. DePinto, J.V., T.C. Young, and L.M. McIlroy. 1986. Great Lakes water quality

improvement. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20(8):752–759

19. Burns, N.M., Rockwell, D.M., Bertram, P.E., Dolan, D.M., and Ciborowski,

J.J.H. 2005. Trends in Temperature, Secchi Depth, and Dissolved Oxygen Depletion Rates in the Central Basin of Lake Erie, 1983–2002. Journal of Great

Lakes Research 31:35–49.

20. Blumberg, A.F. and Di Toro, D.M. 1990. Effects of Climate Warming on Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Lake Erie. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:210–223.

21. Hecky, R.E. 1994. The near-shore phosphorus shunt: a consequence of ecosystem

engineering by dreissenids in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.

Sci. 61:1285–1293.

22. Rucinski, D.K., M.S.; D. Beletsky; J.V. DePinto; D.J. Schwab; D. Scavia (in review) A Simple 1–Dimensional Climate Based Dissolved Oxygen Model for Central Basin of Lake Erie.

23. Richards, R. Peter. 2007. Phosphorus Loads and Concentrations from the

Maumee River. Chapter 6, pages 68–74 in Hartig, John H., Michael A. Zarull,

Jan J.H. Ciborowski, John E. Gannon, Emily Wilke, Greg Norwood, and Ashlee

Vincent, eds., State of the Strait: Status and Trends of Key Indicators. Great

Lakes Institute for Environmental Research.

24. Richards, R. Peter. 2006. Trends in sediment and nutrients in major Lake Erie

tributaries, 1975–2004. Section 10.10 in Lake Erie LaMP, 2006 Update. Available on page 22 at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeerie/2006update/Section¥10.pdf

25. CENR 2000. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

National Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C.

75

26. Task Force 2001. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: Washington, DC, 2001.

27. SAB HAP 2007. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. 2007. Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/hypoxia¥adv¥panel.htm, December 21, 2007.

28. Justic ́, D., Rabalais, N.N., and Turner, R.E., 2002, Modeling the impacts of decadal changes in riverine nutrient fluxes on coastal eutrophication near the

Mississippi River delta, Ecological Modeling, v. 152, pp. 33–46.

29. Donner, S.D., and Scavia, D., 2007, How climate controls the flux of nitrogen by the Mississippi River and the development of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,

Limnology and Oceanography, v. 52, no. 2, pp. 856–861.

30. Seitz, R.D., et al., Broad-scale effects of hypoxia on benthic community structure in Chesapeake Bay, USA, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/

j.jembe.2009.07.004.

31. Ludsin, S.A., et al., Hypoxia-avoidance by planktivorous fish in Chesapeake Bay: Implications for food web interactions and fish recruitment, J. Exp. Mar. Biol.

Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.016.

32. Roberts, J.J., et al., Effects of hypolimnetic hypoxia on foraging and distributions of Lake Erie yellow perch, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/

j.jembe.2009.07.017.

33. Baustian, M.M., et al., Effects of summer 2003 hypoxia on macrobenthos and Atlantic croaker foraging selectivity in the northern Gulf of Mexico, J. Exp.

Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.007.

34. Rose, K.A., et al., Does hypoxia have population-level effects on coastal fish? Musings from the virtual world, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/

j.jembe.2009.07.022.

35. Vanderploeg, H.A., et al., Hypoxia affects spatial distributions and overlap of pe- lagic fish, zooplankton, and phytoplankton in Lake Erie, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.027.

36. Vanderploeg, H.A., et al., Hypoxic zones as habitat for zooplankton in Lake Erie: Refuges from predation or exclusion zones? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009),

doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.015.

37. Zhang, H., et al., Hypoxia-driven changes in the behavior and spatial distribu- tion of pelagic fish and mesozooplankton in the northern Gulf of Mexico, J. Exp.

Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.014.

38. Booth, M. 2006. Dead in the Water. Environmental Working Group, Washington,

DC. http://www.ewg.org/reports/deadzone

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONALD SCAVIA

Dr. Scavia and his students combine numerical models, laboratory, field work, and assessments to improve the understanding of interactions between human activities on land and their impacts on coastal marine and freshwater ecosystems. His

research and teaching support integrated assessments that integrate natural

science, social science, and environmental policy-making. As Director of the Graham

Institute, Dr. Scavia leads efforts to engage the full multi-disciplinary assets of the

University of Michigan to support sustainable communities, ecosystems, and economies.

