HAB RDDTT

National Workshop Report

A Plan for Reducing

 HABs and HAB Impacts

Harmful

Algal

Bloom 

Research,

Development,

Demonstration, &

Technology

Transfer
ii HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report

Cover Photo Credits

Background: Cochlodinium polykrikoides bloom in Virginia. Photo courtesy of Christy 

Everett, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 

Upper left inset: Fish kill due to Prymnesium parvum bloom on Lake Granbury in Texas. 

Photo courtesy of Joan Glass, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 

Upper right inset: Fish kill along Padre Island, Texas during 2006 Karenia bloom. Photo 

courtesy of Alex Nunez, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Middle inset: Emergency shellfish harvesting closure sign. Photo courtesy of Washington 

State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Lower left inset: A mussel cage used in the Washington Department of Health’s Sentinel 

Mussel Biotoxin Monitoring Program, photo courtesy of Liz Cox-Bolin and Frank Cox. 

Lower right inset: Filtering for microcystin analysis in Lake Erie, photo courtesy of Steve 

Wilhelm. 

This document should be cited as follows: 

HAB RDDTT. 2008. Harmful Algal Bloom Research, Development, Demonstration, and 

Technology Transfer National Workshop Report. Dortch, Q., Anderson, D.M., Ayres, D.L., 

Glibert, P.M. (Eds)., Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
HAB Ressearch, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report iii

Table of Contents

Page 

vi List of Boxes

v List of Acronyms

1 Executive Summary

5 Chapter 1. Introduction

13 Chapter 2. Prevention, Control, and Mitigation Workgroup Report

27 Chapter 3. Event Response Workgroup Report

39 Chapter 4. Core Infrastructure Workgroup Report

55 Chapter 5. Implementation Plan

59 References

63 Appendix I. RDDTT Workshop Steering Committee

65 Appendix II. RDDTT Workshop Invitees

67 Appendix III. RDDTT Workshop Agenda
iv HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report

1 Box 1. RDDTT Program elements

3 Box 2. Outline of RDDTT components

5 Box 3. Major HAB events in U.S. coastal waters and the Great Lakes

5 Box 4. Locations of freshwater cyanobacterial HAB outbreaks documented in the 

United States

6 Box 5 Potential impacts of global change on HABs

7 Box 6. Structure and interactions of activities to prioritize HAB research and 

management in the United States

8 Box 7. Reports and plans providing guidance for U.S. HAB research and 

response 

10 Box 8. Agencies involved in HAB research and response

11 Box 9. The HARRNESS and HARR-HD reports

12 Box 10. Examples of operational products

18 Box 11. Examples of circumstances leading to human health impacts from HABs

20 Box 12. Traversing the Valley of Death

21 Box 13. Diagrammatic representation of PCM structure

32 Box 14. Diagram of proposed Event Response component, focus on National 

Coordination

35 Box 15. Diagram of proposed Event Response component, focus on 

Regional Coordination

36 Box 16. Diagram of proposed Event Response component, focus on State 

Response

37 Box 17. Oregon Interagency Task Force on Cyanobacteria

39 Box 18. Summary of infrastructure needs from HARRNESS

41 Box 19. The availability of selected marine and freshwater HAB toxins

45 Box 20. Purpose of specimen banking

47 Box 21. Importance of public data

48 Box 22. Maryland Chesapeake Bay monitoring and assessment of HABs and 

environmental conditions

49 Box 23. Developing observing systems have identified HAB monitoring and 

prediction as a significant benefit

51 Box 24. Newsletters such as this one on Maryland HAB trends are useful in 

conveying information to general audiences

52 Box 25. Diagram of Core Infrastructure Program

56 Box 26. Funding levels for RDDTT and other national HAB programs, authorized 

by HABHRCA 2004 and proposed to address future needs

List of Boxes

 Page 
HAB Ressearch, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report v

ART Analytical Response Team

CCMA NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and 

Assessment, NOAA 

CCMP Culture Collection for Marine Phytoplankton

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFP Ciguatera Fish Poisoning 

CICEET Cooperative Institute for Coastal and 

Estuarine Environmental Technology

CSCOR NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal 

Ocean Research, NOAA

CUAHSI Consortium of Universities for the 

Advancement of Hydrologic Science

CYANONET Global Network for the Hazard 

Management of Cyanobacterial Blooms and Toxins 

in Water Resources

DMAC Data Management and Communication

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid

DOD United States Department of Defense

ECOHAB Ecology and Oceanography of HABs 

Program at NOAA

EPA United States Environmental Protection 

Agency

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GEOHAB Global Ecology and Oceanography of 

HABs

GIS Geographic Information System

GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory at NOAA

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System

HAB Harmful Algal Bloom

HABHRCA Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act

HABISS Harmful Algal Bloom Illness Surveillance 

System at CDC

HAE-DAT Harmful Algal Event Database

HARR-HD Harmful Algal Research and Response: 

A Human Dimensions Strategy

HARRNESS Harmful Algal Research and 

Response: a National Environmental Science 

Strategy

ICS Incident Command System

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System

ISOCHAB Interagency, International Symposium 

on Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms

IWG-4H Interagency Working Group on Harmful 

Algal Blooms, Hypoxia and Human Health

JSOST Joint Subcommittee on Science and 

Technology

KAP Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions

LTER Long Term Ecological Research

MERHAB Monitoring and Event Response for 

HABs Program at NOAA

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NBSB National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science

NCEH National Center for Environmental Health at 

CDC

NEON National Ecological Observatory Network

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve 

System

NHC National HAB Committee

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NRC National Research Council of Canada

NRC-CRMP National Research Council Certified 

Reference Materials Program

NSF National Science Foundation

ONR Office of Naval Research

OOI Ocean Observatories Initiative (ORION)

ORHAB Olympic Region HAB Partnership

PCM Prevention, Control and Mitigation

List of Acronyms

(List of acronyms continued on next page)
vi HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report

PEET Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in 

Taxonomy

R&D Research and Development

RDDTT Research, Development, Demonstration 

and Technology Transfer

RNA Ribonucleic acid

UME Unusual Mortality Event

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, 

and Cultural Organization

USCG United States Coast Guard

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UTEX University of Texas Starr culture collection

WGUMMME Working Group on Unusual Marine 

Mammal Mortality Events

List of Acronyms

(continued)
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 1

Executive 

 Summary

Background

The marine and freshwaters of many countries are increasingly impacted by 

the environmental and socioeconomic problem 

of harmful algal blooms (HABs). HABs are 

proliferations of marine and freshwater algae that 

can produce toxins or accumulate in sufficient 

numbers to alter ecosystems in detrimental ways. 

These blooms are often referred to as “red tides,” 

but it is now recognized that they may also be 

green, yellow, brown, or even without visible color, 

depending on the type and number of organisms 

present. 

In U.S. waters, HABs are found in expanding 

numbers of locations and are also increasing in 

duration and severity. Further, HAB species or 

impacts have emerged that pose new threats to 

human and ecosystem health in particular regions. 

The expansion in HABs has led to increased 

awareness of impacts such as poisonous 

seafood, toxin-contaminated drinking water, and 

mortality of fish and other animals (including 

protected and endangered species), public health 

and economic impacts in coastal and lakeside 

communities, losses to aquaculture enterprises, 

and long-term aquatic ecosystem changes.

The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act (HABHRCA 1998) 

established research programs to address the 

U.S. HAB problem. When HABHRCA was 

reauthorized and expanded to include freshwater 

HABs in 2004 (HABHRCA 2004), it required 

four interagency reports and plans to assess 

U.S. HAB problems and update priorities 

for Federal research and response programs. 

The first report, the National Assessment of 

Efforts to Predict and Respond to Harmful 

Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters (Prediction 

and Response Report1), assesses the extent 

of the HAB problem in the United States, 

details Federal, state, and tribal prediction and 

response programs, emphasizing Federal efforts, 

and highlights opportunities to improve HAB 

prediction and response efforts and associated 

infrastructure. 

This Workshop Report provides a strategy in 

response to the needs outlined in the Prediction and 

Response Report1. It also addresses priorities laid 

out in the Harmful Algal Research and Response 

National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-

2015 (HARRNESS)2, as well as other recent 

marine and freshwater HAB reports called for 

by HABHRCA 2004 or developed by the HAB 

management and research community. The 

National Scientific Development, Demonstration, 

and Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts 

from Harmful Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan), 

called for by HABHRCA 2004, is derived from 

this Workshop Report, and appears as the final 

chapter in Harmful Algal Bloom Management and 

Response: Assessment and Plan 3. 

Process for Developing the RDDTT 

Plan

Input for the RDDTT Plan was solicited from 

both the marine and freshwater HAB research and 

management communities during a workshop in 

Box 1. RDDTT Program elements.

The diagram below illustrates the relationship of the 

three elements of the RDDTT Program with other HAB 

research and response programs. The RDDTT program 

is the practical “apex” of these research and development 

activities, and addresses the goals of protecting public 

health, economies, communities, ecosystems and 

fisheries. All programs build on HARRNESS2.

C

Other

agencies

ECOHAB

Oceans &

Sea Human Health

Grant

MERHAB

PCM

Protect

Ecosystems

and Fisheries

Protect

Public health,

Economies and

Communities

Core

Infrastructure

Core

Infrastructure

Event Response

Event Response

Regional Assessments

Harmful Algal Research

and Response - A National Environmental Science

PCM PCM

Stra et gy
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 2

Executive Summary

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, June 22-25, 2007. 

This RDDTT Workshop Report summarizes the 

current status of the field, recommends a program 

to improve HAB prediction and response, and 

suggests an implementation process. 

The workshop attendees proposed approaches 

for an RDDTT Program with three essential 

components:1) an extramural funding program 

focused on development, demonstration, 

and technology transfer of methods for 

prevention, control, and mitigation (PCM), 2) a 

comprehensive national HAB Event Response 

Program, and 3) a Core Infrastructure Program 

to support HAB research and response. All three 

components require social science research and 

call for the meaningful engagement of at-risk and 

affected communities. These components are 

interdependent and collectively are critical for 

improving future HAB response (Box 1).

Prevention, Control, and Mitigation 

(PCM) 

The PCM component of the RDDTT Program 

focuses on moving promising technologies and 

strategies from development to demonstration 

and technology transfer for field application 

by end-users. The technologies will arise from 

HAB research conducted by programs such as 

the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal 

Blooms (ECOHAB), Monitoring and Event 

Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB), 

Sea Grant, and Oceans and Human Health 

programs. The PCM program will support projects 

in three distinct stages. 1) The Development

phase (Phase 1) advances and evaluates unproven 

but promising PCM technologies and strategies. 

2) The Demonstration phase (Phase 2) tests, 

validates and evaluates new technologies in the 

field across a broad temporal and spatial scale. 

3) The Technology Transfer phase (Phase 3) 

facilitates the transition of technologies and 

strategies to end-users. End-users, including 

local, state, and Federal resource and public health 

managers, nonprofit organizations, and a variety 

of businesses must be involved in all three phases. 

Projects can enter the extramural PCM program 

at any phase and would be selected through 

peer review competition. Socially responsible 

development and effective implementation are 

ensured by the inclusion of social science research 

in all phases.

Many promising options or strategies are 

already available to feed into the three PCM 

stages. Example focal areas within the prevention

category include modifications of hydrodynamic 

conditions that are conducive to HAB formation 

and methods to avoid introducing HAB cells and 

cysts as invasive species. Several methods of 

control, or bloom suppression, through the removal 

of HAB cells or toxins by biological, chemical, 

or mechanical means are ready for further 

investigation. For example, mechanical removal 

by clay flocculation is one approach that has 

already been tested in pilot field studies, so may 

be ready for further Phase 2 evaluation. Similarly, 

biological control methods, for example pathogens 

specific for individual HAB organisms may be 

ready for Phase 1 development or Phase 2 testing. 

These efforts should be pursued in conjunction 

with research in risk communication in order to 

foster public understanding, trust, and participation 

in decision making about bloom control strategies. 

Many opportunities exist to apply mitigation 

strategies that can reduce the impacts of HABs. A 

few examples include new methods of monitoring 

and forecasting HAB cells and toxins; maintaining 

safe seafood, water, and beaches by limiting 

exposure to HABs and their toxins; preventing 

and treating human, as well as animal, disease 

syndromes; assessing the socioeconomic impacts 

of HABs and the effectiveness of PCM strategies; 

and advancing education and outreach.

Event Response

Management responses to HAB events to protect 

human and animal health and coastal economies 

usually occur at the state and local levels. 

However, HAB events can occur suddenly and 

overwhelm existing event response capabilities, 

especially in the case of a newly emerging HAB 

problem or a large-scale or persistent event. 

Although such events pose major management 

challenges, they also provide an unequalled 

opportunity to improve understanding of the causes 

and consequences of HABs in order to advance 

future HAB response efforts. Current Federal HAB 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 3

Executive Summary

event response programs are effective 

for assisting managers and adding 

to the knowledge base, but are not 

adequate for the scale of the problems 

they must sometimes manage. For 

example, these programs were nearly 

overwhelmed in 2005 when multiple 

major U.S. HAB events occurred in 

different regions within several months 

of each other. Furthermore, Federal 

and state response programs are 

currently not well positioned to address 

anticipated increases in HAB frequency 

or intensity. 

In response to these perceived 

needs, the proposed Event Response

component of the RDDTT Program 

improves access to existing resources 

through better information sharing, 

communication, and coordination and 

provides essential new resources. A 

regionally based, Federal HAB Event 

Response Program is proposed with 

National Marine and Freshwater HAB 

Coordinators, possibly residing in the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), linked to a network of Regional 

HAB Coordinators. Coordinators 

would maintain web sites cataloging regionally 

available resources, assist in developing regional 

response plans, organize training and informationsharing workshops, and provide coordination 

during events if requested by regional, state, or 

local authorities. The Regional Coordinators 

would also request resources from other regions 

and, if needed, request funding from a national 

Event Response Contingency Fund, modeled after 

the current small NOAA Event Response Program 

(http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/

hab/current/fact-ev_resp.html). With this program 

in place a national Technical Assistance Fund 

would provide extramural funds for activities 

designed to improve response to future events; 

activities would be selected by competitive peer 

review.

Core Infrastructure

Advances both in basic knowledge and in 

methods and tools have led to significant new 

opportunities for responding to HABs to reduce or 

prevent their impacts. However, as HAB research 

and response has matured, the infrastructure 

needs of the community have also increased. 

These core infrastructure requirements form 

the foundation upon which the science and its 

management applications depend. Many of the 

associated costs are far greater than can be borne 

by individual investigators or end-users. The needs 

for critical infrastructure were identified in the 

first HAB National Plan in 19934 and are strongly 

reiterated in HARRNESS2, the revised national 

plan for 2005-2015. Thus, a Core Infrastructure 

Program is proposed. 

Researching and implementing new PCM 

strategies and improving event response will not 

Box 2. Outline of RDDTT components. 

1. Prevention, Control, and Mitigation

a. Move promising technologies and strategies, arising from 

other HAB research programs, to end-users

b. Three phases: development (Phase 1), demonstration (Phase 

2), technology transfer to end-users (Phase 3)

c. Competitive, peer reviewed research initiative*

2. Event Response

a. Provide immediate assistance during events and improve 

response capacity** 

b. National and regional coordinators and regional network of 

resources***

c. Contingency Fund—expanded from and modeled after 

current Event Response (http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/

extremeevents/hab/current/fact-ev_resp.html)

d. Technical Assistance Fund—competitive peer reviewed 

extramural program* to enhance response capacity

3. Core Infrastructure

a. Increase availability of analytical facilities and reference 

and research materials, improve integration of HAB activities 

with existing monitoring and emerging observational programs, 

enhance communication and coordination

b. National and regional coordinators and regional network of 

resources***

c. Competitive peer reviewed extramural funding program* to 

develop and support infrastructure

*Structure of competitive peer review may vary to suit the purpose of the 

program

**Requests for assistance would most likely come from state, local or tribal 

governments.

***Coordinators for event response and infrastructure can be the same 

people. In phased implementation, the National Coordinators would be put 

in place first and Regional Coordinators would be added in next phase.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 4

Executive Summary

be possible without enhancing core infrastructure, 

including 1) increasing availability of adequate 

analytical facilities, reference and research 

materials, toxin standards, culture collections, 

tissue banks, technical training, and access to data, 

2) improving integration of HAB activities with 

existing monitoring and emerging observational 

programs, and 3) enhancing communication 

and regional and national coordination. Two 

complementary approaches are proposed 

to accomplish these goals: 1) establish an 

interagency, competitive, peer reviewed 

extramural funding program that will support core 

infrastructure needs and 2) develop a regional 

infrastructure network with national and regional 

coordinators to leverage existing resources, 

encourage coordination, and foster active 

communications with users and stake holders 

within and between regions.

RDDTT Program Implementation

Implementation of the three components of the 

RDDTT Program, summarized in Boxes 1 and 

2, is proposed in phases in order to address the 

most immediate needs and build programs in an 

orderly manner based on accomplishments. In 

the first phase (FY 2009-2013) the PCM Program 

component should be fully implemented and the 

Event Response and Core Infrastructure Programs 

partially implemented. In the next phase (FY 

2014-FY2018), the latter two programs can be fully 

implemented. 

Implementation requires both changes in 

legislation authorizing HAB research and response 

programs and in corresponding appropriations. 

NOAA and EPA will be expected to take lead roles 

because of NOAA’s mandates concerning marine, 

Great Lake, and estuarine waters, and EPA’s 

mandates concerning clean recreational waters, 

shellfish bed protection, and safe drinking waters. 

Separate authorization and appropriation will be 

necessary to establish both marine and freshwater 

HAB programs because of differing authorizing 

Congressional committee purviews, although 

they should be coordinated. When HABHRCA 

is reauthorized, the RDDTT Program should 

be listed along with the existing ECOHAB and 

MERHAB Programs, and the three components 

of the RDDTT Program need to be individually 

specified. To fully implement the RDDTT Program 

requires funding of $6.5 million (FY 08) to $10.5 

million (FY 13) authorized and appropriated 

for each of the marine and freshwater RDDTT 

Programs. Since many agencies—such as the 

National Science Foundation, Food and Drug 

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Office of Naval Research, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institutes of Health, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. 

Geological Survey—are also involved in HAB 

research and response1, it will be necessary to 

specify that the RDDTT Program is an interagency 

program and that funds be appropriated to facilitate 

the participation of other agencies with a major 

role. Most of the components of the RDDTT 

Program can be instituted through peer reviewed, 

competitive programs, but the coordinators and 

regional networks will be part of Federal HAB 

programs and the Event Response Program will 

be modeled after current event response programs. 

This report provides specific guidance about needs 

and priorities for each of the three components of 

the RDDTT Program.

Benefits of Implementing the RDDTT 

Program

Full implementation of all components of an 

RDDTT Program as outlined in this report will 

yield many benefits for public health and resource 

managers and for residents, resource users, 

businesses, and other stake holders in at-risk and 

affected coastal communities. It will also address 

many of the frustrations people living in HABimpacted communities experience and will provide 

them with new strategies to deal with the problems.

Full implementation will not be simple and will 

require substantial investment. The socioeconomic 

costs of not addressing these needs, however, 

greatly exceed the initial investment. The fullyimplemented RDDTT Program will link science 

and management to achieve vastly improved 

mitigation, control, prevention, and education. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 5

Introduction 

Chapter 1 Introduction

By Q. Dortch, P. Glibert, E. Jewett and C. Lopez

1.A. The Increasing Magnitude of the 

U.S. HAB Problem

The marine and freshwaters of the United 

States and those of many countries throughout the 

world are increasingly impacted by the growing 

environmental problem of HABs. HABs are 

proliferations of marine and freshwater algae 

(including cyanobacteria and non-photosynthetic 

algae-like organisms) that can produce toxins, 

causing human illness and massive animal 

mortalities, or accumulate in sufficient numbers 

to alter ecosystems in detrimental ways. These 

blooms are often referred to as “red tides”, but it 

is now recognized that HABs may also be green, 

yellow, brown, or even without visible color.

Like much of the world’s coastlines, nearshore 

marine waters of the United States have 

experienced increases in the number, frequency, 

and type of HABs in recent years. Freshwaters 

are also experiencing more HAB events, with 

increasing fears for drinking water contamination 

and recreational exposure. Impacts include human 

illness and mortality following direct consumption 

or indirect exposure to toxic shellfish or toxins in 

the environment, as well as dramatic fish, bird, 

turtle, and mammal mortalities. Closure of beaches 

and fisheries to protect public health can result in 

loss of recreational opportunities, disruption of 

subsistence activities and cultural practices, conflict 

among resource users, loss of community identity 

tied to coastal resource use, and social stress in 

affected families and communities5. Economic 

costs associated with public health, fisheries, 

recreation, and tourism impacts, as well as 

diversion of funds to monitoring and management 

can be significant for local communities6. 

Equally important are the devastating impacts 

HABs may have on 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. 

Whereas thirty years ago these problems were 

scattered and sporadic, today virtually every 

Box 3. Major HAB events in U.S. coastal 

waters and the Great Lakes.

Box 4. Cyanobacterial HAB outbreaks in the 

United States.

The map shows the approximate location of some 

freshwater cyanobacterial HAB outbreaks documented 

in the United States. Dots are geneographically general 

representations of outbreaks and may represent events 

occurring in more than one waterbody within a state 

(from the Freshwater HAB Report13). 

Image Source: NOAA and D.M. Anderson
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 6

Chapter 1

U.S. state is threatened by harmful or toxic algal 

species (Boxes 3 and 4). Other global changes may 

exacerbate this problem (Box 5). This increased 

threat has placed an unprecedented strain on state 

programs, which must increase responsibilities with 

shrinking budgets and personnel. In short, HABs 

are leading to increased concern about poisonous 

seafood, toxin-contaminated drinking water, 

mortality of fish, endangered species, and other 

animals, economic impacts to coastal and lakeside 

communities, losses to aquaculture enterprises, 

strain on shrinking state and local resources and 

long-term aquatic ecosystem changes. 

1.B. Addressing the HAB Issue

The U.S. HAB research and management 

community is well organized, with a long history of 

careful planning to improve HAB response (Boxes 

6 and 7). Many different Federal agencies address 

the HAB problem through a variety of extramural 

and intramural research programs (Box 8). The 

priorities for these research programs are guided 

by numerous reports and plans (Box 7), especially 

the Harmful Algal Research and Response 

National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-

2015 (HARRNESS)2 and the reports developed in 

response to the 2004 reauthorization of the Harmful 

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 

Act (HABHRCA 2004). 

1.C. Guidance from the 2005 U.S. 

National HAB Plan: HARRNESS2

The last decade of research on harmful algae 

and their impacts in the United States was guided 

by the first HAB National Plan4. That plan 

served as the foundation for the development of 

numerous national, state, and local programs and 

for the considerable advancement in scientific 

knowledge on HABs during the 1990’s. However, 

as the HAB knowledge base grew, so too did 

our understanding of the degree of scientific and 

management complexity. Management of HABs 

involves a diverse array of scientists, managers, 

agencies, and legislatures operating at various 

governmental levels. Support for their activities 

was guided by diverse national and international 

programs. The HAB community, which includes 

scientists, managers, and those with commercial 

interests in seafood safety, recognized the need to 

strengthen coordination among agencies, partners, 

and stakeholders, and launch a new approach to 

address these issues. Thus, HARRNESS2 (Box 

9) provides a vision and a framework for actions 

over the next decade. HARRNESS2 reflects the 

views of both the research and the management 

communities, and is designed to lay the foundation 

for increased coordination by highlighting and 

justifying the needs and priorities of research 

and management, the strategies and approaches 

for addressing them, and the additional capacity 

building that is required to achieve them. The 

companion report, Harmful Algal Research and 

Response: A Human Dimensions Strategy (HARRHD5

, Box 9), establishes social science research 

needed to achieve the goals of HARRNESS2.

1.D. Legislative Background 

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Amendments Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-456) 

(HABHRCA 2004) reauthorized the original 

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-383), reconstituted 

the Interagency Task Force on HABs and 

Hypoxia, authorized research programs, and 

stipulated generation of four reports to assess 

and recommend research programs on HABs in 

U.S. waters. Responsibility for implementing 

both HABHRCA 2004 and the Oceans and 

Box 5. Potential impacts of global 

change on HABs.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 7

Introduction 

Human Health Act of 2004 was given to the Joint 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology 

(JSOST) Interagency Working Group on Harmful 

Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health 

(IWG-4H). As described in the legislation, two 

of the mandated reports are concerned with 

managing HABs and HAB impacts: 1) the National 

Assessment of Efforts to Predict and Respond to 

Harmful Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters (Prediction 

and Response Report)1 and 2) the National 

Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, 

and Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts 

from Harmful Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan). 

The Prediction and Response Report1 was the 

first step in the process to create an innovative plan 

to improve HAB prediction and response. The 

report assesses the extent of the HAB problem in 

the United States, details Federal, state, and tribal 

prediction and response programs, emphasizing 

Federal efforts, and highlights opportunities to 

improve HAB prediction and response, as well 

as associated infrastructure. These opportunities 

for advancement were based on a survey of 

Federal agencies with HAB programs, needs 

identified in HARRNESS2, and public comments 

on the draft Prediction and 

Response Report1, which 

was published in the Federal 

Register in September 

2006. The opportunities for 

advancement fall into four main 

categories: 1) infrastructure, 

2) programs for research and 

implementation of prevention, 

control, and mitigation, 

3) event response, and 4) 

human dimensions. These 

opportunities overlap the needs 

outlined in the communitydeveloped HARRNESS2

plan, as they are based on the 

increasing concern about HABs 

and their effects.

The RDDTT Plan is the 

second step in the process 

to develop a strategy to 

address needs identified in 

the Prediction and Response Report1. Because 

HABHRCA 2004 calls for wide community 

involvement in the development of reports and 

plans, a community RDDTT workshop was held, 

resulting in this workshop report. Following this 

workshop, the IWG-4H developed the RDDTT 

Plan, drawing from the recommendations of this 

workshop report and Federal agency interests and 

needs to design an RDDTT Program for reducing 

HAB impacts, as required by HABHRCA. The 

RDDTT Plan was combined with the Prediction 

and Response Report1 to produce the Harmful 

Algal Bloom Management and Response: 

Assessment and Plan3 which describes current 

prediction and response efforts, assesses the 

opportunities for advancement, and provides a plan 

to promote better management of HABs and their 

impacts

HABHRCA 2004 also calls for a Scientific 

Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms

(Freshwater HAB Report)13. Most freshwater HAB 

problems are caused by cyanobacteria, though 

there are serious problems in mid-west lakes and 

reservoirs due to the haptophyte Prymnesium 

parvum. An International Interagency Symposium 

Box 6. Structure and interactions of activities to prioritize 

HAB research and management in the United States.

U.S. HAB

Research and Management

Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Community Reports

HARRNESS, 2005

and others (Box 8)

National HAB Committee

Scientific and Management

Community Federal Agencies

JSOST Working Group 

on HABs, Hypoxia, 

and Human Health

HABHRCA Reports

(Box 8)

U.S. HAB

Research and Management

Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Community Reports

HARRNESS, 2005

and others (Box 8)

National HAB Committee

Scientific and Management

Community Federal Agencies

JSOST Working Group 

on HABs, Hypoxia, 

and Human Health

HABHRCA Reports

(Box 8) (Box 7) (Box 7)
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 8

Chapter 1

on Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms 

(ISOCHAB) was held in 2005, resulting in a 

workshop report12 that outlines the research needs 

for responding to cyanobacterial blooms. Both 

the Freshwater HAB Report13, and the ISOCHAB 

Workshop Report12 on which it is based, influenced 

the development of the RDDTT Plan, in particular 

by pointing out the absence of specific programs 

focused on freshwater HABs.

1.E. RDDTT Workshop Process and 

Workshop Report

The RDDTT Workshop was organized by a 

Steering Committee (Appendix I) selected by the 

IWG-4H. The Steering Committee consisted of 

representatives of Federal agencies on the IWG-4H 

with expertise on HABs and representatives of the 

HAB research and management community from 

the National HAB Committee (NHC, Box 6). 

The main subject areas of the Workshop were 

the opportunities for advancement identified in the 

Prediction and Response Report1: programs for 

research and implementation of prevention, control, 

and mitigation (PCM) strategies, event response, 

and infrastructure. Recommendations from 

HARR-HD5, which identified human dimensions 

research critical to prevent and respond to impacts 

of HABs, were incorporated into all subject areas.

The process of selecting and inviting participants 

to contribute to the Workshop was designed to 

ensure breadth of expertise in the subject areas, 

geographic coverage, and community sector 

(management and research, Federal, state, local, 

tribal, and private industry). Before inviting 

Title Year HABHRCA

Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan (National Plan)4 1993

ECOHAB: The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms - A 

National Research Agenda 7

1995

Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control, 

and Mitigation 8

1997

National Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters9 2000 1998

Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs A Research Plan10 2001

Harmful Algal Research and Response, A National Environmental Science 

Strategy 2005-2015 (HARRNESS)2

2005

Harmful Algal Research and Response: A Human Dimensions Strategy 

(HARR-HD)5

2006

National Assessment of Efforts to Predict and Respond to Harmful Algal 

Blooms in U.S. Waters (Prediction and Response Report)1

2007 2004

Interagency Oceans and Human Health Research Implementation Plan: A 

Prescription for the Future 11

2007

Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms: State of the Science and Research 

Needs (ISOCHAB Workshop Report)12

2008 2004*

Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms (Freshwater 

HAB Report)13

2008 2004

HAB Research Development Demonstration and Technology Transfer 

National Workshop Report (RDDTT Workshop Report, this report)

2008 2004*

HAB Management and Response: Assessment and Plan 3 2008 2004

Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful Algal Blooms 14 in review 2004

Box 7. Reports and plans providing guidance for U.S. HAB research and response. The 

HABHRCA column indicates reports written in response to the original legislation in 1998 or 

the 2004 reauthorization (see 1.D.). 

*Reports from community workshops convened to provide input into HABHRCA 2004 reports.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 9

Introduction 

participants, the Steering Committee developed 

a list of sub-topics in each of the subject areas 

the RDDTT Plan would address. They then 

listed multiple experts in each of those sub-topics 

and chose participants (Appendix II) based on 

the criteria above. The Steering Committee 

assigned each participant to a workgroup and 

chose a workgroup lead. Prior to the workshop, 

workgroups developed topical status reports and 

detailed agendas to guide their discussions.

The RDDTT Workshop was held June 22-25, 

2006 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and consisted 

of a half-day of plenary talks and two and a half 

days with alternating workgroup and plenary 

discussions (Appendix III). The first plenary talk 

described the HABHRCA requirements and the 

process for producing the RDDTT Plan. The next 

two provided information critical to the Workshop 

process from two recent plans, HARRNESS2

and HARR-HD5. Finally, talks outlined the 

current state of HAB prediction and response in 

the three focus areas of infrastructure, PCM, and 

event response. Workgroups then met to propose 

approaches for moving forward to improve 

HAB management and response. Because of the 

wide array of expertise in all of the workgroups, 

ideas developed in individual workgroups were 

presented to all the participants in daily plenary 

sessions in order to more fully develop concepts. 

The discussions were captured by rapporteurs, and 

on the day after the workshop, workgroup leads, 

rapporteurs, and the speakers edited the workgroup 

reports, which constitute Chapters 2-5 of this 

report. 

This report provides a plan for developing a 

RDDTT Program that would include PCM, event 

response, and infrastructure components and is 

designed to reduce the frequency and intensity of 

HAB events and their impacts. In essence this 

report offers recommendations for implementing 

many of the priorities outlined in HARRNESS2, 

HARR-HD5, the Prediction and Response Report1, 

the ISOCHAB proceedings12, and the Freshwater 

HAB Report13.

1.F. Next Step: RDDTT Program 

To address the needs outlined in the Prediction 

and Response Report1 and achieve the overall goals 

and objectives of HARRNESS2, a new program is 

required that will complement existing programs. 

This Workshop Report provides a comprehensive 

plan for the RDDTT Program. 

The three essential components of the proposed 

RDDTT Program include:

1) a peer reviewed, competitive extramural 

funding program focused specifically on 

PCM, (Chapter 2);

2) a more effective HAB Event Response 

Program, (Chapter 3); 

3) a Core Infrastructure Program, focused 

on solving a long list of infrastructure 

deficiencies (Chapter 4).

All three components, as described in the 

following chapters, are interdependent and critical 

for improving future HAB response (Box 1).

The proposed PCM Program focuses on moving 

promising technologies and strategies from 

development through demonstration to technology 

transfer. It will draw on the research generated 

from other research programs conducting HAB 

research, such as Ecology and Oceanography of 

Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB), Monitoring 

and Event Response (MERHAB), Sea Grant, 

and the various oceans and human health (OHH) 

programs. There is a strong need for a program 

to support development of technologies and 

strategies that have not yet been proven in the 

field. The program is designed with three distinct 

stages: 1) Phase 1—Development will be the stage 

for making progress on unproven but promising 

projects, 2) Phase 2—Demonstration will be 

the phase in which technologies are field tested, 

validated and evaluated across broad temporal 

and spatial scales, and 3) Phase 3—Technology 

Transfer will facilitate the transitioning of 

technologies and strategies to end-users. Endusers, including local, state, and Federal 

resource and public health managers, nonprofit 

organizations, and a variety of businesses, must 

be involved in all three phases. Projects can enter 

at any phase and would be selected through peer 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 10

Chapter 1

review competition. Social science research is 

included in all phases to ensure socially responsible 

development and effective implementation of PCM 

technologies and strategies.

In an effort to improve “rapid” response to 

HABs as they are occurring, resources at the 

regional and Federal levels can be enhanced and 

better structured to assist state, local, and tribal 

governments with newly emerging or unusually 

difficult HAB problems. The proposed Event 

Response Program recommends the establishment 

of a Technical Assistance fund, modeled after 

the current National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Center for Sponsored 

Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR) Event Response 

Program, and a Regional Assistance fund, a peer 

reviewed, competitive extramural funding program 

to improve response capacity. There is a need 

for HAB National Coordinators in both NOAA 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to deal with marine and freshwater HABs, 

respectively. These HAB Coordinators would 

Agency Program or Office Extramural

Intramural

Marine, 

Great 

Lakes

Freshwater

NOAA, EPA, NSF, 

NASA, ONR

ECOHAB Program

NSF, NIH (NIEHS) Centers for Oceans and Human Health

CDC National Center for Environmental 

Health

DOD Army Corps of Engineers

EPA Office of Research and Development

Gulf of Mexico Program

FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition

NASA Applied Sciences Program

NIH National Institute of General Medical 

Sciences

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences

NOAA MERHAB Program

Oceans and Human Health Initiative

Sea Grant Program

CICEET

Northwest and Northeast Fisheries 

Science Centers

NCCOS

GLERL

National Marine Sanctuaries

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 

Response Program

NSF Biological Oceanography Program

USDA Agricultural Research Service

USGS Various centers

USFWS Various offices

Box 8. Agencies involved in HAB research and response.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 11

Introduction 

facilitate organization of both regional and national 

resources to be made available when states, tribes, 

or academics request assistance.

The Core Infrastructure Program addresses 

the infrastructure deficiencies that impede 

the implementation of new technologies. 

Infrastructure needs are varied and the approach 

to each depends on the type of infrastructure. The 

major infrastructure needs include 1) availability 

of adequate analytical facilities, reference and 

research materials, including instrumentation, 

toxin standards, technical training, and access to 

data; 2) integration of HAB activities with existing 

monitoring and emerging observational programs; 

and 3) mechanisms for communication and 

regional and national coordination. 

Two complementary approaches are proposed to 

accomplish these goals: 

• Establishment of an interagency, competitive, 

peer reviewed extramural funding program that 

will support Core Infrastructure needs; and 

• Development of a regional network with national 

and regional coordinators to leverage existing 

resources, encourage coordination and foster 

active communications with users and stake 

holders within and between regions. 

1.G. The Role of Existing HAB 

Programs for RDDTT

It must be emphasized that 

achieving the RDDTT goals 

identified in the Prediction and 

Response Report1 and HARRNESS2

will depend on full and sustained 

funding of existing extramural 

and intramural programs that 

already support HAB research and 

response (Box 8). The extramural, 

interagency (NOAA, EPA, National 

Science Foundation (NSF), 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), Office of 

Naval Research (ONR)) ECOHAB 

Program, the NOAA and National 

Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences (NIEHS)/NSF OHH 

programs, and the NOAA Sea 

Grant programs fund fundamental 

research on ecological, physical, chemical, and 

human health issues related to HABs. Intramural 

research conducted within Federal agencies are a 

major component of the U.S. HAB research effort 

and some agencies already carry out operational 

HAB prediction and response activities (Box10). 

The NOAA MERHAB Program is also essential 

to continue to build long-term HAB response 

capacity and establish partnerships, leading to 

more effective monitoring programs which are 

critical for successful mitigation strategies. The 

OHH programs provide the linkages between the 

scientific and biomedical communities through 

support of interdisciplinary research in areas where 

improved understanding of marine processes and 

systems has the potential to reduce public health 

risks. These efforts must be sustained or, in the 

case of freshwater HABs, established to continue 

the advancement of new knowledge that will fuel 

new technologies and strategies. They must also 

be supplemented with the new initiatives described 

in the following chapters in order to advance our 

ability to detect, monitor, predict, mitigate, and 

prevent HABs. 

1.H. The Benefits of Implementing 

the RDDTT Program

Full implementation of all the components of 

an RDDTT Program as outlined in this report will 

Box 9. The HARRNESS2 and HARR-HD5 reports.

2 % 3 0 / . 3 %

n

2 % 3 %!2 # (

(!22.%33 (ARMFUL

!LGAL

2ESEARCH

2ESPONSE

.ATIONAL

%NVIRONMENTAL

3CIENCE

3TRATEGY
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 12

Chapter 1

yield many benefits, both for the public health 

and resource management communities and for 

residents, resource users, business, and other stake 

holders in at-risk and affected coastal communities. 

It will also address many of the frustrations people 

living in HAB communities experience and provide 

new strategies to address these frustrations. These 

benefits include the following (adapted from 

HARRNESS2): 

• Healthy fisheries industries selling seafood that 

is safe with respect to biotoxins;

• Reductions in the frequency of toxigenic or 

large, unsightly and noxious accumulations of 

algae;

• Ecosystems that are less threatened by invasions 

of nonindigenous HAB species;

• Mitigation of bloom impacts using a suite of 

practical, previously tested strategies;

• Environmentally benign strategies to suppress 

and prevent HABs;

• Sophisticated, yet less expensive, easy to operate 

instruments for HAB detection;

• Teams of scientists, managers, and community 

leaders prepared to respond to events;

• Improved prediction and early warning 

of blooms and HAB impacts due to better 

predictive models, networks of moored 

automated observing systems, and satellite 

surveillance capability for detection and tracking 

over large distances; 

• Improved human health and ecosystem risk 

assessment;

• Effective means of educating and warning the 

public.