He serves on Advisory Boards for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Program, North American Nitrogen Center, Annis Water Research Institute, Central Michigan University Biological Station,

and as Science Advisor to the Healing our Waters Great Lakes Coalition. At UM,

he also serves on the Executive Committee for the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise and the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute.

He has been Associate Dean for Research, Director of the Michigan Sea Grant

Program, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research, Associate Editor for Estuaries and Coasts; Associate Editor for Frontiers in

Ecology and Environment, and has served on the Boards of Directors for the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography and the International Association for

Great Lakes Research.

Prior to joining the Michigan faculty in 2004, Dr. Scavia was the Chief Scientist

of NOAA’s National Ocean Service, Director of the National Centers for Coastal

Ocean Science, the Director of NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program. Prior to that, he

76

was a senior scientist at NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

He holds Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees in Environmental Engineering

from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of Michigan, and has published over 70 articles in the primary literature and books, co-edited two books, and

led development of dozens of interagency scientific assessments and program development plans.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. Outstanding testimony. I thank you. By the way, the haste with which I began the hearing was an example

how seriously I take this, not any shortsightedness on it. I wanted

to hear from you folks and your testimony was certainly worthwhile. Indeed, I wish every colleague and many people in the country could hear it. I remember when I first moved to a community,

I am a whitewater kayaker and I go into lakes and practice rolling

my boat, flipping my boat over, and I am real hesitant because

there is nobody else on this lake. I paddled to shore. It was a little

inland lake, you know, a city lake, and I said, why is nobody out

here? They said oh, because that water is really unhealthy for you.

The idea that water in a lake could kill you and kill your pets is

really an alien idea to us. It just doesn’t seem right, and yet it is

clearly the case, and if it doesn’t kill you, it can permanently remove your hippocampi, which is a bad deal; as a neuropsychologist,

I know. So questions then.

First of all, the suggestions are well taken. It sounds like the ele- ments that were prescribed in the prior legislation you find important. To be perfectly honest, we kind of took those for granted and

said they’ll continue. You feel the need to specify that because you

feel they are valuable. Sometimes we get the reverse feedback on

this committee and other committees here: ‘‘Don’t over-direct us.’’

They were included in prior bills precisely because testimony suggested they were important and we assume they will continue but

we will make that explicit because there seems to be unanimity. I

think the point is well taken also on the issue of we have studied

a lot of this and it is time to take action, I think, and certainly to

report on that action in a more timely manner and measure that,

and I applaud the recommendations for improved monitoring, both

in the freshwater upstream as well as the downstream area.

STATEMENTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES CONNIE MACK AND

WILLIAM DELAHUNT

I want to at this point invite my colleague, Connie Mack, who

has been a champion of this, given his residence in Florida, and

ask unanimous consent that Representative Mack join us on the

dais. Also, Representative Mack and Mr. Delahunt from Massachusetts both have statements they would like to introduce into the

record. I would ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mack follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE MACK

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis and

the Members of the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing. I appreciate

the chance to speak on harmful algal blooms (HABs) and how they are affecting our

nation’s coastlines, oceans, and inland waters.

77

A little over a year ago, I appeared before this committee with Congressman Boyd

and testified about the importance of this issue and the legislation I introduced to

combat red tide. Since then, the Committee has crafted new language to improve

the legislation we’ve worked on by including freshwater HABs and instituting regional action plans. These are important efforts, and it is time we recognize that

although harmful algal blooms affect our entire nation, they are different throughout the county.

I represent the coastal areas of Southwest Florida. If you haven’t been there, it’s

a beautiful part of the country, with miles and miles of white sandy beaches. For

Southwest Florida, like many communities, a healthy environment and a healthy

economy go hand-in-hand. When I was growing up in Cape Coral, Florida, red tide

blooms were short-lived nuisances that lasted just a few days.

Today, however, these blooms continue for months at a time, and they have longlasting implications that threaten the environment, people’s health, and our overall

quality of life. It is imperative that we do more to understand and combat this problem. These blooms cause dangerous respiratory distress, burning eyes, as well as the

potential for severe food poisoning from contaminated shellfish. HABs not only affect our personal health, they also affect the health of our economy. Red tide and

other toxic blooms cost tens of millions of dollars annually to communities across

America. From New England to the Great Lakes, from California to Florida, these

toxic blooms affect us all.