Earlier research has already led to benefits, 

like the examples in Box 10, but the pace of new 

advances will be greatly increased with a dedicated 

program.

Full implementation will not be simple and will 

require substantial investment. The socioeconomic 

costs of not addressing these needs, however, 

greatly exceed the initial investment. Although 

individual benefits relate to specific aspects of the 

currently impaired ecological health of our aquatic 

ecosystems and the threatened public health of 

our citizens, the greatest benefit is in cross-linking 

science and management to achieve improved 

mitigation, control, prevention, as well as an 

educated and informed public.

Box 10. Examples of operational products.

The Gulf of Mexico HAB Operational Forecast System (or HAB Bulletin) is the first example of forecasting 

being operationalized for a HAB event. The HAB Bulletin is produced once to twice weekly depending on the 

season, provides information concerning possible presence or confirmed identification of new blooms, and monitors 

existing blooms with forecasts of spatial extent, movement, and intensification conditions. The HAB Bulletin is a 

product of several NOAA offices, NASA, and multiple state agencies. It incorporates satellite imagery data, past 

and forecasted winds, a wind transport model and in situ sampling data of Karenia cell concentrations. The Bulletin 

is distributed via e-mail to coastal resource managers, state and federal officials, and academic and research 

institutions. As a result of the Bulletin’s forecasts, advance cautionary notices can be issued to protect beachgoers, 

boaters, and others from respiratory illness. Necessary mitigation actions, such as closing shellfish beds, can also 

be initiated before a bloom becomes a health hazard. 

CDC’s Harmful Algal Bloom-related Illness Surveillance System (HABISS) is designed to capture human 

and animal health data as well as environmental data for HABs in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters. HABISS is 

located on the CDC National Center on Environmental Health (NCEH) Rapid Data Collection platform. The system 

is web-based and currently has seven modules for data entry, including physical information about the bloom event 

and medical information about algal toxin-related human and animal illnesses. NCEH hosted a HABISS workshop 

to expand the capability to an additional five states with HAB issues. It is anticipated that, after a few years of 

data collection, HABISS will allow state and local health agencies to forecast where blooms are likely to occur and 

implement the relevant exposure-mitigation and illness-prevention strategies to protect public health. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 13

Chapter 2

with a focused program on PCM. All too often 

managers and agency officials view these topics as 

fundamental or basic science issues that have little 

direct practical utility, but in reality, conceptual 

models of bloom initiation, development, transport, 

and decline are essential for the design and 

implementation of effective prevention strategies. 

However, solid conceptual models exist for only 

a few areas with recurring HABs in the United 

States 17,18,19,20.

Another potential problem that arises with the 

concept of HAB prevention is that even if we know 

that certain environmental factors trigger or support 

blooms of a specific HAB organism, there are both 

societal and practical limitations on what we can 

feasibly do to modify or control those factors16. 

For example, it might be known that a particular 

HAB is influenced by the outflow of a river system 

but HAB prevention is unlikely to justify alteration 

of that flow. It is nevertheless important to factor 

the possible impacts on HABs into large-scale 

policy decisions on such issues. 

There are three general categories of actions 

that can lead to bloom prevention16. These 

include: regulating the flow of materials into 

aquatic systems (mainly nutrients and freshwater); 

modifying hydrodynamic conditions (e.g., 

freshwater flow, water column mixing, tidal 

exchange, retention time); and, restricting 

activities that might introduce HAB species into 

environments where they do not naturally occur 

(e.g., ballast water). Several specific examples of 

these strategies, some of which have already been 

successful in reducing the frequency of HABs, are 

outlined below.

Reduction in nutrient inputs. As plant-like 

organisms, HAB species require certain types and 

Prevention, Control, and Mitigation 

Workgroup Report

By D. Anderson, M. Sengco, G. Doucette, M.B. Bauer, F. Cox, F. Gulland, S. Etheridge, R. He, K. Hudnell, 

S. Larkin, C. Lopez, G. Luber, G. Perovich, M. Poli, F. Van Dolah, and S. Wilhelm

2.A. Background

The diversity of HAB events and their effects 

present a significant challenge to those responsible 

for managing resources in marine and freshwater 

systems. The strategies needed to protect public 

health, manage fisheries and protected and 

endangered species, and minimize socioeconomic 

and ecosystem losses vary considerably among 

locations and among HAB types. A recent 

review15 highlights many strategies adopted by 

countries and commercial enterprises to monitor 

and manage HABs in marine coastal waters. 

Other recent reports highlight the challenges and 

research needs associated with management of 

freshwater HABs12,13. Here, the objective is to 

provide a perspective on some of these strategies, 

emphasizing the distinctions between management 

actions that fall into the categories of prevention, 

control, and mitigation8,16. The elements of 

a prevention, control, and mitigation (PCM) 

program are then proposed, as well as priority 

research areas, a program structure, and possible 

implementation steps. 

2.A.1. Current status

2.A.1.a. Prevention

Prevention refers to environmental management 

actions taken to reduce the incidence and extent of 

HABs prior to their initiation. Several problems 

are immediately apparent in this regard. Perhaps 

most importantly, our knowledge of why HABs 

form in many areas is limited. It is therefore 

difficult to regulate or control the critical factors, 

since they are often unknown. This knowledge 

gap argues for substantial and sustained research 

on all aspects of HABs, including their ecology, 

physiology, and oceanography, concurrent 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 14

Chapter 2

amounts of nutrients to proliferate. The rapid 

increase in nutrient inputs, particularly nitrogen 

compounds, into coastal waters throughout the 

world reflects the growing disposal of sewage from 

expanding populations, increased use of chemical 

fertilizers in agriculture, and increased fossil 

fuel combustione.g., 21,22,23,24,25,26. Of considerable 

concern, particularly for coastal resource 

managers, is the potential relationship between 

the apparent expansion of HABs and such human 

activities25,26,27,28. There is now consensus on a 

number of specific aspects of the relationship 

between eutrophication and HABs29 as well as a 

broad consensus that many significant questions 

and challenges remain30. One example of the 

relationship between nutrients and HABs comes 

from the Seto Inland Sea in Japan, where the 

number of visible red tides decreased to levels 

approximately one-third of their former frequency 

following strict pollution controls instituted in 

197431. A second example comes from Tolo Harbor 

in Hong Kong, where sewage inputs to the harbor 

were diverted and as a result, the phytoplankton 

community shifted from dinoflagellate (i.e., 

common HAB-forming organisms) to diatom 

dominance32. A third example comes from the 

Black Sea, where nonpoint source pollution from 

agricultural activities led to an increase in HABs 

following heightened fertilizer inputs in the 1970s 

and ‘80s. A decrease in those inputs in the early 

1990s was followed by a reduction in HABs33,34. 

In this instance, the change was not a deliberate 

policy designed to prevent HABs or other water 

quality deterioration, but instead a socioeconomic 

impact reflecting the politically-motivated breakup 

of the former Soviet Union and the subsequent loss 

of agricultural subsidies. A highly notable example 

from North America is the successful restoration 

of regions within the Laurentian Great Lakes from 

eutrophic or “dead” status in the 1970’s (dominated 

by filamentous cyanobacteria) to more mesotrophic 

(i.e., far less polluted) conditions following 

voluntary reductions in phosphorus loading from 

municipal waste discharges by the United States 

and Canada35. 

These examples demonstrate that by 

implementing specific environmental controls 

or by modifying human behavior through 

socioeconomic changese.g 35, regulation of point 

and nonpoint sources of pollution has the potential 

to reduce or prevent certain types of HABs. 

Nutrient reduction strategies should therefore be 

encouraged in the context of HAB prevention, 

and there are many reasons in addition to HABs 

that justify such policy decisions. As stated in 

the report, Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal 

Waters: Options for Prevention, Control, and 

Mitigation 8 , “....conscientious pursuit of goals 

for reductions of pollution - including excess 

nutrients – which have been established for much 

of the bays and estuaries of the United States could 

well yield positive results in terms of reductions 

in HABs.” Research is needed to document and 

understand the link between HABs and nutrient 

inputs in particular areas so that appropriate 

policy actions can be promoted. Studies are also 

needed to identify socioeconomic factors (e.g., 

demographic, sociopolitical, cultural, scientific, 

and technological) driving human behaviors that 

contribute to nutrient pollution.

Modification of hydrodynamic conditions. 

Human structures and activities (e.g., dams, 

reservoirs, stream channelization) can profoundly 

affect freshwater flow. This, in turn, can impede 

or promote the growth of certain HAB species 

by diluting pollution loads and altering water 

column stratification, the latter being an important 

determinant of phytoplankton community 

composition. Activities that either reduce or 

increase freshwater flow to coastal waters can 

thus affect HABs and such projects need to be 

scrutinized for possible impacts. In freshwater 

systems mechanical means of water column 

mixing have been used to reduce water column 

stratification12 which decreases the occurrence of 

HABs. 

As with HAB prevention through controls of 

anthropogenic nutrient inputs, there are no cases to 

our knowledge where water diversion, retention, or 

release projects have been initiated predominantly 

to reduce HABs in a given area, though it is 

possible that such activities could achieve that 

result. Here again, conceptual and numerical 

models of HAB development and transport are 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 15

PCM Workgroup Report

needed that identify the role of freshwater flows 

or tidal exchange in regulating bloom dynamics, 

as is socioeconomic research into various water 

management options and their implications (e.g., 

cost/benefit analysis, stakeholder perceptions). 

Only with information of this type can informed 

policy actions be taken that might prevent or 

reduce future HAB events. 

Prevention of species introductions. One area 

of HAB prevention, defined by a reasonably clear 

cause and effect relationship, relates to accidental 

introductions of toxic or harmful species to new 

regions through ballast water discharge, shellfish 

seeding, or other such human activities. There 

are examples in the literature of cases where the 

appearance of HABs has been linked to these 

introductionse.g., 37,38, and current regulations on 

ballast water discharge do recognize the need 

to limit the transfer of HAB species39. Similar 

restrictions on the transfer or relaying of shellfish 

stocks can accomplish similar goals and limit 

accidental introductions. 

On the one hand, there is a general consensus 

that prevention is the preferred management 

strategy for HABs. On the other hand, it is one 

of the more difficult options to develop and 

implement. Presently, there are very few efforts 

aimed at preventing blooms, so this management 

strategy remains largely hypothetical. Areas for 

future attention with respect to bloom prevention 

include: development of conceptual models of 

HABs by region; identification and quantification 

of the specific influence of anthropogenic nutrient 

inputs on HABs in certain areas as well as the 

underlying socioeconomic factors; studies of the 

importance of freshwater flows and tidal exchange 

in HAB dynamics in specific regions; careful 

consideration of HAB incidence and dynamics in 

the siting of aquaculture operations; identification 

of the effects of overfishing and other ecosystem 

disruptions on HAB incidence; and, elucidation of 

strategies (e.g., public policy, economic incentives, 

education) for changing human behaviors that may 

promote HABs. 

2.A.1.b. Control

Bloom control or suppression is as challenging 

and controversial as HAB prevention. The 

concept of control refers to strategies that kill 

HAB organisms or destroy their toxins directly, 

remove cells and toxins from the water column 

physically, or limit the growth and proliferation of 

the organisms. These strategies intend to reduce 

the impacts of HABs on people and commerce by 

targeting the causative agents themselves, reducing 

their numbers, and minimizing their effects on 

the environment and commercially important 

resources. This is one area where HAB science is 

rudimentary and slow moving40.

There are five general categories or strategies 

that can be used to control or suppress HAB 

species and their toxins: 

Mechanical control. One form of mechanical 

control is the removal of HAB cells from the water 

by dispersing clay over the water surface. Clay 

particles aggregate with each other and with HAB 

cells, removing them through sedimentation. In 

countries such as Korea, where a fish-farming 

industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars is 

threatened by HABs, this control strategy makes 

sense economically and socially, and so the work 

has progressed41 and clay dispersal is now a part of 

standard HAB management and response. In other 

geographic areas, the cost/benefit rationale is not as 

clear. For example, research on clay mitigation has 

proceeded quite far in the United States42,43, but a 

significant barrier exists with respect to the ability 

to obtain permits, environmental clearances, funds, 

and society’s agreement to employ this strategy on 

more than an experimental scale.

Biological control. There are a variety of 

organisms that could theoretically be used to 

control HABs44, but biological control has many 

logistical problems and is far from the application 

stage. Biological control is used extensively in 

agriculture, such as in the release of sterile males or 

the use of pheromones to control insect pests45, but 

there is still considerable opposition to the concept 

of releasing one organism to control another in 

marine or freshwater systems. Despite frequently 

cited examples where such an approach has had 

negative long-term consequences on land, there 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 16

Chapter 2

are many cases where the approach has been both 

effective and environmentally benigne.g., 45. The 

concept deserves consideration in aquatic systems 

subject to HABs and their impacts. 

Chemical control. This approach relies on 

the release of chemicals toxic or lethal to HAB 

organisms, including the potential development 

of species-specific chemical control agents. 

Chemical control was attempted in 1957 against 

the Florida red tide organism using copper sulfate 

delivered with crop dusting airplanes46. This 

effort is often viewed as a failure, but the red tides 

were dramatically reduced for several weeks and 

when they did recur, their cell concentrations were 

significantly lower. The uncharacterized collateral 

mortality of other marine organisms due to the 

broad lethality of the copper may be the main 

obstacle to repeating such strategies. Chemical 

control has not been actively pursued by the HAB 

research community, presumably because of the 

general perception that it will be difficult and 

perhaps impossible to find an environmentally 

acceptable chemical that would target a particular 

HAB species, yet not cause widespread and 

unacceptable mortality of other organisms. 

Nonetheless, certain naturally-derived algicides 

generated from aged barley straw or ryegrass 

have begun to attract attention for freshwater 

applications, although with mixed success47, and 

commercial products are available.

Genetic control. The genetic engineering of 

species that are purposely introduced to alter the 

environmental tolerances, reproduction, or other 

processes in the undesirable species is another 

potential avenue for HAB control. The issues 

surrounding this strategy are similar in many 

ways to those associated with biological control - 

specifically, concerns about the possible negative 

impacts of introducing a nonindigenous and/or 

genetically altered organism to an area. There are 

numerous examples where genetic approaches have 

been used successfully in terrestrial agriculture, 

such as the engineering of plant crops so that they 

are capable of producing their own insecticides. 

Similar genetic manipulations might be used on 

aquatic pests such as HABs. It might be possible, 

for example, to engineer a HAB species so that 

it no longer produced toxin. Likewise, one can 

envision genetic manipulations that might make a 

particular bacterial strain more pathogenic towards 

HAB cells. 

Environmental control. The last category of 

control strategies involves physical or chemical 

modification of the environment so that either 

the target species is affected and/or a natural 

or introduced bio-control species is enhanced. 

For HABs, this might involve the large-scale 

manipulation of nutrient levels in coastal waters 

through pollution control policies, as described 

above under the Prevention category. On shorter 

time scales, environmental manipulation becomes 

more difficult to envision, but might include efforts 

to alter water circulation or residence time, such as 

through dredging or opening of channels. Another 

approach might be aeration or other means to 

disrupt stratification, again leading to beneficial 

changes in phytoplankton community composition. 

The latter is particularly effective against 

cyanobacterial blooms in freshwater systems. 

In general, society’s concerns loom large for 

HAB control. For example, at a 2006 public 

forum on the state of red tide research in the Gulf 

of Mexico, stakeholders (e.g., coastal residents) 

expressed a range of attitudes toward HAB control. 

Some were highly supportive of bloom control 

efforts, while others expressed concern over 

interfering with natural processes and potential 

negative impacts on environmental or public 

health. One issue of particular concern is the 

fate of toxins, since cell removal could result in 

release of toxins into the water. Clearly, it will 

be important to assess the risks (environmental, 

public health, and socioeconomic) of HAB control 

strategies and apply social science research to 

effectively engage stakeholders in weighing these 

risks against the expected benefits of transitioning 

research to application. Nonetheless, we should 

not rule out HAB control strategies on the basis 

of hypothetical impacts and public opposition, 

but rather should pursue the research and testing, 

as well as social science studies, needed to obtain 

the data on which to base such decisions. Indeed, 

as the HAB problem continues to worsen in 

many areas of the world, the pressure for, and 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 17

PCM Workgroup Report

the tolerance of, bloom control or suppression 

strategies are likely to increase.

Regardless of the technical and social 

challenges, there are signs of progress in the field 

of bloom control. Until recently, examples of 

HAB control research and application in the United 

States were sparse. Now, we can point to a number 

of current research projects that focus on control 

strategies (e.g., clay dispersal, ozonation, barley 

straw), or that address questions that might have 

applications for HAB control or suppression in the 

future (e.g., algicidal viruses and bacteria as well 

as dinoflagellate parasites). There are, however, no 

examples of marine HAB control being practiced 

in the United States at the present time and only a 

few techniques are being used on a small scale in 

freshwaters. At the current pace of research and 

development, options for bloom control may not be 

in place for many years unless a concerted effort 

is made to encourage and promote these kinds of 

studies. By comparison, the United States lags 

behind countries like Japan, China, South Korea, 

and Australia in pursuing and implementing control 

strategies. In fact, some of the strategies being 

tested in this country were adopted from Asia and 

Australia (e.g., clays, nutrient sequestration, barley 

straw), where these methods have become a routine 

component of HAB management in marine and 

freshwater systems. 

Despite the need (and mandate) to investigate 

control and suppression strategies, a significant 

impediment to progress in the field may come from 

the reluctance of the U.S. scientific community 

to engage in this type of research or to advance 

promising technologies from the laboratory to the 

field. Although more funding has become available 

in recent years, options remain limited. Some 

areas for future attention include research on public 

knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of HAB 

control. These would guide education and outreach 

efforts that can inform the scientific community 

and other stakeholders of the risks and efficacy of 

control strategies. Examples from Asia and other 

regions should be used to point out the benefits 

and possible impacts of bloom suppression. New 

interdisciplinary collaborations among stakeholders 

and decision makers such as scientists, engineers, 

risk assessment and communication experts, 

social scientists and managers should be promoted 

to deal with the complex task of evaluating the 

risks/benefits of control strategies and moving 

promising approaches from concept to field 

testing and implementation. Moreover, effective 

communication among all stakeholders should 

be encouraged to maintain the flow of accurate 

information while building public trust and 

understanding, thereby minimizing perceptions that 

could unnecessarily impede research.

2.A.1.c. Mitigation

Many of the management actions taken to 

respond to HABs can be termed mitigation—i.e., 

responding to an existing or ongoing bloom 

by taking steps to “prevent, limit, delay, or 

slow the rate of” undesirable impacts on the 

environment, human health, or human economies 

and communities48. This is the area of PCM 

management where the most immediate potential 

exists to reduce impacts, given that many such 

activities are already underway, several of which 

are noted below.

Monitoring. Routine monitoring programs 

for toxins in shellfish are currently conducted 

in numerous U.S. states and in more than 50 

countries15. The detection of dangerous levels 

of HAB toxins in shellfish leads to harvesting 

restrictions that keep contaminated product off the 

market. Phytoplankton monitoring is increasingly 

being used by state agencies to provide warning 

before shellfish become toxic. For example, 

the Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom 

partnership (ORHAB, http://www.orhab.org/), 

developed with funding from MERHAB, monitors 

Pseudo-nitzschia along Washington beaches to 

provide early warning of toxicity in razor clams49. 