Legislation regarding these toxic blooms was first introduced in 1998 under the

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. This law authorized

appropriations for NOAA to research, monitor, and manage activities for the prevention and control of HABs. It also established an interagency task force to develop

a comprehensive coordinated federal response to toxic blooms and hypoxia. By holding the hearing today, your committee is giving this issue the attention it deserves.

Last year, I introduced the Save Our Shores Act to increase our commitment to

researching HABS. Since then, I have been working with the Committee to introduce a new bill to tackle red tide and other harmful algal blooms. This legislation

will ensure that scientists and experts in the field, not politicians, determine where

research money is spent. Additionally, by improving reporting requirements, Congress and NOAA will be able to measure the effectiveness of these research efforts.

Finally, we need to reduce the gap between authorized and appropriated funds.

Annual funding has fallen far short and we need to close this disparity.

Once again, I commend the Committee for bringing up such an important issue.

The sooner we can understand what factors contribute to these toxic blooms, the

sooner we can develop solutions to save our nation’s coastlines, oceans, and inland

waters from the scourge of HABs.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM DELAHUNT

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, Members of the Committee:

I commend you for holding this hearing and thank you for granting me the opportunity to testify today on the importance of formulating action oriented plans to prevent, mitigate and respond to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events.

As many of you know, I represent the 10th District of Massachusetts. It is an area

with a rich maritime history that encompasses communities on the south shore of

Massachusetts, from Quincy to Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha’s Vineyard and

Nantucket. The economic health and vitality of these coastal communities is tied directly to the health of the ocean. New England’s shellfish industry is an important

part of the region’s economy and provides hundreds of jobs that pump millions of

dollars into the economy of these communities. Over the last ten years, we have

seen increasingly serious outbreaks of harmful algal blooms, commonly referred to

as ‘‘red tide.’’

These blooms have caused vast areas of our coastline to close, and shut down the

harvest of clams, mussels, oysters and other shellfish. This negative economic impact ripples throughout our coastal communities, from fishermen to buyers, processors, and restaurants. In 2005, New England coastal communities suffered from

the worst red tide outbreak in over thirty years, leading to a Presidential disaster

declaration in many coastal counties. The red tide resulted from an unusually severe combination of environmental conditions that caused toxic algae to cover significant portions of the region’s coast.

In Massachusetts alone, the red tide impacted over 2,000 commercial

shellfishermen and over 250 shellfish aquaculture grants, resulting in economic

78

damages exceeding $35 million dollars. Again in 2008, Massachusetts waters suffered another massive and unanticipated red tide bloom, forcing an infusion of federal commercial fishery disaster aid to prevent the collapse of the local industry.

This summer, Maine waters were affected and the economic losses to this region

were estimated in the millions of dollars.

To better prepare for future algal blooms, scientists and researchers from Woods

Hole, located in my district, convened a national workshop in 2006 and issued a report entitled, ‘‘A Plan for Reducing HABs and HAB Impacts.’’ I am pleased to see

that both Senator Snowe and Congressman Baird have read and implemented many

of the report’s recommendations to create a comprehensive national program to prevent, control and mitigate the economic and environmental impacts of these events.

It is my belief that we need to take additional measures this year to help address

this serious threat to New England. That is why I strongly support the creation of

a Harmful Algal Bloom Event Response Program, as part of the national program.

It is critical that we provide a rapid and thorough response to these outbreaks. Senator Snowe has endorsed such an approach and has included similar provisions in

her legislation, S. 952. I strongly support Senator Snowe and I strongly support

Congressman Baird’s efforts in the House to coordinate national and regional action

plans to reduce these harmful blooms.

The health of New England’s waters is vital to the economic prosperity of our

coastal communities, and as such I support the investment in planning and research

that may alleviate some of these economic and environmental hardships in the future.

I welcome the opportunity to work with you in making sure the House of Representatives takes the additional steps necessary to establish a robust Harmful

Algal Bloom program. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. I will recognize myself for a few more minutes

and then Mr. Inglis will proceed in questioning as time allows.

THE INEFFICACY OF TRADITIONAL WATER TREATMENT

I want to make one thing clear and make sure my understanding

is correct in the case of normal filtration of water. You know, as

a backpacker and a climber, I am used to carrying a water filter

with me, and you filter out the protozoan and whatnot but you

don’t filter out the toxin. Is that correct? So if there were a mountain lake, which there are in Oregon where when you get to the

lake there is a sign that says caution, there is blue-green algae

here, if water is coming out of that lake and I filter that water, am

I still getting the toxin potentially even if I am not getting the

algae per se?