Likewise, citizen monitoring groups have been 

established in many coastal states as a low cost 

option for early warning1.

Aquaculture and fishery-specific approaches. 

Mitigation of HAB effects on aquaculture can, 

depending on specific operation, be accomplished 

by moving fish or shellfish from the affected 

area. For example, fish net pens may be towed 

away from sites of intense HAB activity. Though 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 18

Chapter 2

expensive and occasionally costly with respect 

to lost or damaged fish, this remains a primary 

tool used by fish farmers to combat HABs50. 

Minimizing the impact of HAB toxins in shellfish 

can be achieved by processing shellfish in such 

a way as to reduce toxicity to an acceptable 

level—e.g., by the removal of scallop viscera and 

the marketing of only the adductor muscle, which 

generally contains little or no HAB toxins.

Forecasting. Another mitigation strategy 

involves the forecast or prediction of blooms and 

subsequent communication of this information 

to stakeholders, allowing officials, industry 

representatives, and the general public to take 

appropriate actions to avoid HABs or minimize 

their impacts. Satellite remote sensing is now 

used operationally to detect HABs caused by 

Karenia brevis in the Gulf of Mexico, and with 

simple transport models, forecasts are now issued 

of impending landfall or exposure (Box 10)51. 

However, this capability is not easily transferred 

to other HAB species, as most HABs cannot be 

as readily detected by satellites. For other HABs, 

remote sensing applications rely on detecting the 

water masses in which the cells reside—using sea 

surface temperature for example52. 

Education and outreach. Mitigation can 

also be achieved through public education and 

outreach. The impacts of a HAB can be reduced 

greatly if correct and timely information is released 

through news outlets and other communication 

channels. Public information, however, must be 

carefully planned and outcomes and reactions 

anticipated. Effective messages must be 

developed using a detailed understanding of the 

needs, concerns and knowledge of the targeted 

audiences. Properly done, a relatively low cost 

effort can achieve significant positive results by 

reducing over-reactions and misunderstandings. 

Poorly done communication efforts can increase 

audience concern and reduce agency trust. Other 

community responses include offering alternative 

recreation opportunities and governmental or 

private programs providing social assistance, 

economic relief, or alternative job opportunities to 

temporarily unemployed fishermen.

Treatment of Health Impacts in Humans and 

Animals. Many HAB toxins are known to be so 

highly toxic that small amounts can cause death 

within minutes or hours. Current monitoring has 

done an excellent job of protecting human health, 

as evidenced by the rare occurrence of severe 

human illness or death. However, human and 

animal HAB poisoning incidents do occur (Box 11) 

and methods of treatment are needed. At present 

standard medical care remains supportive therapy. 

Use of cholestyramine, a non-absorbable polymer 

with anion-exchange binding capacity approved 

by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to 

lower cholesterol levels, may greatly enhance toxin 

elimination rates in humans exposed to some HAB 

Box 11. Examples of circumstances leading to human health impacts from HABs.

Effective state monitoring programs leading to appropriate state management actions, such as closing shellfish 

harvesting, prevent most human illness that could be caused by HABs. However, under some circumstances, 

human health impacts do occur.

Newly emerging HAB problems: In 2002, the first incidence of illness associated with saxitoxin in puffer 

fish was reported in Florida. Federal and state agencies responded quickly to identify the cause of the threat, a 

dinoflagellate called Pyrodinium bahamense, and the extent of the illnesses. Since 2002, twenty-eight cases of 

human illness associated with saxitoxin in puffer fish from Florida have been reported and recreational harvesting of 

some puffer fish is now banned53. 

Monitoring not feasable: Ciguatera Fish Poisoning (CFP), from consumption of contaminated tropical reef fish, 

is the most common illness associated with algal toxins but is also likely the most underreported, partly because of 

the ambiguity of the symptoms. Monitoring for CFP in finfish is not practical or effective because of the spatial and 

temporal patchiness of toxin-contaminated fish and the lack of a reliable and simple test kit. For this reason, efforts 

focused on improving diagnosis and treatment of ciguatoxin exposure is critical.

Ignoring harvesting bans: In 2006 multiple cases of neurotoxic shellfish poisoning were reported in Lee 

County, Florida. Most occurred because clams were harvested from closed areas by tourists (http://www.doh.state.

fl.us/disease_ctrl/epi/Epi_Updates/2006/10-20-2006.pdf) and several required hospitalization.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 19

PCM Workgroup Report

toxins54 and is currently being tested for several 

toxins. Mannitol has been used to treat ciguatera 

fish poisoning and may also be effective for 

brevetoxins.

In addition, little is known about the health 

effects associated with repeated exposures to low 

levels of HAB toxins as humans might receive 

through recreational activities, drinking water, or 

consuming shellfish from areas with chronic low 

levels of toxins. For example, it is now established 

that aerosolized brevetoxins can cause respiratory 

effects in people working or recreating near the 

water when the Florida red-tide organism is 

blooming. Beach warnings are now provided to 

warn of the risk of exposure and several promising 

treatments have been developed55. 

2.A.1.d. Current Status Summary 

Effective management of HABs and their 

impacts requires a comprehensive, multipronged approach that must include strategies 

for prevention, control, and mitigation. Great 

strides have been made in some aspects of PCM, 

particularly in the area of mitigating bloom 

impacts. HAB prevention remains predominantly 

a conceptual approach at this point in time, 

though there are promising activities underway 

that may begin to show results. Progress is the 

slowest in the formulation and implementation 

of bloom control or suppression strategies. As 

the problem of HABs continues to expand, the 

need to find practical, cost-effective, and longterm solutions will undoubtedly increase as 

well. Therefore, resources must also be directed 

to prevention and control efforts. This may 

be achieved by developing new programs and 

funding mechanisms, changes in infrastructure, 

and facilitating collaborations among natural 

and social scientists, engineers, and risk experts. 

A sociopolitical and ethical debate will also 

be needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of 

investing public funds into prevention and control 

options.

2.B. The Prevention, Control, and 

Mitigation Component of RDDTT 

Program

2.B.1. Rationale

The development of PCM strategies for HABs 

has been identified as a priority need since the 

publication of the reports, Harmful Algal Blooms 

in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control 

and Mitigation 8 and Prevention, Control, and 

Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research 

Plan 10. The National Assessment of Harmful 

Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters 9 report noted “there 

are currently no national research initiatives 

to promote efforts in prevention, control, and 

mitigation of HABs and their impacts.” A call for 

applied research to develop PCM tools was also 

made in the HABHRCA 2004 reauthorization, 

HARRNESS2, the ISOCHAB proceedings12, and 

the Prediction and Response Report1.

To date, however, no dedicated funding has 

been allocated to transition promising PCM 

technologies and strategies (identified through 

basic research programs and funding agencies, such 

as ECOHAB, the NSF/NIEHS Centers for Oceans 

and Human Health, the NOAA Oceans and Human 

Health Initiative, NSF, and National Institutes of 

Health (NIH); see Box 8 for complete list), into 

a demonstration phase and ultimately operational 

use. MERHAB provides funding for technology 

transfer of a subset of tools specific to monitoring 

and prediction. The evolution of PCM tools from 

concept to operational use requires substantial 

resources, analogous in scale to carrying out a 

clinical trial for a promising drug, a process often 

termed the “valley of death” because of its high 

risk and the frequent lack of sufficient funding. 

Traversing the “valley of death” requires both the 

motivation (“push”) on the part of researchers to 

take on this risk and the desire (“pull”) from endusers needing the operational tool (Box 12).

Box 12. Traversing the Valley of Death.

“...transitioning from R&D to the market--a stage in 

business development so perilous that it’s often called 

the Valley of Death. Traversing it requires an intelligent 

blend of public and private sector investment, targeting 

the most promising innovations.” Forbes.com
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 20

Chapter 2

A component of the RDDTT program 

dedicated to PCM that funds applied 

development, demonstration, and technology 

transfer is needed to translate promising 

ideas into a wide range of operational tools 

and ultimately positive outcomes for the 

environment and society. This component 

will uniquely address both the technical and 

socioeconomic aspects of technology/strategy 

development, providing a clear track for the 

successful transition of PCM tools to operational 

status. Funding for this type of activity is not 

readily available in other HAB programs. The 

PCM component represents the culmination of 

the transition from basic research to operational 

prevention, control, and mitigation needed to 

protect human and ecosystem health, economies, 

and community vitality.

2.B.2. Description of PCM Component of 

RDDTT Program

The PCM component proposed here consists of 

discrete phases that will: 1) develop strategies and 

technologies for PCM; 2) demonstrate and validate 

their utility under field conditions; and 3) transfer 

and transition that knowledge and technology 

to end-users in an operational context. The 

integration of individual phases within the PCM 

component and the manner in which they benefit 

from end-user input and involvement is depicted 

in Box 13. The PCM component of the RDDTT 

program will place significant emphasis on 

technology transfer, whether through collaboration 

with the private sector to commercialize 

technologies, or through collaboration with 

public-sector partners to develop an effective 

outreach and information dissemination program. 

Regardless of the pathway, PCM will be committed 

to the development, demonstration, and ultimate 

transitioning of information and technology into 

the hands of end-users and decision makers.

The PCM component of the RDDTT Program 

will have three phases:

Development (Phase 1): This phase is 

proposed to support a competitive, peer reviewed 

grant program for development and evaluation 

of promising PCM technologies and strategies, 

including human dimensions research advancing 

PCM. Phase 1 projects will establish the suitability 

of a technology, approach, or product for achieving 

PCM goals and objectives. All successful Phase 

1 proposals must demonstrate active discussion 

of their research plans with relevant end-users 

and involve these individuals or agencies in the 

evolution of the PCM concept from research and 

development through operational use. The goal 

of these interactions is not to establish “support,” 

but rather to learn about the challenges facing 

these managers and confirm the relevance of the 

proposed research in addressing these challenges. 

Demonstration (Phase 2): This phase is 

proposed for field testing, validation, and 

evaluation of PCM strategies across a range of 

temporal and spatial scales. In addition to scientific 

and engineering studies related to HAB PCM, 

assessments of socioeconomic costs and benefits 

as well as educational/outreach activities needed 

to support evaluation and implementation of these 

strategies should be addressed. All successful 

Phase 2 proposals must establish the feasibility 

and potential effectiveness of the proposed PCM 

technology or strategy either through the successful 

completion of a Phase 1 PCM project or the 

equivalent outside of the formal PCM program. 

Phase 2 and 3 projects will be guided by an 

external advisory committee (see details below).

Technology Transfer (Phase 3): This phase is 

proposed to support the formation of partnerships 

and the ultimate transitioning of validated PCM 

technologies and strategies to end-users. All 

successful Phase 3 proposals must include 

education, training, and capacity-building. Phase 

3 projects will have either successfully completed 

a Phase 2 Demonstration project or undergone a 

comparable process. 

All PCM projects will be extramural, 

competitive, peer reviewed and funded through 

an annual request for proposals that will ensure 

priorities for research and implementation are 

based both on societal needs and scientific promise 

of effectiveness. End-user input to proposals 

in all phases and external advisory committee 

guidance for Phase 2 and 3 projects will facilitate 

technical success and maximize socioeconomic 

benefits and opportunities. The membership of 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 21

PCM Workgroup Report

the external advisory committee should include 

the PCM program manager, an appropriate human 

dimensions specialist (e.g., risk communication 

specialist, anthropologist, economist), members of 

the intended user community, and others as needed. 

Involvement of these researchers and user groups 

throughout the PCM development, demonstration, 

and implementation processes will ensure that 

projects with the most societal relevance are 

supported and brought into operational use.

The PCM component will, in its first years, 

emphasize Phase 1 development projects, but will 

evolve to include demonstration (Phase 2) and 

technology transfer (Phase 3) as initial projects 

mature. Funding for Phase 1 projects should 

be sustained to ensure a continued flow of new 

ideas and approaches to the program. Promising 

technologies and strategies, developed with 

funding from other programs, will be able to enter 

later phases.

2.B.3. PCM Priorities

Several previous reports have highlighted major 

impediments to progress in the prevention, control, 

and mitigation of HABs and have identified 

priority topics and approaches to address these 

issues5,8,10. Specific activities under 

these categories are described below, 

along with a rationale for their 

inclusion. This list is intended to 

be a guide for establishing future 

funding priorities and is certainly 

not comprehensive. As the PCM 

component of the RDDTT Program 

matures, new areas for investigation 

will become apparent, others will 

become operational, and still others 

will be considered less likely to 

achieve their intended outcomes. 

These are organized according to 

the categories of prevention, control, 

and mitigation outlined in Harmful 

Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: 

Options for Prevention, Control, and 

Mitigation 8, augmented with social 

science elements under the heading 

of human dimensions. 

2.B.3.a. Prevention

Modification of nutrient inputs

Many different agencies are involved in 

developing management strategies to reduce 

nutrients in freshwater and marine systems to 

improve water quality. We strongly support these 

efforts and recognize that the PCM program should 

not carry out redundant work. In areas where 

linkages have been established between HABs and 

anthropogenic sources of nutrients, efforts should 

be made to include HAB reduction as a driver for 

policy decisions.

Modification of hydrodynamic conditions

Objective: 

Examine the effectiveness of altering flow rates 

and hydrodynamics in reducing the formation 

and frequency of HABs, and the environmental 

impact of these activities, in marine and freshwater 

systems.

Rationale: 

Hydrodynamic conditions (e.g., flow rate, 

circulation, water column mixing) can have 

a significant influence on the development, 

Box 13. Diagrammatic representation of PCM structure.

Technology Transfer

(Phase III)

Demonstration

(Phase II)

Development

(Phase I)

Partnerships

(Federal, state, 

county, community, 

tribal, industry)

Advisory 

Committee/ 

End-user 

Input

End-user 

Input

Pipeline of 

Basic 

Research 

Concepts

Other Mature 

Technologies 

and 

Strategies

Protect Operational PCM

Ecosystems

Protect

Human Health, 

Economies,

& Communities

Technology Transfer

(Phase III)

Demonstration

(Phase II)

Development

(Phase I)

Partnerships

(Federal, state, 

county, community, 

tribal, industry)

Advisory 

Committee/ 

End-user 

Input

End-user 

Input

Pipeline of 

Basic 

Research 

Concepts

Other Mature 

Technologies 

and 

Strategies

Protect Operational PCM

Ecosystems

Protect

Human Health, 

Economies,

& Communities

PCM Program
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 22

Chapter 2

persistence, and transport of HABs. Therefore, 

modifying these conditions as part of a 

management strategy (e.g., dredging, channel 

construction, dam building, forced water-column 

mixing) has the potential to reduce or prevent 

blooms and minimize their impacts.

Minimize or prevent introductions of invasive 

HAB species, their cysts, and organisms that 

facilitate the success of HAB species

Objectives: 

• Evaluate the effectiveness of existing 

technologies (e.g., molecular, immunological, 

rapid/automated enumeration) for identifying, 

quantifying, and assessing the viability of HAB 

species/cysts and HAB-promoting species in 

ballast water and other vectors, such as bivalve 

aquaculture. 

• Evaluate existing ballast water treatment 

strategies and methods (e.g., ballast water 

exchange, biocides, mechanical removal) for 

efficacy in removing or killing HAB cells and 

cysts. 

• Develop models to estimate the probability 

that a nonindigenous HAB species would 

become established in a new habitat following 

introduction via ballast water or other vectors. 

Rationale: 

There is compelling evidence that HAB cells 

and their cysts can be transported across wide 

geographic ranges through several vectors, 

notably ballast water, and become established in 

the new environment. Therefore, efforts should 

focus on preventing their introduction prior to 

delivery into a new habitat and predicting the 

likelihood of their success in a given area.

2.B.3.b. Control

Eliminate or reduce the levels of HAB organisms 

and their toxins

Objectives: 

• Evaluate various options for destroying and/

or removing HAB cells and toxins through 

chemicals, biological agents (e.g., viruses, 

bacteria, parasites, grazers), and mechanical 

means (e.g., flocculation, filtration, skimming, 

ultrasonic disruption), as well as approaches 

involving genetic engineering (e.g., reducing 

toxicity of HAB species) and environmental 

manipulations similar to those outlined above 

(see Prevention section).

• Characterize the short- and long-term 

environmental impacts of these control strategies 

on natural communities and the environment.

• Determine the fate and effects of toxins released 

through application of individual control 

measures.

• Develop technical and engineering solutions 

to large-scale application of various control 

options.

• Conduct knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions 

(i.e., KAP) studies on the community 

acceptability of HAB control for developing 

outreach materials to educate the public about 

HAB control initiatives. 

Rationale: 

Current management approaches consist 

mainly of strategies for responding to the 

presence of HABs cells and toxins to minimize 

their adverse effects (i.e., mitigation). Strategies 

to directly control or reduce the concentration 

of organisms as well as the toxins they produce 

are generally lacking and should be pursued as 

part of a comprehensive management program. 

Studies of social issues related to bloom control 

strategies are needed as well. 

2.B.3.c. Mitigation

There are many different types of mitigation 

activities that can reduce the impacts of HABs. 

These can be grouped under several general 

categories. 

 Monitoring of HAB cells and toxins

Objective: 

Develop sensitive, quantitative, field 

deployable assays and sensors for HAB cells, 

toxins, and relevant toxin metabolites.

Rationale: 

The ability to detect HAB cells, toxins, and 

relevant metabolites in the field is a critical 

component of any mitigation program. Field 

detection capabilities will allow responders to 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 23

PCM Workgroup Report

rapidly determine toxin/cell concentrations and 

thus support regulatory decisions and mitigation 

efforts. Moreover, sufficiently sensitive methods 

that enable detection of HAB organisms at 

pre-bloom concentrations can provide an early 

warning to managers and increase the lead time 

for responding to an event. 

Objective: 

Develop satellite and aircraft remote sensing 

capabilities for HABs that can be utilized in 

monitoring and management programs.

Rationale:

Currently available and emerging remote 

sensing technologies can be adapted for HABs 

in order to expand the spatial and temporal 

monitoring capacity in areas impacted by 

HABs. These capabilities can also support early 

warning systems for locations downstream of 

existing blooms.

Objective: 

Integrate HAB and toxin detection 

technologies into emerging U.S. and global 

ocean observation systems.

Rationale:

Existing and emerging ocean observations 

systems represent an infrastructure with direct 

spatio-temporal relevance and application to 

HAB monitoring. Integrating HAB organism 

and toxin detection technologies into such 

systems already adapted for physico-chemical 

measurements would yield a spectrum of 

physical, chemical, and biological data in 

support of real-time or near real-time monitoring 

capabilities. Information streams from these 

observation systems could also be incorporated 

into data assimilative predictive models for HAB 

forecasting. This issue is addressed in further 

detail in Chapter 4 of this report. 

Disease surveillance, clinical characterization, 

and therapeutic guidance in humans and animals

Objective: 

Develop and validate biomonitoring methods 

of toxin exposure and identify and utilize 

biomarkers for toxin exposure effect and disease 

status.

Rationale: 

Measurement of toxins in tissues and fluids 

of postmortem or living humans and animals 

(biomonitoring) remains the definitive means 

to confirm exposure. Biomarkers of toxin 

exposure, effect and disease status are critical 

to understanding the disease process and will 

support case identification and classification, 

disease surveillance, and clinical care decisions.

Objective: 

Enhance disease surveillance for human and 

animal illnesses and deaths resulting from 

HAB toxin exposure by supporting existing 

surveillance systems such as the Harmful Algal 

Bloom Illness Surveillance System (Box 10). 

Rationale: 

Disease surveillance will assess the temporal 

and spatial relationship between HAB events 

and human illness, and identify risk factors 

associated with HAB toxin exposure in support 

of disease prevention efforts.

Objectives: 

• Produce clinical therapeutic guidance for the 

spectrum of illnesses associated with exposure to 

HAB cells and toxins.

• Develop case definitions for the spectrum of 

illnesses resulting from exposure to HAB cells 

and toxins. 

• Develop communication and outreach programs 

to make information on HAB poisoning 

syndromes available to the medical and 

veterinary community in a timely manner. 

Rationale: 

In many cases, medical and veterinary 

professionals are unfamiliar with the symptoms 

of HAB-associated illnesses and their treatment. 

Better definition and communication of case 

descriptions and recommended therapeutic 

actions can greatly reduce incidence and severity 

of illnesses. 

Drinking water monitoring and treatment

Objectives: 

• Establish guidelines for safe levels of HAB 

toxins in drinking and recreational water.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 24

Chapter 2

• Monitor source water for HAB cells and toxins, 

and develop real-time monitoring systems for 

toxins and cell fragments during water treatment. 

• Develop supplemental water treatment processes 

for toxins.

Rationale:

Neither regulatory nor guideline levels 

for HAB toxin concentrations in finished 

drinking water or recreational waters have been 

established in the United States. Water should 

be monitored during treatment to determine 

whether supplemental treatment processes are 

needed to prevent toxins from entering the 

finished water stream. Supplemental treatment 

processes for water utilities are also needed to 

reduce toxin concentrations to safe levels.

Forecasting

Objectives: 

• Develop data assimilative predictive models that 

can forecast HABs in a cost-effective and timely 

manner.

• Develop food-web based models for the fate and 

effects of HAB toxins. 

• Model long-term risks to ecosystems from 

exposure to HAB toxins.

• Develop models of socioeconomic costs of 

HAB impacts and the cost effectiveness of PCM 

strategies to support decision makers.

Rationale:

 Models are needed at various levels for 

effective HAB management. The application 

of in situ observations from coastal observing 

system and remote sensing platforms will 

improve HAB model forecast accuracy, and 

information on toxin dynamics in different 

food web compartments is critically important 

for managers charged with the protection of 

public and ecosystem health. Quantifying 

HAB toxin impacts on habitat degradation and 

the sustainability of coastal and freshwater 

ecosystems is also an essential aspect of 

resource management. Furthermore, providing 

information on economic impacts of HABs on 

coastal communities, as well as the risks/benefits 

of PCM strategies to economies, aquaculture 

enterprises, etc. will be necessary to develop 

cost-effective management strategies.

Relocation of aquaculture and wild-capture 

resources

Objectives: 

• Develop predictive models for the probability of 

transfer of nonindigenous HAB species through 

the relocation of certain aquaculture and wildcapture species.

• Develop and evaluate strategies to relocate, 

primarily, aquaculture resources during severe 

HAB events to unaffected areas where HAB 

impacts will be minimized.

Rationale: 

Cells of some HAB species can remain 

viable in both external (e.g., skin, shells) and 

internal (e.g., digestive tract) association with 

aquaculture organisms during normal transport 

for commercial purposes. Certain tissue 

compartments of these same organisms can also 

retain toxins for extended periods. Accurate 

models of these processes will aid in avoiding 

or reducing the possibility that relocated HAB 

species become established in receiving waters. 

Cost effective strategies (e.g., plankton surveys, 

hydrographic models, mechanics of relocation) 

are also needed to guide the effective relocation 

of fishery resources in order to reduce economic 

losses due to HABs.

Harvesting bans and closures

Objectives: 

• Develop effective risk communication to 

improve public safety. 

• Develop and support strategies to better 

delineate the optimum size of closure areas due 

to HAB toxin accumulation.

Rationale: 

The public confusion that sometimes 

accompanies harvest bans and closures can be 

minimized by effective risk communication, 

thereby enhancing the ability to protect public 

health. In addition, the economic effects of 

harvesting closures can be reduced by strategies 

that effectively delineate and minimize the 

optimum size for closures. This can be 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 25

PCM Workgroup Report

achieved by improving the timely collection and 

availability of spatial, temporal, and speciesspecific data on HABs and their toxins.

Fishing and processing practices

Objectives:

• Establish toxin loads in different tissue 

compartments for commercially harvestable 

resources and their impacts on the nature of 

saleable products (e.g., roe-on scallops).

• Evaluate processing methods that reduce toxin 

concentrations to below regulatory action levels.

• Facilitate the application of new sampling and 

analysis strategies that would provide access 

to currently restricted resources (e.g., dockside 

testing protocols for resources on Georges Bank, 

Geoduck harvest in Alaska).

Rationale: 

Determining the anatomical distribution of 

toxins in seafood may allow the salvage of a 

saleable product by discarding the contaminated 

tissues. Identifying processing methods 

(e.g., canning and retort methods) that reduce 

toxins to a safe level will also minimize the 

loss of product while ensuring seafood safety. 

Implementation of these and other strategies 

would allow areas at risk for closure to be 

harvested with measures in place to reduce 

economic loss while ensuring protection of 

public health.

Education and outreach

Objective: 

Develop an understanding of public 

knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of HABs, 

and use that understanding to produce effective 

communication messages for education/outreach 

programs.

Rationale:

Education and outreach for HABs involve 

communicating complex and often uncertain 

scientific information (e.g., warnings and 

forecasts) to diverse stakeholders. It is 

important to assess audience characteristics 

(e.g., knowledge of HABs, perception of risks) 

in order to foster trust in decision making 

agencies, encourage risk-protective behaviors, 

and engage communities in decision making and 

monitoring. Social science research informing 

interagency coordination and fostering media 

relations to deliver effective messages will also 

play a critical role.

Community responses to social and economic 

impacts 

Objective: 

Assess and build community resilience to 

maintain social and economic benefits during 

HABs.

Rationale: 

Closure of beaches and fisheries to protect 

public health in response to HABs can 

result in loss of recreational opportunities, 

disruption of subsistence activities and cultural 

practices, conflict among resource users, 

loss of community identity tied to aquatic 

resource use, and social stress in affected 

families and communities. It is important 

to build community capacities to respond to 

blooms (e.g., develop alternative recreational 

opportunities to sustain tourism).

Intervention to reduce wildlife mortality 

Objectives:

• Evaluate and apply species-specific therapeutics 

and rehabilitation strategies for intoxicated 

animals to minimize mortality due to HABs.

• Investigate the feasibility of moving endangered 

species from high-risk, HAB affected areas. 

• Investigate the effectiveness of hazing strategies 

to discourage animals from entering HABaffected areas.

• Investigate the feasibility of immunizing animals 

against HAB toxins.

• Develop integrated contingency plans to 

determine the feasibility of small scale 

treatments (e.g., clays) or management strategies 

(e.g., lowering salinity) to minimize marine 

animal exposure to HAB toxins along transit 

routes.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 26

Chapter 2

Rationale: 

In the past decade, HABs have been identified 

as the most frequent cause of marine animal 

mortality events. Rehabilitation of intoxicated 

animals and their release requires knowledge 

of appropriate therapeutic interventions as 

well as a prognosis for their post-release 

survival. Translocation of highly endangered 

animals to HAB-free areas may be feasible, yet 

entail significant effort and investment while 

raising questions of societal values regarding 

human intervention. Hazing strategies (e.g., 

noise, airboats, and airplanes) have been used 

successfully to discourage migrating birds from 

landing in lakes affected by botulism and oil 

spills. Applicability of these strategies as a costeffective approach to HAB mitigation should 

be investigated. Since certain algal toxins may 

elicit antibody production, which may allow for 

the development and future implementation of 

vaccination strategies. Furthermore, some HAB 

events are predictable and coincide temporally 

and spatially with marine animal movements in 

specific areas. Proactive management actions 

may assist in minimizing impacts to large 

numbers of animals.

Human Dimensions

Objectives:

• Measure and anticipate the social and economic 

costs and benefits (intended and unintended) 

of PCM strategies to inform societal decisionmaking, including the justified level of 

investment.

• Develop an understanding of public knowledge, 

attitudes, and perceptions of PCM to produce 

communication strategies that promote public 

trust, awareness, and risk-reducing behaviors.

• Identify and evaluate approaches (e.g., economic 

incentives, laws, and education) for facilitating 

changes in human behaviors/attitudes needed to 

develop and implement PCM strategies.

• Conduct “institutional analysis” (i.e., research 

on the nature, strengths, and weaknesses of 

how people work together) to improve the 

coordination of researchers, decision-makers, 

and stakeholders involved in PCM research and 

implementation.

Rationale: 

Human dimensions research brings to bear 

tools of the social and behavioral sciences 

and the humanities to enhance HAB response 

and is critical to ensure socially-responsible 

development and effective implementation of 

PCM strategies. 

2.B.4. Initiation of the PCM Component

The HABHRCA legislation addresses a clear 

national need when it recommends an interagency 

“research, development, demonstration, and 

technology transfer program on methods for the 

prevention, control, and mitigation of harmful algal 

blooms.” Implementation of a PCM program will 

clearly require the cooperation and participation of 

multiple Federal agencies with mandates that range 

from public health protection to the management of 

HABs and their impacts on marine and freshwater 

systems. 

We recommend that the wording in the 

HABHRCA reauthorization bill clarify that 

the proposed PCM program be an interagency 

competitive, peer reviewed grant program 

funded through a partnership of NOAA, 

EPA, FDA, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), NIH/NIEHS, NSF, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Fish 

and Wildife Survey (USFWS), U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), NASA, and the Department of 

Homeland Security. Furthermore, funds should 

be authorized for each agency that participates in 

a substantial manner, but this may require separate 

authorizing legislation due to Congressional 

committee jurisdictions.

Workshops to exchange knowledge and 

approaches across natural and social science 

disciplines and agencies are recommended as the 

first step in initiating the PCM component. For 

example, much can be learned from prior research 

on control and mitigation strategies used for 

terrestrial and aquatic nuisance species. In this 

regard, we recommend a workshop be convened 

to which experts in HAB control, as well as 

control strategies for insects, aquatic vegetation, 

other pest infestations, and bioremediation 

strategies used for oil spill and pollution events, 

be invited. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 27

Event Response 

Workgroup Report

By D. Ayres, E. Jewett, J. Landsberg, D. Couture, D. Fyfe, L. Grattan, P. Hoagland, L. Howell, 

B. Michael, T. Rowles, C. Scherer, D. Stone, R. Stumpf, and M. Watzin

Chapter 3

3.A. Introduction

Human uses of inland, coastal, and ocean 

waters for subsistence, livelihood, commerce, and 

recreation are increasing. While there are many 

benefits, the impacts of the human use of these 

resources have caused increases in the occurrence 

and severity of HABs. For example, in 2005, HAB 

events occurred throughout the United States with 

the events in the Gulf of Maine and Florida being 

the most severe since the early 1970’s (http://www.

cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/

fact-ev_resp.html).

In order to mitigate the impacts of HABs, there 

is an urgent need to further develop the capacity for 

anticipating HAB events and responding rapidly. 

The range of stakeholders involved in event 

response depends upon the nature of the HAB, the 

geographic area affected and the implications for 

human, fish, and wildlife health. States, counties, 

tribes, and academic researchers are generally the 

first responders. The aquaculture industry in some 

instances has also acted as front line responders 

providing helpful data to state managers. When 

HAB events occur on small, localized scales, the 

capacity and financial resources of individual 

states usually are sufficient to respond quickly 

and effectively. A good example of this kind of 

response capacity is the Maine shellfish monitoring 

and closure program. Under normal conditions, 

the state is able to mitigate adverse public health 

outcomes through the imposition of a system of 

carefully timed and positioned shellfish closures. 

Many other states have also had successful 

programs in place to manage shellfish closures for 

many years. However, this capacity is now being 

regularly exceeded as the scale of events grows. 

As HABs are increasingly occurring at much 

larger scales and greater frequency, have greater 

scope of impact, or involve species that are new to 

state or regional waters, the capacity for responding 

rapidly is sometimes inadequate or nonexistent. 

In addition, freshwater HAB events are occurring 

in states that have never before needed a capacity 

for response. These frequently toxic freshwater 

blooms can threaten public water supplies and lead 

to widespread recreational impacts. In marine 

systems, large-scale HAB events can lead to 

widespread closures of shellfisheries in states that 

may not have the equipment, personnel, or financial 

resources to monitor, evaluate, and mitigate 

impacts adequately. 

 The insufficient capacity for adequate 

responses to new or large-scale HAB events is 

due to inexperience, lack of resources, and the 

unpredictable nature of such events. It is costly 

and time-consuming to develop a response capacity 

for events that are sporadic or rare, have increased 

in frequency and scale, or for which damages 

are very uncertain. These characteristics argue 

strongly for a regional approach to event response, 

in order that experience and capacity within a 

region or even across regions can be brought to 

bear quickly and effectively. In effect, such a 

program helps a region, or even the Nation, deal 

with the significant public health effects, ecological 

impacts, and economic damages that could arise 

from unusual, unpredictable, and devastating HAB 

events.

Both Federal legislation and numerous recent 

reports have stressed the need for improved event 

response. The 1998 Clean Water Act requires 

the implementation of a coordinated response 

system to support state and local efforts during 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 28

Chapter 3

HAB events and HABHRCA 2004 requires a 

plan for programs to reduce the frequency and 

intensity of HAB events and their impacts. 

Further, HARRNESS2 calls for the development 

of early warning systems, response plans, and 

methods to reduce exposure and for improving the 

coordination of responses across local and regional 

scales. The Prediction and Response Report 1, 

required by HABHRCA 2004, recommended that 

improving and coordinating event response should 

be part of the RDDTT Plan. 

The HAB Event Response component has two 

elements: the rapid response required during and 

immediately after a bloom event, and the capacity 

building activities required to assure more efficient 

and effective response for future blooms. Other 

programs, such as the NOAA MERHAB Program, 

contribute to long-term capacity building, so the 

primary focus of this report is to address the need 

for rapid event response, although some elements 

also contribute to capacity building. 

3.B. Current Status of HAB Rapid 

Event Response

3.B.1. Role of State and Local 

Governments

The primary responsibility for event response 

resides at the state, county, municipal, and tribal 

level for both coastal and freshwater HABs. 

State Departments of Health, Marine Resources, 

Environment, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Fish 

and Wildlife, and, in the case of freshwater HABs, 

county and municipal agencies, may be involved in 

HAB response. States respond to HAB events to 

protect public health, to mitigate impacts on local 

economies, to determine cause for fish and wildlife 

mortalities, and to manage ecosystems. 

States are responsible for safety of any seafood 

products harvested for commercial sale and 

recreational harvesting. FDA oversees state 

shellfish sanitation plans to ensure overall product 

safety. Given that some regions have been 

experiencing blooms of the same HAB species on 

a recurring basis for many decades, the affected 

states and tribes generally have good response 

capacity and organizational relationships not only 

within the state but with regional Federal entities 

and even neighboring states. In areas experiencing 

emergent HAB problems or with recurrent 

blooms of significant magnitude, states may not 

have sufficient capacity or expertise to respond 

effectively. 

Responsibility for freshwater HAB event 

reponse rests with either state or local governments. 

The level of state response varies due in part to 

a lack of Federal regulation for freshwater HAB 

toxins. It should be noted, however, that EPA is 

in the process of considering regulations for the 

most prevalent toxins12,13, which may drastically 

alter response to freshwater HABs. Cyanobacterial 

HABs can occur in a wide spectrum of freshwater 

bodies from small ponds to the Great Lakes, 

making response efforts logistically problematic. 

Contamination of drinking water sources by 

cyanotoxins has potentially serious public 

health implications. Some states have organized 

monitoring programs especially for recreational 

and drinking source waters13, but others resist or do 

not have adequate resources even when livestock, 

wildlife, and pets experience mortalities. 

3.B.2. Role of Federal Event Response

3.B.2.a. Mandatory Federal Response

There are only two instances that require a 

Federal response. If a bloom that threatens public 

health occurs in Federal waters, then FDA can 

request that NOAA National Marine Fisheries take 

appropriate action, such as temporarily closing 

a commercial fishery. Additionally, if Federally 

protected species are involved, the appropriate 

Federal agency (NOAA, USFWS, or USGS) 

responds. However, in both cases states are often 

involved as well. In all other cases the role of the 

Federal government is to provide assistance at the 

request of state and local governments.

3.B.2.b. 1999 Federal Event Response Plan for 

Harmful Algal Blooms

In 1999, the Federal Event Response Plan 

for Harmful Algal Blooms: An Initial Focus on 

Pfiesteria, Fish Health, and Public Health was 

created through a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) as an effort to organize an interagency, 

Federal response to HABs after the Pfiesteria
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 29

Event Response Workgroup Report

events of 1997. It was requested by the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality in order 

to plan future responses to Pfiesteria. Although 

the plan was never invoked (given its voluntary 

character and perhaps its focus on Pfiesteria), 

it stimulated coordination and communication 

between agencies that had not interacted before 

on HAB issues and formed the basis for the 

current NOAA event response efforts. This plan 

is recognized as a resource for future HAB event 

response organization at the Federal level.

The Pfiesteria plan was an effort to organize 

Federal response to Pfiesteria when states requested 

assistance. It designated a National Event 

Response Coordinator (at NOAA) and identified 

key contacts in each Federal agency including the 

FDA, CDC, and EPA. The plan recognized that 

some responses could be handled at the regional 

level through the network of EPA Regional Offices. 

The National Coordinator at NOAA was tasked 

with coordination between the states requesting 

assistance, regional contacts and other Federal 

agencies. This plan provides a sound framework 

for HAB event response organization at the Federal 

level.

3.B.2.c. Federal Programs to Assist State and 

Local Response

Some services exist at the Federal level to 

supplement state response. One of these is the 

NOAA CSCOR Event Response Program (http://

www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/

current/fact-ev_resp.html). The program has the 

dual purpose of providing assistance, either as 

funding or expertise, for managing events and 

advancing the understanding of HAB events. 

Funding is provided to assist states or independent 

researchers to collect data, conduct trainings, 

and enhance or expand monitoring in coastal and 

estuarine waters, upper reaches of estuaries and the 

Great Lakes. 

NOAA also has organized an Analytical 

Response Team (ART), located at the Center 

for Coastal Environmental Health and 

Biomolecular Research. For toxin identification 

and quantification, a suite of toxin class-specific 

assays is first employed to quickly determine the 

presence of specific toxic activity. Quantitative 

instrumental analysis is then used to determine the 

toxin composition and concentration in samples. 

For algae, light and scanning electron microscopy 

may be used for identification in water samples 

and gut contents and feces of animals where 

appropriate. ART responds annually to between 10 

and 25 HAB events and provides analysis without 

charge. On occasion, funding support has been 

offered by NOAA to state analytical laboratories 

to assist with toxin analyses of marine mammals 

during HAB events (e.g., Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission) upon recommendation 

by the Working Group on Unusual Marine 

Mammal Mortality Events (WGUMMME). The 

Core Infrastructure Program proposed in the next 

chapter addresses the inadequacy of the current 

capacity for toxin analysis. 

Due to the increased number of marine mammal 

mortality events attributed to biotoxins, the 

response to these events requires coordination 

between marine mammal-focused emergency 

services and those responding to the HAB itself. 