Dr. BOYER. One of the issues there is if the toxin is in the algae,

then your filter will be very effective, but if the toxin is released

from the cells, it will go straight through. That is true for boiling

too. We quite often boil ourselves to release the toxins because it

is a very easy way to get it into the water so that we can work with

it, so a boil-water advisory, for example, is meaningless when you

start talking about things like microcystin.

Chairman BAIRD. That is what I thought. I think it is so important to help the public understand this, that your normal defenses

against this don’t work, filtering, boiling. Iodine, to my knowledge,

doesn’t work, or Clorox, I mean, because it is a chemical toxin that

is released from the organism. Is that accurate?

Dr. BOYER. That is pretty much true. A lot of the basic technologies that we would normally use in water treatment are not

very effective for freshwater toxins.

Chairman BAIRD. And that is also the case with the fish or the

shellfish, right? Mr. Ayres, if you close a beach, somebody can’t say

well I am going to cook the razor clams.

79

Mr. AYRES. Exactly. You can’t cook it out of the clams. You can’t

freeze it out of them. You just simply have to wait for them to naturally purge themselves of that toxin. Yes, exactly, you cannot

treat it in any way.

GROWING DEAD ZONES AND THEIR CAUSES

Chairman BAIRD. This issue of dead zones is profoundly troubling, and I am glad you raised it, Dr. Scavia. Expanding from everything I hear—by the way, Puget Sound and Hood Canal, we

have got a major problem, an increasing zone off of Oregon. It

seems in most areas, they are expanding, not diminishing. Is that

accurate?

Dr. SCAVIA. That is true. In areas where we have had the dead

zones or hypoxic areas, those areas are getting larger in many

cases and we are seeing more estuarine systems having that. The

study that was done between 2003 and 2007 showed there was no

improvement and with the forecast, we are expecting it to increase

in about two-thirds of the estuaries.

Chairman BAIRD. In both the freshwater and the marine environments, the culprit, at least a prime suspect, if not known culprit,

seems to be nutrient sources, nitrogen and phosphorus. To what extent does acidification play a role or temperature change play a

role as well? I mean, weigh those out for us a little bit, and both

environments, if you would.

Dr. BOYER. Well, I will take a stab at the freshwater. You are

exactly right. The prime culprits are nutrients coming in through

the watershed. Acidification probably has very little, if no, effect on

dead zones. I already forgot what your——

Chairman BAIRD. Temperature.

Dr. BOYER. Oh, temperature. Temperature is going to be a much

trickier issue because associated with rising temperatures are often

changes in weather patterns, which then lead to increased nutrients. Many of these organisms grow better under higher temperatures so you would expect that to also be a problem, and temperatures also need to be in a more stable water column in many cases,

which also leads to algal growth. So it is going to be sort of a tricky

issue there but it is——

Chairman BAIRD. Great. Excellent testimony. I will close then

and I will ask if I get time. You know, one of the great paradoxes

of this is, you hear your testimony, you know the importance of it,

and yet to try to get the public fired up about this—well, actually

we did a radio interview this week and we said maybe we should

talk about algal blooms, and the fear was, they are going to say

what is he talking about, algae. Well, it can kill you, badly it can

kill you. I love the name. I decided if I was an ultimate fighter, one

of those guys, I would like the name—what was it—severe death

factor? That would be——

Dr. BOYER. Fast death factor or very fast death factor.

Chairman BAIRD. With that, I recognize my friend and colleague,

Mr. Inglis.

CURRENT CONTROL AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

80

Dr. Magnien, I was wondering about the control and mitigation

technologies that are currently employed when HABs or hypoxia

events are detected, and who decides what technology is used and

what is the decision protocol for making those decisions about the

control and mitigation approaches?

Dr. MAGNIEN. Well, we define control as actually methods that

you would use to suppress a bloom once it is present, and mitigation is more in the realm of warning people that a bloom is there

and making sure they don’t eat shellfish or come into contact with

the water and get sick. Dr. Anderson mentioned a little bit about

these techniques, especially the control techniques, are not very

well advanced and that is one of the reasons why we have initiated

this prevention, control and mitigation program to get more research dollars applied to that. They can include techniques like

spreading of clay, which is a very common technique in the Far

East around aquaculture facilities. They coagulate the bloom and

it settles out. They can include things like viruses or bacteria, disease agents that are put out, just like we do for various infestations in forests, introduce bacteria to control caterpillar growth. So

those, you know, are some of the aspects of those programs that

really require additional research. One of the big mitigation areas

of research is this forecasting where we give people warning or resource managers warning so that a Dan Ayres can have much more

lead time in the decisions he has to make in terms of opening and

closing a beach for razor clams, or the forecast that we issued

through Don Anderson’s research in New England this year that

gave managers there a heads up that they would need to gear up

and have more staff on board in order to deal with a red tide, a

big red tide, which in fact did come, and they were very appreciative of that advanced warning, and that allowed them to mitigate the impacts.

Mr. INGLIS. Who is it that makes the decision? Who makes the

call on those kind of, what course to pursue?

Dr. MAGNIEN. Most of the decisions on the front lines are State

resource managers, again, those folks like Dan Ayres, a shellfish

manager, a public health official. Some of that is made at the county level. County health officials are empowered with closing water

bodies. We have seen that happen in certain areas, especially with

beach closures: water contacts recreation. So it is usually at the

State and local level where those decisions are made but those are

the same people that lack the tools and the resources to support

those decisions, and that is what we are trying to provide to them.

Mr. INGLIS. Great. Thanks.

And Dr. Anderson, why is there so little research into control and

mitigation?

Dr. ANDERSON. Well, I tried to address that in my written testimony. I even have an annex there which is telling because it is a

commentary I wrote in the journal Nature more than 10 years ago

about that exact question: Why is it that progress is so slow? And

as I said, we are not that much further along now. The answers

are several, and one of them truly is that without a targeted program that has money explicitly and specifically for, let us say,

bloom control, then scientists will tend to propose more safe research, things that are fundamental science, that build on what

81

they have done before. In my own lab, I put an entire Ph.D. student into the use of clay to control these red tide organisms. That

student has struggled to find funding as he moved along, and he

has actually left the field. It is very sad to say that. But as much

as that seems like where the money should be coming from, it has

been difficult to get funding for actual transitioning of these lab

technologies to the field, and part of it is also that we have permitting issues. And scientists, I guess we are just not used to having

to say ‘‘In order to do this particular line of research, I need to go

get permits from the state, from the Corps of Engineers, from the

EPA.’’ They need to do all these things and they are all going to

be asked for more data, and that tends to slow down progress dramatically. So there are a number of steps that I think can be alleviated by this program that we propose, this PCM HAB program, because it has development stages, developing the technologies, and

it has demonstration and transitioning stages so that you take

something all the way and with substantial resources for all of

those steps.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Mr. Mack.

COMMENTS FROM REPRESENTATIVE MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to thank the Ranking Member for having me and letting me join today, and

I also want to thank all of you for being here and your testimony. First of all, a little bit about me, I guess, and why I have an in- terest in this, but I grew up in southwest Florida, Fort Myers,

where I spent most of my childhood when I wasn’t in school and

sports at the beach on the water enjoying fishing and water skiing

and just enjoying the outdoors in southwest Florida, and one of the

main economic drivers of southwest Florida is people coming down

to come to the beach and have a little vacation and rest and relaxation. I also have a cousin who works at Woods Hole as a scientist,

and we were talking one day that I decided I was going to run for

Congress and we were talking about red tide. Frankly, we were

talking about it because we were out at the beach—— Chairman BAIRD. He didn’t mean that in a political sense, of

course.

Mr. MACK. Yeah. We were at the beach and we were talking about how again growing up we would have red tide blooms, I

guess you would call it, that would come around once a year sometime in August, last for four to seven, maybe 10 days, and that was

it, and now we see red tide blooms that are off the coast of Florida

that will last 13, 14 months straight. And so we started talking

about things that we thought we could focus on and how to make

the process a little bit better, and a couple of things that we talked

about and that I think are very important. And I want to again

commend the Committee for taking this up and trying to move forward with the legislation that I think will have a huge impact, but

I wanted to see if there was a way to stop duplication of research

because funding is so limited that if there is a peer review organization, a group that can look at the research that is being done,

who is looking to get research dollars, we would have some mechanism to ensure that we are not duplicating research, and for me,