The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 

Response Program, established by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, is jointly administered by 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and the USFWS. Unraveling causal factors when 

HAB toxins are implicated is often difficult, but the 

methods developed for assessing HAB impacts in 

protected species may prove useful in evaluating 

outbreaks in humans. The functional organization 

of this program is described below as a possible 

model for HAB rapid response.

The NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring 

and Assessment (CCMA) has been involved in 

developing algorithms to detect HABs using 

satellite imagery and, once detected, to forecast 

bloom transport and geographic extent of impacts. 

Frequently, CCMA will be contacted in the event of 

a suspected bloom to analyze imagery. Bulletins, 

for example, for the Gulf of Mexico (Box 10), 

are continuously available to the public (http://

tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/).

Other Federal agencies are also involved 

depending on geographic location of the bloom 

and whether the bloom is a risk to public health or 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 30

Chapter 3

affects species in state or Federal waters. The FDA 

is responsible for the safety of fish and shellfish 

harvested in Federal waters. FDA laboratories 

are frequently contacted to provide toxin analysis 

during HABs in state waters. In response to 

the Pfiesteria events in the 1990s, the CDC 

began development of the HAB-related Illness 

Surveillance System (Box 10) which is at the pilot 

stage in several coastal states. 

Currently, there is no organized Federal 

responsibility for responding to HABs in inland 

freshwaters outside the Great Lakes. Since the 

number and severity of freshwater blooms have 

been increasing, this is a significant gap. 

3.B.2.d. Possible Models for HAB Response

The NOAA CSCOR HAB Event Response 

Program, mentioned above, is the only program 

dedicated to rapid HAB response. A partnership 

between CSCOR and the U.S. National Office 

for Harmful Algal Blooms, it provides generally 

small amounts of immediate funding as well as 

assists state and local governments to find partners 

with appropriate expertise. It was developed in 

response to the 1999 Federal Event Response 

Plan described above. Some examples of the 

types of activities funded over the past four years 

include: 1) investigating linkages between animal 

mortalities and HAB events, 2) taxonomic training, 

3) investigating potential emerging HAB problems, 

4) intensified sampling to protect human health, 

and 5) coordination of sampling and information 

flow (for examples, see http://www.cop.noaa.gov/

stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/fact-ev_resp.

html#accomp). 

The Marine Mammal Stranding Program 

presents a possible model for organizing rapid 

event response. The stranding program is 

mandated by legislation and is jointly administered 

by NOAA and the USFWS. Using set criteria, a 

Working Group of 12 national and international 

experts, comprising the WGUMMME, reviews 

the data from an event to determine if an unusual 

mortality event (UME) is occurring. The review 

must occur within 24 hours and, if a UME is 

declared, response is activated in the affected 

region through a network of affiliated partners, 

which rely heavily on volunteers to respond. 

Roles are assigned according to a predetermined 

emergency response structure with both on- and 

off-site coordinators. Communication with each 

other and the public is a necessary component of 

the response. Most recently, the internet listserver 

service (“Incident News”) provided through the 

NOAA Incident Command System (ICS) was 

used to post information both for the public and 

for coordination between agencies involved in 

response. This program is considering adopting 

the ICS as the primary organizational tool for 

response. ICS was adapted by the Department of 

Homeland Security as a rapid response tool for any 

level of government (http://www.nimsonline.com/

homeland_security_nims_fact_sheet.htm). Funds 

for UME response need to be mobilized quickly, 

accomplished through deposits in a foundation 

outside the Federal government. Finally, this 

program has a strong research component and 

relies on researchers to help determine the causes 

and processes underlying the UMEs.

As a result of the die-off of 149 manatees 

during the 1996 Karenia brevis red tide, the state 

of Florida created its own state contingency 

marine mammal mortality response plan in 

collaboration with USFWS and NOAA marine 

mammal stranding program. The plan, prepared 

by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, is a good example of cooperation 

between state and Federal agencies in response to a 

coastal problem caused by HABs56.

Oil Spill Response (NOAA, EPA, and U.S.Coast 

Guard or USCG) may be another model for 

response, although the highly centralized and 

uniform approach to spills may not apply to 

the more diverse nature of HABs. All oil spill 

response is coordinated through the National 

Response Center. Some funds are pre-competed 

by EPA for researchers to study wildlife impacts 

during and after a spill. This peer reviewed, 

competitive approach to disbursement of rapid 

response research funds could be potentially useful 

in HAB response as well. Funds to cover the cost 

of clean up are either provided by the responsible 

party or from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, 

which is managed outside Federal government.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 31

Event Response Workgroup Report

3.C. HAB Event Response—A 

Regionally Based Federal Program

3.C.1. Program Rationale

In order to improve response to HAB events, we 

propose a national program designed to coordinate 

these efforts. This program would have a regional 

structure to coordinate responses to HAB events. 

The need for such a program is based on the 

following rationales.

• Improved response capacities. Individual 

states are not always able to respond adequately 

and rapidly to HAB events, particularly if they 

involve new toxic algal species or widespread, 

long lasting blooms. This inability may be due 

to limited or exhausted agency capacity or a lack 

of experience or expertise. Participation in a 

regional program would provide opportunities 

for states to utilize the resources (equipment, 

technology, expertise, and experience) from 

other states and/or Federal agencies for 

enhancing or building rapid monitoring, 

diagnostic, and response teams. Moreover, with 

national coordination, expertise and laboratory 

services from other parts of the country could 

be used to improve the capacity of the event 

response team (e.g., 2007 Texas ciguatera fish 

poisoning event; 2005 Massachusetts red tide 

event (Alexandrium fundyense); 1987 North 

Carolina red tide event (Karenia brevis)). 

Reliance upon regional or national coordination 

has the added advantage of allowing existing 

teams in the affected communities and states to 

focus their efforts and resources on managing 

the hazard in their own areas.

• More efficient resource management. The 

number, frequency, and type of HABs have 

increased in coastal waters in recent years. 

Freshwaters are also becoming burdened with 

HAB events. It is nearly impossible for one 

state or community to maintain the resources 

for monitoring, detecting, analyzing and 

and responding to all possible types of HAB 

outbreaks and the associated illnesses they 

potentially cause in people, fish, wildlife, and the 

environment. A national program for regionally 

coordinated HAB event response assures that 

existing state resources can be complemented as 

needed, by other non-state capacity. Economic 

efficiency is enhanced through the sharing 

of equipment and labor that are not fully 

utilized within a region (e.g., in 2006 Maine 

Department of Marine Resources exchanged 

analytical services for equipment from New 

York; Mississippi informs Louisiana about the 

development of a red tide event; Florida assists 

in toxin testing for other Gulf States). 

• Enhanced interstate and intergovernmental 

coordination. Some HAB problems or HABaffected resources and impacts cross state 

boundaries, state-Federal boundaries, or are the 

ultimate responsibilities of Federal agencies. 

Consequently, there is a need for coordinating 

interstate, intergovernmental, and interagency 

notification and responses to HABs (e.g., 2005 

Federal and state shellfish closures in the Gulf of 

Maine during the large-scale red tide event; need 

for interagency coordination and clarification of 

responsibilities during the 2007 Texas ciguatera 

fish poisoning event). Social science studies 

would be beneficial to assess existing approaches 

to coordination and identify opportunities for 

improvement5. 

• Improved risk communication. As the 

National Science and Technology Council 

explains in its report, Grand Challenges 

for Disaster Reduction57, to be effective 

in protecting human well-being, scientific 

information must be communicated so that 

people understand the risks, trust the messages, 

and respond appropriately. There is a critical 

need for formal communication plans at the 

local, regional, and national levels with pretested messages and delivery strategies, and 

protocols for coordination58. Coordination can 

prevent conflicting and confusing messages 

and approaches at the time of an acute event, 

alleviate unnecessary fear and prevent “reinventing” messages and strategies thereby 

improving the efficiency of response in the next 

event.

• More accurate environmental 

characterization. There is a need for mapping 

associated environmental variables and 

modeling some HAB phenomena at the local 

and regional level. This will allow for more 

accurate understanding of the HAB event and 

improved forecasting for affected communities. 

Mapping and forecasting capabilities exist in the 

Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and are under 

development in the Gulf of Maine, Great Lakes 

and Puget Sound regions.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 32

Chapter 3

• Increased standardization of data. There 

is a need for a national program of regionally 

coordinated HAB event response for 

standardized data collection. Databanks should 

be developed for toxins, economic variables, 

human dimensions data on perception and 

attitude, and standardized medical and veterinary 

data. Systematic data collection eventually 

would become institutionalized and available as 

a permanent record. 

• More efficient information distribution. 

With national coordination, information can be 

acquired more efficiently and distributed more 

rapidly, including information about bloom types 

and characteristics, HAB distributions and toxin 

impacts, species affected, agencies involved 

(agency responsibilities, jurisdictions, mandates, 

funding resources), and capacities (state 

equipment, personnel, and experience). 

• More effective public policy. Sharing of 

information between researchers, states and 

national policy makers and decision makers is 

needed to develop effective public policy. 

• More effective management of living 

resources. National or regional coordination 

combined with scientific expertise and consensus 

interpretation about HAB events can provide 

managers with increased knowledge, guidance, 

and with the capacity for contingency planning. 

One goal is to minimize impacts on critical 

resources and allow for appropriate management 

strategies to be developed to protect species 

from exposure to HABs and their toxins and 

thereby minimize impacts on critical resources.

3.C.2. National Event Response 

Program: Federal Level

3.C.2.a. Staffing 

Due to the widespread distribution of many 

different HAB species and toxins in the United 

States, which sometimes span several states 

or occur in states unprepared to respond, there 

is a need for national coordination in agencies 

that have purview over marine and freshwater 

systems (Box 14). EPA and NOAA should share 

this responsibility and coordination between the 

two agencies is critical. Several staffing options 

are possible. To ensure coordination, the ideal 

structure would have one central coordinator 

(housed at one or the other agency) and two 

deputy coordinators—one in NOAA and one in 

EPA. Another possible structure would have two 

coordinators—one in each agency who would 

communicate on a frequent and regular basis. In 

either case, the coordinators would be Federal 

employees. The Core Infrastructure component 

also calls for National Coordinators. Coordination 

of both Event Response and Core Infrastructure 

could be could be conducted by the same people, 

since there is overlap in responsibilities.

3.C.2.b. Role of Federal Coordination

Establish Federal network of services

If national coordination is enacted, when 

a request for assistance with a HAB event is 

received, access to and information about services 

available throughout pertinent Federal agencies 

would be made available through the National 

Coordinator(s). In preparation for this, the 

National Coordinator(s) would need to inventory 

services available across Federal agencies, as done 

in the 1999 Pfiesteria Plan (see 3.B.2.b). It may 

be necessary to generate MOUs between NOAA/

EPA and other Federal agencies to ensure timely 

response. The list of agencies to be contacted to 

establish institutional relationships includes, but is 

not limited to, NOAA, EPA, CDC, FDA, USCG, 

National 

Coordinator

Regional 

Regional Regional 

Regional 

State & County

Tribes

Academics

Federal 

Box 14. Diagram of proposed Event 

Response component, focus on national 

coordination.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 33

Event Response Workgroup Report

USGS, USFWS, USDA, ONR, Army Corps of 

Engineers, and NASA. Also, depending on the 

office in which the National Coordinator is located, 

it will be important for this person or persons to 

make necessary connections with other offices to 

ensure working knowledge of available expertise 

and services. For example, within NOAA, it will 

be necessary to be in working communication with 

CSCOR, CCMA, National Marine Sanctuaries, and 

laboratories in the National Ocean Service, NMFS 

(multiple programs and regional laboratories), 

and the National Estuarine Research Reserves 

System (NERRS). The National Coordinator(s) 

would make necessary connections with the U.S. 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), 

both during an event to capitalize on relevant data 

but also operationally in an on-going process to 

ensure that IOOS is incorporating sensing systems 

relevant for HAB detection (also see Chapter 4).

Create and oversee a regional structure

The National Coordinator(s) would also 

oversee the creation and facilitation of a regional 

communication and response structure. However, 

the regional structure is not intended to override 

state response but rather serve as a resource 

for states in the event of a HAB that strains 

existing resources and capabilities. This regional 

structure should be established in such a way to 

provide equivalent support for both marine and 

freshwater events. Event response has many 

common elements and the intent is to facilitate 

cross-fertilization and synergies among agencies 

and states. Response can be best organized by 

regions because of commonality of requirements, 

access to resources, and familiarity with the events. 

Coordination at the regional level is essential. 

The National Coordinators will work with state 

and regional entities (including IOOS regions, 

EPA regions, FDA regions) to identify regional 

boundaries and coordinators. The appropriate 

MOUs, terms of reference, etc. will be established 

to assure the linkage with Regional Coordinators.

An immediate and critical role for a National 

Coordinator(s) is to ensure that needs assessments 

are conducted at the regional level. The primary 

objective of a needs assessment is to determine 

the informational and resource gaps that must 

be addressed to respond adequately to an event. 

Needs assessment includes an inventory of what 

tools and methods are required, deficiencies 

in training and expertise, funding shortfalls, 

communication and evaluation needs, and any 

other resources that are lacking or insufficient in 

quantity, time, and geographic distribution. In 

the state section of this plan, there is a list of 

response activities that should be considered. 

Communication with the proposed Core 

Infrastructure Program, which plans to assess, 

organize, and expand infrastructure availability 

at the regional level, will be important to avoid 

duplication of effort and assure adequate resources 

in an event response.

Foster guidelines development

For some HAB events, particularly those 

in freshwater bodies and when an emerging or 

unknown organism is present, there may be a 

lack of sufficient guidelines or action plans for 

response and management to protect public health 

or minimize resource impacts. In addition, there 

are regional discrepancies in event response 

readiness and operational guidelines. The National 

Coordinator(s) would compile, evaluate, provide 

access to, and develop guidelines that can be used 

by partners and stakeholders. The intent is not to 

challenge or change existing guidelines or action 

plans. Rather, the National Coordinator(s) will 

provide a clearinghouse for existing policies that 

can be shared among the Regional Coordinators 

and states, initiate a forum for evaluation and 

optimization of procedures, and provide leadership 

for the development of nonexistent guidelines or 

update existing guidelines that were identified 

as critical in a needs assessment. Guidelines are 

especially needed for HABs in freshwater systems.

Conduct outreach, networking, education, 

communication, and training

A primary responsibility of the National 

Coordinator(s) would be to conduct outreach, 

education, and communication about HABs. The 

National Coordinator(s) would work with regional 

coordinators to ensure the states in each region are 

fully aware of the goals, objectives, and resources 

of the National Event Response Program. The 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 34

Chapter 3

National Coordinator(s) would cultivate a network 

of HAB specialists throughout the states and 

regions that understand the issues and needs and 

can respond to events as they unfold. The national 

program would also be the central clearinghouse 

of information, probably most effectively through 

a web site that provides an inventory of resources 

available in the various states, tribes, academic 

institutions, and through other partners.

Effective communication in a HAB event is a 

major challenge. The goal of the National Event 

Response Program is to build institutional capacity 

to improve effectiveness and efficiency of HAB 

crisis communication and outreach. Although 

communication with the various parties involved 

in a specific event is probably best handled at 

the state or local level, the national program 

would provide assistance as requested to support 

the delivery of clear, consistent and appropriate 

messages to managers, media and the public. 

The National Coordinator(s) might also assist in 

facilitating communication among the agencies 

during the event. Assistance from specialists 

in Risk Communication is needed to help the 

HAB community develop formal communication 

plans at the local, regional, and national levels 

with pre-tested messages and delivery strategies, 

and protocols for coordination58. Design of 

communication messages requires a detailed 

understanding of the target audiences and 

stakeholders, and pre-testing with small groups of 

stakeholders similar to the target audience.

Training can dramatically improve future event 

responses. Training should include technical 

training in monitoring and assessment approaches, 

and toxin screening, but also training (e.g., from 

Risk Communication specialists) to improve 

the communication and coordination abilities of 

specific individuals in appropriate agencies. 

Develop and administer two Event Response 

Funding Programs

It is recommended that two funds be established 

to support event response: (1) a Contingency Fund 

that would be used to respond to unexpected, new, 

or expanded HAB events, and (2) a Technical 

Assistance Fund that would fund on-going 

activities to improve responses to future HAB 

events. 

The Contingency Fund would be available 

to support response activities that cannot be 

accommodated in the region because a state does 

not yet have an appropriate program to meet the 

need and/or the regional capacity is not available 

or is exceeded in a prolonged or new event. An 

expedited proposal process should be established, 

and states, tribes, or academic institutions could 

apply (see current CSCOR event response). 

Criteria for ranking proposals would need to 

be established. A Technical Assistance Fund 

should be available to fund activities designed 

to improve responses to future events. This 

fund would support the development of new 

guidance and training modules, research that might 

improve future event response (especially human 

dimensions research), and enhanced infrastructure 

capacity in states where that is currently lacking. 

Evaluate and implement improvements to Event 

Response

An important responsibility for the National 

Coordinator(s) will be to ensure that lessons 

learned during event response are documented 

and used to plan for future events. This should 

happen at both the regional and national level. The 

role of the National Coordinator(s) in regional 

response evaluation will be to ensure that event 

response documentation on protocols, resources, 

and contacts are maintained at the regional level 

by the Regional Coordinator(s) and shared with the 

National Coordinator(s). In addition, the National 

Coordinator(s) should conduct an annual review 

to evaluate national/regional HAB event response, 

determine where services were not sufficient, and 

thus provide future directions.

3.C.3. National Event Response 

Program: Regional Level

3.C.3.a. Staffing Regional Coordination

In order to effectively organize a coordinated 

regional system, multiple Regional Coordinators 

would be required for both freshwater and marine 

HABs. The Regional Coordinator position 

will function mainly as a facilitator and liaison 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 35

Event Response Workgroup Report

for the various agencies and teams (see 3.D.) 

involved in an event (Box 15). The person in 

this position will require excellent organizational 

and communication skills, the ability to forge and 

maintain interagency relationships and agreements, 

and the ability to build a functional, dynamic team 

that may change from event to event, or possibly 

change during a single event.

Regional Coordinator(s) require long-term 

Federal support as well as an adequate budget to 

carry out coordinating functions. Coordinating 

functions includes funding for infrastructure (see 

Infrastructure section), training, communications, 

and emergency resources (staffing, supplies, 

equipment, easily accessible funds, and other 

needs). In this respect, it will be important for the 

Regional Coordinator to maintain a close working 

relationship with the Core Infrastructure Regional 

Coordinators, described in Chapter 4 and in fact, 

these may be the same person. They are most 

likely to reside in NOAA and EPA regional offices 

or labs, but other arrangements are also possible. 

Regional coordinators will have responsibilities 

both during an event and between events.

3.C.3.b. Role of Regional Coordination 

Event Response responsibilities

In the case of a HAB event, which is within the 

scope of a state’s ability to manage without outside 

assistance, the Regional Coordinator should receive 

a courtesy notification of the event, in order to 

communicate this information to the rest of the 

regional community.

In the case of a HAB event, which is either 

a new event, or an exceptionally severe event 

requiring supplemental resources, the Regional 

Coordinator may receive a request for assistance 

from either a state, tribal, or Federal agency within 

the region. The Regional Coordinator will consider 

whether the request could be handled with interregional resources, and if so, will direct the entity 

seeking assistance to the appropriate teams. If 

the request for assistance could not be managed 

with existing regional resources, then the Regional 

Coordinator will contact other regions to seek the 

required resources, or will contact the National 

Coordinator to seek further assistance.