82

having been in politics a little bit before I even ran for this office,

you know, all of us want to try to bring home those dollars to our

district, so for me, the Florida Gulf Coast University or Moat Marine, you know, we all end up finding ourselves trying to get the

dollars so we can go back home and say we are trying to do something to help, but in the long run, is that really helping us further

research into red tide if we are splitting up the available funds and

really not having a consistent funding mechanism? So the peer review process was important, not duplicating research, consistency

of funding, and I am sure that is something all of you deal with.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, you will have research projects that

will be moving along nicely and then funds run out and they have

to stop, and so that stopping and starting and stopping and starting hinders the progress made in research. And the last thing that

we talked about was a reporting process that right now there is so

much reporting requirements that I am not saying that we should

do away with reporting at all. What I am suggesting is, we need

to do a better job of streamlining those reports so you can really

spend more time doing the research, spend less resources in doing

the reports that are required but at the same time, given the committee of oversight, given those who need to have the information

to determination whether or not we are being successful, and what

changes might need to be made.

So these have been the thought process and the ideas that I have

had for some time and I am very pleased that the Committee is

moving forward with this, Mr. Chairman, and I just wondered if I

could make one other statement. We talk a lot about mitigation.

We talk a lot about, you know, what can we do and what nutrients

have really kind of pumped up and kind of, you know, energized

these events. We still need to get back to trying to figure out what

causes it in the first place, and we recognize that the red tide

events that happen in the Gulf of Mexico will be different from

what happens in the inland waterways, but if we solely focus our

energies, Mr. Chairman, on just how to mitigate and warn people,

I think we are missing the point. Really what we need to do is try

to find out how it starts and that is going to give us the best place

to start with, how to control it, and then I will end with this, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you for your patience. Someone said who makes

the call. I think maybe it was the Ranking Member. Who makes

the call on closing the beach? And I wrote a note down to myself,

the one who drew the short straw because that person is never the

popular one, although it is very important for the safety of our

community.

So again, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on your efforts in this legislation, and again, I want to thank the panelists

for being here.

Chairman BAIRD. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and his initiative on this. He has been a champion of this

for an issue that, as I mentioned earlier, is not sort of a politically—you know, if you do a poll, this is not going to come up on

most people’s radar screen very high, but for areas like Mr. Mack’s,

that of his childhood and his current district, and parts of mine,

this is a profoundly important issue and it deserves the kind of atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
83

tention that has gotten, and again, I acknowledge Mr. Ehlers and

Ms. Castor as well.

THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF HYPOXIA AND HABS

I want to follow up a little bit on a couple of the points Mr. Mack

made. Let me talk for just a second about the economics of it. He

talked about the impact on his district and on his state. Repeat

real quickly the economic costs, the best estimate of economic cost

we have got in terms of both hypoxia and harmful algal blooms. Do

we have any? I mean, in our state, Mr. Ayres, you threw out some

numbers.

Mr. AYRES. Well, yeah. I mean, I threw out some numbers, and it depends on the fishery that is being affected. We do have—

NOAA recently funded a study on the razor clam fishery specifically and what would be lost, and that number was much higher

than we would have expected, in the neighborhood of $16 million

to the coastal economy, and that is to the small communities that

you know so well. Sixteen million dollars to the state’s economy is

not a big deal but to these—well, I don’t know, Governor Gregoire

may disagree, but to our small coastal communities, that is a big

hit to them, so it really depends on the scale you want to look at

and how that plays out, but it is a big—- Chairman BAIRD. The local hotel owners tell me it is their season.

Mr. AYRES. Yeah, exactly. Chairman BAIRD. In our coastal area, you know, you could rent your garage when the clam season——

Mr. AYRES. And you are right. I mean, it is not a big deal on peo- ple’s radar screen until it doesn’t happen, and then when it doesn’t

happen and they realize what they don’t have—— Chairman BAIRD. That raises the other side of the issue—and I

think I know the answer to this and I am going to guess the answer is ‘‘more.’’ But if the question were, what do you think are

necessary—other than just something more, what kind of funding

levels do you think, and let us assume that some of the kind of

intervention approaches, control and mitigation strategies, some of

the immediate response kind of things, what kind of numbers

should we be talking about relative to what we have been spending

on research and control, et cetera if we were to make a national

effort commensurate with the importance of the issue for human

health, aquatic health and weather? Any thoughts?

Dr. SCAVIA. I will take a partial shot at that, partially because

I used to run the program that Rob Magnien runs and he can’t answer this question so I will for him. I think the overall program

focused on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, the NOAA part of it

to fund the research, prevention, remediation needs to be at least

$40 million a year, and that is actually not a lot more than what

they are doing now, but I think that is the level we need to bring

it up to. I don’t know if Dr. Anderson has additional from the pure

mitigation side.

Dr. ANDERSON. Not just from the pure mitigation side but if you

look at the back of the, we call it the RDDTT report, R–D–D–T–

T, we actually try to break this down into costs for ECOHAB, for

MERHAB, for PCM and so forth. We even broke it down into freshVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:13 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 051929 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\091709\51929 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
84

water versus marine, and that is when you get up to these numbers that are $40 million a year, so that was at least our first shot

at it.

Chairman BAIRD. A conscientious effort to say what is a realistic number.

Dr. ANDERSON. Yes, and we do acknowledge that if we are going to try, for example, some of these control methods, some of them

could be extraordinarily expensive, much more than we give out in

a lot of these targeted research grants. If you are going to try to

control a red tide over a few, let us say, square miles or so, it could

cost a $1 million just by itself. So on the control and mitigation

side, the costs might go up the closer we get to demonstration

projects.

POTENTIAL CHANGES AT EPA

Chairman BAIRD. To punctuate that, though, a little bit, you know, if you have got a—a couple years ago we had these hearings.

We talked about municipal water supplies for major cities that had

blue-green algae, and you can literally overnight have an all-handson-deck crisis situation where your community is instantly out of

most of its water, and the costs of dealing with that and the lack

of the remediation strategy, the lack of a testimony strategy could

be—suddenly the most important thing on your mind is, what you

are going to do with that? Not to put you on the spot, Ms.

Schwartz, but is EPA—what can do EPA do better—let me phrase

it that way—in the freshwater realm here, and not only the freshwater realm as freshwater per se but as a contributor to the ultimate marine environment?

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Well, I think there are certainly things we could be doing better. We are looking actively at different ways that we

can be more effective in controlling non-point sources in particular

of nutrients. We are looking actually—you know, most everybody

else here has been talking about control and mitigation of the

blooms themselves. Our focus has really been more on addressing

the nutrients, getting to the sources so that hopefully we would

prevent the blooms from being at least as frequent or as serious as

they are, and I would offer, although I don’t have a figure to give

you, that the figures that have been thrown around don’t include

the costs of prevention in that sense. We are working closely with

USDA on a number of things, and I would urge you in fact as you

are looking at your legislation to think about the different agencies

that really do need to participate because, again, if you are going

to get to the underlying causes, certainly USDA is a huge player

in the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. They are just about to announce

some exciting new efforts to try to address the particular sources

or the hottest sources, at least, in the upper Midwest as well as

along the Mississippi to address the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of

Mexico. So we think that there is a need to bring everybody in. And

if you look at what we are going to be proposing shortly in the

Chesapeake Bay, we have really looked very seriously. There is a

huge nutrients and sediments issue there as well. We are looking

very closely at what steps we can take, whether it is to increase

the activities we regulate under the Clean Water Act, more CAFOs,

concentrated animal feeding operations, whether those numbers

85

should come down in terms of how many animals are considered

a regulated point source, looking at stormwater discharges and how

those are regulated. Obviously when we have permitting authority

or the state has permitting authority, you could control what is released much more readily than when you don’t have that authority,

as is the case for most non-point sources.

Chairman BAIRD. And it seems from what you are saying earlier, it seems to me this non-point source issue is huge, especially with

agriculture and urban runoff. Is that a fair appraisal? And that if

you were just to do the pie chart kind of model of what percentage

of the cause—I mean, algal blooms have been here for a long time

and, you know, it has not just started now but they seem to be

worsening and they seem to be growing, so too with areas of hypoxia. There seems to be a consensus that these nutrient issues,

much of it from non-point sources, a substantial portion from ag,

is a contributor to the downstream consequences. Is that a fair portrayal? I am not going to ask you to put a number on it but a fair

portrayal. So we have to address that, how we deal with the nonpoint sources.

Mr. Mack, I am going to have to leave shortly but I want to give you a chance to follow up with any questions you might have.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

RESEARCH FUNDING ON THE CAUSES OF HABS AND

HYPOXIA

I guess to try to narrow this down, on one side I think the Com- mittee and the Congress needs to find a way to ensure that the appropriate amount of funding is available and that we are not duplicating research, as I said, and that it is consistent. I guess I would

love to hear from whoever would like to answer it but how much

of the research dollars that are available now are going to, or what

percentage of it is going to actually trying to identify not what

makes the bloom larger but how the bloom began in the first place,

and I know that it is a little difficult. Of course, I am interested

in the Gulf of Mexico but I know it is a little difficult because all

the algae blooms are different in different parts so they may have

different causes but do we have a good understanding of that?