Inter-event responsibilities

Pre- or post-event responsibilities will 

include facilitating additional training for the 

regional teams, including but not limited to, 

communications skills. The Regional Coordinator 

will also be responsible for creating and 

maintaining new relationships with other agencies 

or entities that may provide additional resources 

during a HAB event, and will maintain an accurate, 

up-to-date inventory of regional resources and 

contact information. The Regional Coordinator 

will also be responsible for coordinating regular 

meetings of the regional and state stakeholders, 

in order to maintain a consistent level of 

preparedness, enhance communication skills 

and to share information to improve future event 

responses. Open communications and access 

to critical data that aids in the interpretation of 

the event must be shared between personnel 

responding and evaluating the HAB event. The 

regional coordinator will: 

• Facilitate rapid response to new or unusual 

HAB events. In certain situations, a state may 

be inexperienced in responding to a HAB or an 

experienced state may need additional resources 

to respond to an unusually large, unique, or 

dynamic HAB event. In these cases, the state 

may request assistance from the region.

National 

Coordinator

Regional 

Regional Regional 

Regional 

State & County

Tribes

Academics

Federal 

National 

Coordinator

Regional 

Regional Regional 

Regional 

State & County

Tribes

Academics

Federal 

Box 15. Diagram of proposed Event 

Response component, focus on regional 

coordination.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 36

Chapter 3

• Provide liaison function with other states 

in a region and National Coordinators. 

The primary goal here is communication and 

facilitation of any unmet needs in the area where 

the HAB is occurring.

• Facilitate readiness before, during, 

and after events, including education, 

training, debriefings, review, reappraisal 

of existing plans and resources, personnel, 

equipment, and information about regional 

infrastructure. Regional coordination 

will allow a greater level of awareness of 

existing resources. Through the enhanced 

communication structure, state program 

managers can be informed of emerging issues 

and new technology. 

• Help guide management actions (intrastate 

and interstate): Regional coordination will 

facilitate a clear and effective response in 

cases where an incident spans one or more 

boundaries such as county or state borders. 

Regional coordination can assist in ensuring 

that the counties and states affected by the same 

or a similar HAB species provide consistent 

messages to the public. It can also facilitate the 

collection of consistent data in each jurisdiction 

and ensure that a single post-event report is 

prepared.

• Develop regional specific contingency plans 

to address specific needs and resource 

capabilities: With detailed assessment of 

resources such as technical skills, laboratory 

facilities, vessels, and the region can be better 

prepared for new or unusual harmful algal 

bloom events. Planning can focus on the unique 

challenges and resources within the region. 

The development of broad contingency plans 

in advance of HAB events can maximize the 

opportunity to gather data as an event unfolds, 

assess the situation, and communicate results in 

an orderly, succinct, and timely fashion.

3.C.4. National Event Response 

Program: State Level

3.C.4.a. State Response Programs

For the most part, many states have the existing 

infrastructure to respond to known HAB species, 

evaluate their impacts and communicate potential 

concerns to the public (Box 16). The basic 

response elements in place include operational 

personnel from the medical, fish and wildlife, 

environmental, diagnostic, data, assessment and 

planning, and communications communities (e.g., 

Box 17). Depending upon the type of HAB and 

the number and extent of species affected, each 

of these various components may be required for 

response, and subsequent follow-up and evaluation, 

but they are not envisaged as supplementing 

(unless so requested by the states) already existing 

infrastructures. If response capacity is exceeded, 

a state has no existing infrastructure, or a new or 

emerging HAB is encountered, then additional 

logistical assistance and support may be requested 

from the region. National involvement will depend 

upon the resources that might be available in one 

state to assist another state (or tribe). Through 

regional and Federal coordination, resources 

should be made available to the states within each 

region to respond rapidly (on a relatively shortterm basis) to a HAB event in a neighboring state. 

This plan must also ensure that resources would be 

made available through the national and regional 

systems of coordination to allow a regionally based 

academic institution or a Federal lab or center (e.g., 

the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center) 

to respond rapidly and assist in an unusual HAB 

event.

National 

Coordinator

Regional 

Regional Regional 

Regional 

State & County

Tribes

Academics

Federal 

National 

Coordinator

Regional 

Regional Regional 

Regional 

State & County

Tribes

Academics

Federal 

Box 16. Diagram of proposed Event 

Response component, focus on state and 

local response.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 37

Event Response Workgroup Report

3.C.4.b. Elements of a State HAB 

Response

The following types of response 

are usually deployed or should be 

considered when a HAB outbreak 

occurs. The role of the Event 

Response Program proposed 

herein is to enhance state and local 

government capacity to provide 

these types of response at the request 

of those governments. Use of the 

terms “group” and “team” refer to 

functions and expertise needs that 

will be met by one or more people; 

the same person may have multiple 

functions during an event and other 

responsibilities when an event is not 

occurring.

Response Group

•	 Medical Response Team will provide medical 

evaluations and symptomatic treatment. The 

medical team will also assist with community 

education, case definition and identification, 

collect health data for public health officials and 

the CDC, and define research needs as necessary. 

During the event, the medical team may provide 

medical advice to response personnel as deemed 

necessary. During event follow-up, the medical 

team may also assist with surveillance, clinical 

characterization, and therapeutic guidance if 

indicated. 

•	 Wildlife Response Team will consist of primary 

first responders and investigative experts to 

provide detection coverage, response, live 

animal care, and necropsy evaluations. The 

response will be scaled up from local response 

as the need arises and depending on the number 

of animals or species involved. In the case of 

endangered species, specific response efforts or 

mitigation measures may be implemented by the 

wildlife team. 

•	 Management Team will be comprised of the 

relevant government officials and, is responsible 

for implementing official action on public water 

supplies, fishery closures, conducting product 

recalls, closure of recreational waters, postage 

of signage to protect public health, clean-up of 

beaches or shorelines, and possibly providing 

treatments to sick animals at rehabilitation 

facilities (see Wildlife Response Team). 

•	 Fisheries Team will provide field support for 

detection, collection and assessment of the 

fishery situations including assessing fish kills 

and shellfish or benthic species mortalities, 

collecting live biota in areas of the HAB, and 

collecting diagnostic or control samples from 

biota as needed, using standard collection 

protocols. Samples will be used for toxicity 

testing, to assess the role and impact of the HAB 

in the mortality events, and for crop insurance 

follow up.

•	 Environmental Data Collection Team (HABs, 

water quality, satellite imagery) will collect 

appropriate water quality, habitat, and living 

resource samples on a scale appropriate for the 

event. This team will have multi-disciplinary 

components, some of which will be on site (or 

at the event) and others remote (even outside 

of the region or state). The team may also 

identify relevant historical data to compare and 

contrast impacts from the event and to determine 

potential causes or contributing factors. 

•	 Socioeconomic Data Collection Team will

compile sociocultural and economic data on 

resources, communities, and industries that are 

affected by HAB events on an on-going and 

consistent basis. Although this effort would not 

necessarily be a part of the rapid response to an 

individual bloom, it is important to determine 

the sectors or communities that are directly or 

Box 17. Oregon Interagency Task Force on 

Cyanobacteria. 

Over the past several years in Oregon, the response to 

cyanobacterial blooms in recreational freshwater bodies has been 

inconsistent and piecemeal. In part, this is reflected by the numerous 

agencies that have jurisdiction over lakes and reservoirs, many with 

variable levels of interest or resources. To provide a coordinated 

response to bloom events, several stakeholders in Oregon developed a 

taskforce including city, county, state, and Federal agencies, along with 

business and academic partners. 

This interagency taskforce developed guidelines for sampling and 

monitoring, opening and closing recreational areas, as well as public 

outreach and media communication. This effort was bolstered in the 

early stages by the involvement of EPA and CDC personnel who 

attended an interagency meeting for training purposes. Since the 

formation of the taskforce, the response to bloom events, especially 

consistency in opening and closing areas and information provided to 

the public, has been greatly improved. However, several needs, both 

resource and informational, still exist59.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 38

Chapter 3

indirectly impacted. This would be most easily 

done during or just after an event.

Diagnostic Group

•	 Analytical Lab Teams (toxins, infectious 

pathogens, pathology) will provide the 

analytical support that is appropriate for the 

event, which may include toxin analysis, HAB 

species identification, histology and pathology, 

etc. They will be comprised of one or several 

existing entities within the region, including 

but not limited to state, Federal, academic, or 

private labs. The intent for all response efforts is 

to assign cause; therefore, a range of diagnostic 

tests may be conducted to determine the role of 

HAB toxins or other bioactive compounds (e.g., 

pesticides). This group might also collect unique 

data that could increase understanding and guide 

responses to future events.

•	 Data Management Team will have access 

to all the data involved in an event response 

(analytical, remote sensing, GIS, etc.) and may 

be comprised of one or more members within a 

region who have access to and familiarity with 

the most current GIS or other information in the 

region. This information may be in the form 

of existing state GIS inventories, or on-going 

research projects at state, Federal, or academic 

institutions. The team may also be required 

to collect and project emerging data from the 

HAB event in a form that is meaningful to other 

response team members.

Communication Group

• The Communication Group will convene 

trained risk communication teams, which 

are fully integrated into the event decision/

management structure. The group may assess 

current information from the various response 

teams and, in consultation with key managers 

and decision makers, develop clear and 

concise messages, define the immediate status 

of the situation and potential impacts, safety 

precautions and other appropriate actions and 

disseminate the information to the media and 

public. Designing effective messages and 

strategies for delivering complex information 

to various stakeholders and the public requires 

a detailed understanding of the various target 

audiences. Effective messages must be built on 

audience knowledge, understanding, concerns, 

and needs with a goal of building trust in the 

HAB event managers and researchers. 

Assessment and planning group

• The Assessment and Planning Group will 

provide a thorough analysis of the response to 

the HAB event. This may include, but not be 

limited to, an assessment of the potential event 

causes and contributing factors, both short 

and long-term impacts on human, wildlife and 

environmental health, how response to the event 

was handled from the tactical and strategic 

point of view with recommendations for 

improvements in efficiency and communication 

where appropriate. The group may also be 

responsible for conducting debriefings after 

the event to identify shortfalls, successes, and 

possible ways to improve future event responses. 

The team may also identify areas of research 

based on observations and data from the event. 

They may also identify new questions that have 

emerged during and after the event for potential 

HAB research.

A HAB Event Response Program is needed 

to augment the primary response responsibility 

that resides at the state, county, municipal, 

and tribal level for both coastal and freshwater 

HABs. By improving coordination between the 

Federal government and between those involved 

in HAB response and research within a specific 

region, this program will better utilize the existing 

infrustructure—speeding and improving response 

to HAB events around the Nation.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 39

Chapter 4

The Core Infrastructure needs were presented in 

detail in HARRNESS2, the U.S. National Plan for 

HABs (Box 18), but the approach for specifically 

meeting these needs was not described. Specific 

approaches for meeting these needs are detailed 

to achieve three main goals: 1) insure availability 

of adequate analytical facilities, reference and 

4.A. Introduction

The past decade has resulted in tremendous 

advances in the community’s understanding 

of HAB dynamics, from physiology and toxin 

expression to bloom transport and economic 

impact. The general increase in knowledge 

has been matched by rapid expansion in the 

capability for toxin and species 

detection using laboratory, handheld, and in- and above-water 

technologies. Advancements in both 

basic knowledge and in methods 

and tools have led to significant 

new opportunities for furthering 

understanding and for protecting 

human health. However, as the 

field has matured, the infrastructure 

needs of the community have also 

increased. These core needs form the 

foundations upon which the science 

and its management applications 

depend. Many of the associated costs 

are far greater than can be borne by 

individual investigators or end-users. 

As described below, these needs 

cross-cut science and management 

and bridge individual agency 

interests. While in some cases they 

may intersect with the goals of other 

U.S. programs already in place, 

existing programs are inadequate to 

meet these requirements. The critical 

needs described below identify those 

intersections with an ultimate goal of 

growing a greater community through 

collaboration.

Core Infrastructure

Workgroup Report

By P. Glibert, G. Boyer, J. Ramsdell, K. Sellner, L. Backer, W. Carmichael, R. Dickey, C. Heil, 

B. Kirkpatrick, J. Kleindinst, G. Langlois, J. McDowell, K. Steidinger, M. Tamburri, and V. Trainer

Box 18. Summary of infrastructure needs from 

HARRNESS2.

(ARMFUL!LGAL2ESEARCHAND2ESPONSE!.ATIONAL%NVIRONMENTAL3CIENCE3TRATEGYn 

2EFERENCE-ATERIALS

4HEREISANATIONALNEEDFORREFERENCEMATERIALS

FORRESEARCHERSMANAGERSEDUCATORSPATHOLOGISTS

TOXICOLOGISTSANDPUBLICHEALTHSCIENTISTS4HENEEDS

INCLUDEPRESERVEDSPECIMENSLIVECULTURESMOLECULAR

PROBESCERTIlEDTOXINSTANDARDSANDDATABASES

2EPOSITORIESORFACILITIESWHERESUCHRESOURCESARE

MAINTAINEDMUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALLWHONEED THESE

MATERIALSBUTMAYEXISTATMULTIPLEORDIFFERENT

PHYSICAL LOCATIONS4HESEMATERIALSAREATTHECORE

OFADVANCING(!"SCIENCE

$ATA-ANAGEMENT

4OEFFECTIVELYCARRYOUTACOORDINATEDNATIONAL

RESEARCHPROGRAMACCESSTODATAMANAGEMENTAND

DATAVISUALIZATIONTOOLSISNEEDED!COMMONDATA

MANAGEMENTANDCOMMUNICATIONSTRUCTUREWILL

ENABLEEFFECTIVECOMMUNICATIONWITHOTHER53

INITIATIVESFOCUSINGONTERRESTRIALORHYDRODYNAMIC

OBSERVINGSYSTEMS$ATABASESTHATPROVIDEONLINE

WORKROOMSANDMULTI
DIMENSIONALGRAPHICALVIEW


INGOFDATAWILLBEVALUABLEFORRESEARCHERSANDTHE

BROADERCOMMUNITYRESPONSIBLEFORPUBLICHEALTH

%DUCATIONAND/UTREACH

!NINTEGRATEDANDCOORDINATEDEDUCATIONAND

OUTREACHPROGRAMISCRITICALLYNEEDED)TMUSTHAVE

COMPREHENSIBLEINFORMATIONONHARMFULALGAEBE

REGIONALLYFOCUSEDETHNICALLYDIVERSEINNATUREAND

USEFULFORBOTHSCIENCEANDPUBLICHEALTHEDUCATION

3UCHAPROGRAMWILLALLOWACCURATEKNOWLEDGETOBE

CONVEYEDANDPROFESSIONALSANDPRACTITIONERSTOBE

TRAINEDANDWILLPROMOTECOMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT

3HARED&ACILITIES -ANYREGIONALCAPACITIESARENOWINPLACEBUT

SUSTAINEDSUPPORTFORCENTERSWITHSPECIlCEXPERTISE

ISNEEDED)NSOMECASESINSTRUMENTATIONANDOR

ARRAYSOFDETECTIONEQUIPMENTARETOOEXPENSIVE

TOREPLICATEINOTHERCASESEXPERTISESTANDARDSOR

REAGENTSMAYBELOCALIZEDANDSHOULDBEMOBILIZED

WHENANEWAREAMAYBEINNEED4HEABILITYTO

ELECTRONICALLYLINKREGIONALINSTITUTIONSLABORATORIES

ANDFACILITIESWILLENSURERAPIDACCESSBYALLTONEEDED

ASSAYSPROTOCOLSINSTRUMENTSOREXPERTISE

PROGRAM FOCI

Bloom Ecology and Dynamics

Toxins and Their Effects

Food Webs and Fisheries

Public Health and Socioeconomic Impacts

PROGRAM APPROACHES Targeted Investigations

Regional Studies

Inter-regional Comparative Investigations

Mitigation and Control

INFRASTRUCTURE Reference Materials

Data Management

Education and Outreach

Shared Facilities

National HAB Committee

Facilitating Stakeholders Partners

HARRNESS
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 40

Chapter 4

research materials, 2) improve integration of 

HAB activities with existing monitoring and 

emerging observational programs, and 3) enhance 

mechanisms for communication and networking at 

the regional and national level. Herein we provide 

the details of how such needs should be met. Only 

by developing mechanisms for ensuring a strong 

core foundation can improved mitigation, control, 

prevention and education emerge.

4.B. Analytical, Reference and 

Research Materials

One of the most fundamental requirements 

for expanding frontiers of knowledge, assuring 

conformity of methods, and training new 

scientists and technicians is the availability 

of adequate analytical facilities and reference 

materials. Analytical facilities are essential for 

the development of new analytical methods and 

sensor technologies. They provide access to 

expensive equipment in situations where their 

individual purchase may not be justified, yielding 

an overall savings in community research funds. 

Toxin reference materials are highly purified 

toxins whose properties (i.e., mass, purity, 

stability) are sufficiently characterized to be used 

for the calibration of instruments, the assessment 

of methods, or for assigning concentrations to 

materials. Certification of a reference material 

establishes its accuracy within a stated level 

of confidence and is essential in the modern 

regulatory environment. Other research materials 

include items such as HAB cultures, isolated cell 

cultures, purified but not certified toxins, molecular 

probes, genetic material, and animal and human 

tissue samples. Shared research materials such 

as these are critical to develop and verify new 

techniques, assure uniformity of analyses, and 

allow retrospective analysis of HAB events as 

technology improves.

Training also plays an important role in basic 

infrastructure as a highly qualified workforce is 

essential to respond to HAB events. Training 

includes advanced courses, workshops, and 

mentoring opportunities. This training can be 

integrated with analytical facilities and repositories 

to provide specialized techniques involving 

instrumental methods and effective utilization of 

research material. Sponsored mentoring and career 

development awards are effective for more in-depth 

training, to rebuild expertise in disappearing skills 

such as taxonomy, as well as re-tooling established 

researchers to take on emerging technologies. 

Continual training assures maintenance and 

expansion of workforce skill sets and promotes 

succession and technical advancement necessary 

to continue to meet the expanding research and 

management needs of the HAB community.

4.B.1. Current Status

At present, several state, Federal, and academic 

laboratories routinely analyze water and tissue 

samples for the majority of toxins present in 

U.S. waters. Numerous additional laboratories 

can identify HAB species by microscopic and 

molecular techniques. Various laboratories provide 

services for ancillary water quality measurements. 

Academic, non-governmental organizations, 

and for-profit industries have the expertise and 

experience to design and operate fixed and 

autonomous HAB sampling and monitoring 

devices. Most of this capacity is adequate for 

routine monitoring within our existing regulations. 

However, existing resources are not necessarily 

adequate for event response, to meet new emerging 

regulations, or consistently available to all 

interested users. Existing opportunities to expand 

analytical infrastructure and instrumentation 

capability are few.

In terms of toxin reference materials, there are a 

number of current limitations. The U.S. National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

relies by informal agreement on the production 

of some HAB toxin certified reference materials 

by Canada’s National Research Council Certified 

Reference Materials Program (NRC-CRMP). The 

NRC-CRMP certifies and distributes certified 

reference materials for many of the marine toxins 

and, over the last several years, has worked with 

HAB scientists in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, 

and Finland to certify and distribute certified 

reference materials for additional marine and 

freshwater toxins. NIST provides mainly inorganic 

standards in the United States and has an informal 

agreement with NRC to avoid duplication of effort. 