Dr. MAGNIEN. Yeah, I am glad you asked that question because I didn’t want to leave the impression that these programs that you

have heard so much about, the ECOHAB, prevention, control and

mitigation don’t deal with that. In fact, they do. The ECOHAB program is looking at the fundamental processes that generate these

blooms and we need to understand that in order to prescribe some

kind of a preventative solution. You know, we would like to prevent

as many of these blooms as possible. So the ECOHAB program

looks at that. The prevention, control and mitigation—I talked

about the control and mitigation because Representative Inglis

asked me about that—but prevention is also, the P is prevention.

That gets at, you know, what is the cause and understanding that.

In your area in Florida, we have a huge project ongoing now to look

at that. It has been a very controversial issue. A lot of people say

we can’t control it, we can only mitigate, but we are putting in

some large dollars, a multi-million-dollar grant now to continue to

investigate that question as to whether there are ways either to

86

lessen the severity. Some people say that maybe we can’t control

the initiation, but some of the local sources of nutrient pollution enhance it and prolong it, so we are very much looking at that as well

as the economic impacts. You heard a little bit about that. We have

sort of piecemeal information. We know there are big impacts in

certain areas and certain blooms, up to $50 million or more, but

we don’t have comprehensive numbers and that economic impact

will help guide where we put some of our effort in terms of research on these issues as well.

Mr. MACK. Anybody else want to—yes, Dr. Anderson.

Dr. ANDERSON. The HAB forecasts that we have been able to do

in the northeast region, and in fact with your cousin being actively

involved in that, are based on exactly what you are looking for. We

have identified the source of our blooms. We know that there are

beds of these dormant cells in certain locations in the Gulf of

Maine and we have over the years learned that if we can map

those out and count them, then that gives us a very good indication

of what the next year’s red tide will be like. So there we have identified the source and understand the linkage to the subsequent

blooms. The challenges, well, other than using that for forecasting,

could we somehow use that source information in an actual bloom

control strategy? That is where it truly becomes challenging because yes, there are mechanisms. In my lab we actually mate toxic

and nontoxic cells of this HAB organism and produce a nonviable

cell from that. It is like a sterile fruit fly. But the question to all

of you would be, can you imagine me trying to propose to put an

introduced organism into the Gulf of Maine in huge numbers to do

this? The societal challenge of doing that is dramatic, even though

the technology might suggest a way to step from that knowledge

of the source to a control mechanism. That is where we need to

move forward, to take that knowledge and that little bit of laboratory science and figure out a way to get it out into the field.

Mr. MACK. Thank you.

Yes, ma’am.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. One thing I would like to point out is, if you look

at what has been done for the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, the Department of Interior, the USGS actually did some mapping and

some modeling. It is called the Sparrow Model and it actually

shows the level of concentration provided to the Mississippi River

so you can actually identify where the largest contributions are

coming from, both separately for nitrogen and for phosphorus from

within the basin, and that is something that we feel is really going

to be helpful to us in order to target—again, we are never going

to have enough resources to take care of everything all at once, but

to target the greatest sources. So we think work like that can be

done. EPA is putting in probably about $4 million to $5 million a

year specifically on hypoxia in both HABs research and implementation activities. We have a lot of other efforts underway on nutrients more broadly but without the ability to really target where the

source is and without, you know, some sort of regulatory or voluntary program to make sure that it is addressed, it is really hard

to do much.

Mr. MACK. And Mr. Chairman, I know you have got to go but I

just wanted—you know, these events, these red tide events can

87

cripple communities like, you know, Sanibel Island, Florida. You

get an algae bloom off of Sanibel and it just has a devastating impact on the quality of life of the residents and tourism, and so

again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend you for your efforts.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Mack. That is why we intend

to try to move this legislation forward with alacrity. I appreciate

the input of the panelists. We hope to incorporate many of your

suggestions in the revision that we will bring up for markup, hopefully soon. I thank you for your expertise and your work.

CLOSING

The record of this hearing will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from Members and for answers to any followup questions the Subcommittee may ask. The witnesses are again

thanked for their expertise and their participation, and with that,

the hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