Therefore, NIST does not produce or distribute 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 41

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

HAB toxin certified reference materials. The 

U.S. EPA and FDA also have small programs to 

develop and validate analytical methods for certain 

cyanotoxins and, as part of these programs, provide 

certified or reference materials for a limited number 

of freshwater (microcystins, cylindrospermopsin) 

and marine (saxitoxin) toxins. However, standard 

reference materials are noticeably unavailable for 

several toxins, such as brevetoxin and ciguatoxins, 

limiting factors for both research and protection of 

human safety in some areas.

Culture and tissue collections represent another 

important source of core research materials. At 

present the National Marine Mammal Tissue 

Bank maintains the long-term storage of tissues 

from marine mammals and a number of harmful 

algal species are maintained at the Center for the 

Culture of Marine Phytoplankton (CCMP) and 

University of Texas Starr collection (UTEX). 

These collections are expensive to maintain and 

need to expand to accommodate the new HABS 

in U.S. waters. Many individual investigators 

maintain their own collections, but adequate staff 

Toxin

Form of Toxin Available

Certified/Standard Source U.S. Need

Reference Material 

General 

Reference 

Material

Marine Toxins

Brevetoxins

(including PbTx1,2,3,6,7,9 and some 

metabolites)

No Some Commercial High

Ciguatoxin No Yes High

Dinophysistoxins No No available in 

tissue

Domoic Acid Yes Yes NRC, 

Commercial

Okadaic Acid Yes Yes NRC, 

Commercial

Paralytic shellfish 

poisoning toxins 

(including saxitoxin, 

neosaxitoxin, 

decarbamoyl STX, 

gonyautoxins 1-4 and 

selected others) 

Some

(11 of 20 

congeners)

Some NRC, FDA

Palytoxin No No High

Pectenotoxin-2 Yes No NRC

Yessotoxin Yes No NRC

Freshwater Toxins

Anatoxin-a No Yes Commercial

Anatoxin-a(S) No No High

BMAA No Yes Commercial

Cylindrospermopsin Yes Yes NRC, EPA

Microcystins (including 

microcystin LR, RR, 

LA, YR, LW and LF)

No Yes NRC, 

Commercial

Saxitoxin Yes Yes NRC, FDA

Box 19. The availability of selected marine and freshwater HAB toxins.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 42

Chapter 4

and facilities are not available to incorporate 

these cultures into the national culture collections, 

resulting in a critical lack of duplication as 

insurance against permanent loss of a culture. 

Determination of the genetic code and DNA 

sequences for several harmful algal taxa are 

underway; however, sequencing the total genome 

of most harmful algal species is still a future 

development to be encouraged.

Current training opportunities in HAB 

techniques in the United States are limited and have 

been available primarily through the international 

community. The UNESCO Intergovernmental 

Oceanographic Commission Harmful Algal 

Bloom Program offers regular training courses 

in identification/taxonomy and enumeration 

of marine HAB species. U.S. participation in 

many of these programs has been limited due to 

travel costs and their focus on non-U.S. issues. 

Although there have been a few laboratory training 

courses for toxin detection offered recently in the 

United States, in general, advanced training for 

instrumental methods, detection technologies, 

and species determination is largely unavailable, 

leading to a serious lack of national preparedness.

4.B.2. Proposed Approach

4 B.2.a. Analytical Facilities 

Analytical facilities provide capabilities for 

method development and validation, analyses 

for regulatory action, and analyses in support of 

environmental monitoring and disease surveillance 

and research. Analytical facilities house a wide 

variety of instrumentation to perform analyses 

for toxins, algae, and environmental chemistry. 

Facilities also serve as venues for training and 

professional development, and communicating 

advances to networks of interested laboratories. 

Analytical facilities are critical in expanding the 

frontiers of knowledge, assuring conformity of 

methods, providing support for overflow analyses 

during unusual events, and to enhancing the skills 

of scientists and technicians that require access to 

state-of-the-art instrumentation.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should establish a 

network of available analytical facilities, 

facilitate cross-laboratory validation of methods, 

and ensure that information and data are easily 

shared among facilities. Included in this would 

be an inventory and integration of existing 

facilities/programs, the capacity to respond to an 

HAB events of different geographic extents and 

of different priorities, and their ability to operate 

in a regulatory environment. 

4.B.2.b. Analytical Instrumentation

Modern methods of analysis for HAB toxins 

and organisms often require highly specialized 

and expensive equipment. The demands for 

instrumentation and staff needed for regulatory 

monitoring can usually be predicted and 

incorporated into existing operations and 

maintenance budgets. However, analytical 

equipment needs to be continuously updated in 

academic, Federal and state laboratories. While 

smaller research instrumentation can be included 

in basic research and operations grants, some 

equipment costs are simply too large or too 

specialized to be borne through these existing 

funding systems. NSF has addressed this problem 

through their Major Research Instrumentation 

Program (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_id=5260). This program assists in the 

acquisition or development of major research 

instrumentation that is, in general, too costly for 

support through other NSF programs. Proposals 

may be for a single instrument, a large grouping 

of instruments, or multiple instruments that share 

a common or specific research focus. A similar 

mechanism needs to be established for equipment 

serving the HAB community. This equipment 

should serve the needs of multiple users, and 

the mechanism and support for its maintenance 

and proper operation should be determined 

at the time of acquisition. Examples of these 

types of equipment include, but are not limited 

to, high performance liquid chromatography 

equipment with mass selective detection needed 

for the separation, identification, and quantitation 

of toxins, scanning electron microscopes 

for identification of HAB species, and DNA 

sequencing instrumentation that forms the basis 

of the modern molecular nucleic acid-based 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 43

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

techniques. Providing for these basic instrument 

needs would also expand our research capabilities, 

increase our ability to respond to new and 

emerging threats, and serve a valuable function 

in augmenting our surge capacity in the case of a 

HAB or bioterrorism event response.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should establish an 

interagency competitive extramural funding 

program that would allow state, Federal, 

and academic researchers to obtain major 

equipment needed to update and replace capital 

instrumentation necessary for HAB research 

and monitoring, modeled after the similar NSF 

program.

4.B.2.c. Toxin Reference Materials 

Different grades of toxin reference materials 

are needed, depending on the specific application. 

Reference and certified reference materials are 

defined by the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO/IEC, 1993). The U.S. NIST 

refers to reference materials and standard reference 

materials with the same definition. For the 

purposes of marine and freshwater toxins, standard 

reference materials are highly purified toxins whose 

property value(s) (i.e., mass, purity, stability) are 

sufficiently homogeneous and well established 

to be used for the calibration of an apparatus, 

the assessment of a measurement method, or for 

assigning concentrations to materials. Certification 

of a reference material establishes traceability to 

it for accuracy determination with a stated level of 

confidence. Toxin reference materials are essential 

for calibration of analytical measurement of toxins 

and the validation of new liquid chromatographymass spectrometry (LC-MS) methods, which 

are cornerstones for the confirmation of toxins 

where certainty is absolute, such as regulatory 

decisions. These materials require the highest 

amount of effort, often involving multiple methods 

for purification, characterization, and certification. 

They are the most expensive but are also utilized in 

small unit quantities.

Purified freshwater and marine toxins without 

the requirements for standard and certified 

reference material, described here as general 

reference materials, are also a critical component 

of HAB studies. General reference materials 

may require a high degree of purity but require 

a lesser degree of certification and their cost is 

correspondingly lower. They are typically used 

in test kits, whole animal toxicology studies, 

pilot studies of fate and removal in water 

treatment processes, where large quantities of 

material are needed. Some applications may 

not require the same degree of purification as 

others, but all require a certain level of chemical 

characterization. General reference materials are 

not provided through the NRC-CRMP, but are 

available in limited quantities through a number 

of commercial suppliers. Unfortunately many of 

these toxins become commercially available only 

after a health event has stimulated the demand 

for these toxins. This limits the development 

of analytical methods and the basic health data 

needed to properly respond to the event. A current 

example of this type of compound is palytoxin 

where the development of new analytical methods 

and determination of its biological effects and 

metabolism are needed to determine if it is a health 

threat. Other examples of such priority toxins at 

this time include ciguatoxin (Pacific and Caribbean 

origin), selected brevetoxins from algae (PbTx-3 

and PbTx-7), brevetoxin metabolites from fish or 

shellfish, and the freshwater toxins anatoxin-a and 

anatoxin-a(S) (Box 19).

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should continue 

collaborations with Canada’s NRC-CRMP to 

provide the U.S. HAB community with certified 

analytical standards. The United States should 

identify an institution that can serve as an 

alternate in the event that NRC is no longer 

able to provide certified toxin standards in the 

United States. Funding mechanisms are needed 

for (1) the initial bulk production of the toxins 

by contributing organizations; (2) initial testing 

by NRC and the certification process; and (3) 

distribution and replacement costs to ensure an 

uninterrupted supply of toxins. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should establish a 

procedure to make available bulk toxins for 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 44

Chapter 4

methods development and animal exposure 

studies. This should include a mechanism 

for identifying toxins for production with an 

emphasis on eliminating current roadblocks to 

research and development of our understanding 

of HABs, as well as an effort to predict future 

health and safety needs. A mechanism for 

funding the preparation of limited amounts of 

bulk toxins to ensure availability of materials 

should be in place. These materials may also 

serve as a source for the certified reference 

material program

4.B.2.d. Culture collections

Culture collections serve as the repository of 

living organisms. The two main culture collections 

for algae in the United States are the CCMP (The 

Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Culture of 

Marine Phytoplankton) and UTEX (The Culture 

Collection of Algae at the University of Texas). 

These national collections are complemented 

by many individual investigator collections and 

international culture collections (e.g., UTCC or 

University of Toronto Culture Collection of Algae 

and Cyanobacteria). Maintenance of these culture 

collections and the sharing of these resources 

are expensive. These national and regional 

culture collections must be maintained and new 

technologies for preservation of viable cells (i.e., 

cryopreservation) and networking to facilitate 

sharing of HAB organisms must be developed. 

Cryopreservation (or similar technology) is 

essential for ensuring not only longevity of cultures 

but genetic integrity of algal isolates. Sharing of 

collections, either individually or through CCMP, 

is encouraged through some funding programs 

(e.g., ECOHAB), but missing is an inventory of 

the many smaller culture collections maintained by 

individual investigators. Future Federal funding 

opportunities may wish to include language that 

will assure depositing of cultures in national 

collections. However, the additional demand 

from depositing cultures into national collections 

such as CCMP or UTEX will require more 

support to maintain these collections. Policies for 

distribution, accessibility, and survivability of these 

existing collections are a critical need to ensure 

their viability and harmful algal culture availability 

in the future. Some cultures, such as Pfiesteria, 

for example, create additional complexities for 

maintence as they are not true “algae” and must 

have additional substrates to grow beyond standard 

media. These species also have quite different 

physiological properties when maintained on 

different substrates. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must ensure sufficient 

support is available to allow national collections, 

such as the CCMP and UTEX, to acquire and 

maintain HAB isolates by supplementing 

the NSF Living Stock Collections Program 

(http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_id=9189). Small regional and species 

specific culture collections also require support 

where unique growth requirements prevent 

routine culture maintenance in the national 

collections. Support must also be provided 

for long term maintenance of collections 

through cryopreservation and other developing 

technologies.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must encourage 

investigators to isolate and deposit new HAB 

organisms in these culture collections and to 

submit the appropriate metadata regarding their 

original isolation. Policies are needed to reward 

these efforts and to address the intellectual 

property issues regarding patenting organisms 

that might restrict their scientific use. 

4.B.2.e. Molecular Techniques and Associated 

Databases

Molecular techniques are the basis of the 

modern scientific revolution. They include 

techniques for the detection and identification 

of organisms through their nucleic acid (DNA 

or RNA) signatures, techniques for determining 

which members of a community contain the genes 

responsible for toxin production or other metabolic 

pathways, as well as the use of modern techniques 

for the determination or detection of toxins and 

organisms. Existing funding programs (e.g., 

ECOHAB, OHH programs, and MERHAB) may 

support the development of these molecular probes 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 45

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

and assays; however, the training, validation, 

and technology transfer associated with their 

operational use (e.g., in public monitoring 

programs) is generally outside the scope of 

individual grants. Individual investigations 

can often provide considerable information 

on specific genes and targets; however, a 

more complete understanding of those factors 

affecting toxin production may be obtained 

through sequencing of the entire genome, or in 

the case of organisms such as dinoflagellates 

whose genomes may be too large to sequence 

directly, through the use of expressed sequence 

tags (ESTs). 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must ensure 

sufficient support is available to advance our 

understanding of the molecular basis of toxin 

production and identification of HAB species. 

Policies are needed to address the intellectual 

property issues regarding patenting organisms 

and their genomes that might restrict their 

scientific use and to reward investigators for 

depositing DNA, RNA, and protein sequences 

from harmful algal species in the national and 

international databanks.

4.B.2.f. Tissue Collections

Separate from the reference materials associated 

with the HAB toxins and toxic organisms 

are the tissues from species exposed to HAB 

events. HABs directly impact both human and 

environmental health in complex ways. Assessing 

these impacts requires evaluation of complex 

physiological interactions in a variety of different 

tissue matrices (e.g., blood, muscle, gut, brain, 

liver, lung) to assess the environmental impacts 

of exposure to the toxins. The collection and 

archiving of both clean and contaminated animal 

and human tissue samples is a major need (Box 

20). Currently, national repositories for such 

tissues are limited, and include the National Marine 

Mammal Tissue Bank, which maintains the longterm storage of tissues from marine mammals for 

retrospective analyses, the National Biomonitoring 

Specimen Bank and the Marine Environmental 

Specimen Bank. These latter two repositories are 

maintained by NIST. Other examples of tissues 

needed for HAB research include fin fish tissues 

collected from different regions (both toxic and 

nontoxic), certified contaminated shellfish (e.g., 

NRC-CRMP MUS-1 domoic acid-containing 

mussel tissue), clinical samples, etc. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must identify both 

a hosting agency (i.e., repository) for these 

materials and mechanisms for long-term, 

sustained funding to support HAB-related 

human and animal tissue banking. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must provide for tissue 

repository(s) that include well established 

banking protocols, a chain-of custody system, 

maintenance of associated sample data (both 

metadata and associated environmental and 

toxin data), appropriate facilities for long-term 

storage and security, protocols for sample 

provision, and data sharing.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must also provide a 

mechanism to promote participation in human 

and animal tissue banking programs. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must encourage the 

development of appropriate partnerships 

and cooperation at the state, Federal, and 

international community levels. CDC and FDA 

are important Federal partners in this activity, 

particularly in the collection and deposition of 

human clinical samples. 

Box 20. Purpose of specimen banking.

The NIST website explains “environmental specimen 

banking is the long-term preservation of representative 

environmental specimens for deferred analysis and 

evaluation. A systematic well-designed specimen bank 

program is not only a valuable component of real-time 

monitoring and basic research, but it also enables 

investigators to extend their research into the past and 

provides for future verification of analytical results. 

Formal environmental specimen banks are recognized 

internationally as integral parts of long-term environmental 

monitoring and research.” http://www.cstl.nist.gov/projects/

fy06/ee0683908.pdf
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 46

Chapter 4

4.B.2.g. Training 

The need for short term and comprehensive 

training was recognized in HARRNESS2 to 

ensure the next generation of HAB taxonomists, 

ecologists, and chemists. Specific training is 

needed in identification of HAB species as well 

as use of analytical instrumentation, molecular 

and chemical techniques, and field sampling 

methodology. In addition, advanced training is 

needed in other areas such as the handling and 

interpretation of continuous data, visualization 

techniques (GIS, remote sensing imagery), 

design and development of analytical methods, 

and statistical interpretation of information. 

Training courses, where appropriate, may also 

provide certification in these techniques to ensure 

compatibility between operators and laboratories.

Under the umbrella of training are included 

short term and advanced courses, workshops, and 

mentoring. Specific training opportunities should, 

in some cases, be integrated with the regional 

analytical facilities and repositories to provide 

specialized techniques involving instrumental 

methods and effective utilization of research 

material. Training developed in conjunction 

with national symposia maximizes the transfer 

of knowledge from experts on particular subjects 

of interest to the HAB research community. 

Sponsored mentoring and career development 

awards are effective for more in-depth training 

(e.g., NSF’s Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise 

in Taxonomy or PEET), to rebuild expertise in 

disappearing skills (such as taxonomy, including 

morphology, ultrastructure, chemical constituents, 

and genetics), advancing capabilities in remote 

sensing data interpretation and visualization, as 

well as ‘re-tooling’ established researchers to take 

advantage of emerging technologies. Having 

an established training infrastructure assures 

maintenance and expansion of these skill sets and 

promotes succession and technical advancement 

necessary to continue to meet the research needs 

of the HAB community as well as the needs of 

public officials in safeguarding public and coastal 

living resource health. Taxonomists with expertise 

in both molecular and classical techniques are 

essential to ensure continuity and expertise in 

support of future HAB research and monitoring to 

protect our coastal populations. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must encourage 

technology transfer through the use of training 

in areas such as instrument and analytical 

techniques, taxonomy, and molecular 

identification of HAB species. This would 

include, but not be limited to, short training 

workshops located in the United States, longer 

academic courses, professional mentoring 

(similar to PEET), and participation in 

workshops. 

4.B.2.h. Standard Operating Procedures and 

Interlaboratory Validations

Multiple analytical facilities and personnel 

require extra care to ensure results are comparable 

with other agencies and facilities. Method 

validation, standardization of procedures, and interlaboratory calibration are all procedures to ensure 

compatibility of results and creation of shared 

data bases. Comparisons must be made across 

different regions, HAB toxins and tissue matrices. 

Smaller scale validations may also be required to 

address factors such as extraction efficiency and 

matrix interference. The end results of these efforts 

should be readily accessible to all and in a format 

where amendments can be incorporated and notes 

on their use can be shared between analysts.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should establish at 

least one validated method for each toxin 

of importance in the United States. Some 

methods may need to be validated for a single 

application while others may be useful across 

multiple sample types. These studies should 

include toxin preparation, matrix preparation, 

distribution, and data analysis. Use of these 

applications in different circumstances may 

require amendments to ensure these methods are 

valid and acceptable for their end application. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should establish standard 

operating procedures for collection and detection 

of all HAB toxins. In addition, mechanisms 

to provide funding for inter-laboratory 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 47

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

performance exercises are needed to ensure 

different analytical facilities are conducting 

measurements on common toxins, algal species, 

and environmental indicators within acceptable 

limits of confidence.

4.B.2.i. Maintenance of and Access to Long 

Term Monitoring Databases

Databases are collections of related records, 

data, and/or pieces of information that serve as 

the backbone of our understanding of HABs and 

their impacts (Box 21). They identify experts, 

assess long-term trends in occurrence in space 

and time, indicate impacted wildlife or human 

populations, record impacts by harmful algae/

toxins, elucidate the socio-economic effects of 

toxin exposures, and provide distribution maps for 

HAB events. The design, construction, population, 

and maintenance of databases is a complex 

infrastructure task involving database design, 

data compilation, technology transfer between 

multiple platforms (e.g., data in hardcopy, multiple 

database programs), documentation of data quality 

and techniques (metadata), and the design of 

appropriate user interfaces. Older data sets often 

present a special problem because access may be 

limited due to storage in outdated data structures, 

even though they contain irreplaceable information, 

especially in terms of current issues of global and 

long term climate change. 

For the HAB community, the database 

infrastructure should include a readily available 

network of national information, analytical 

facilities, repositories, wildlife and human health 

disease registries, historical HAB records (and 

associated data), and socio-economic factors 

associated with HAB events. Expanding 

community access to other data sets is becoming 

increasingly important to compare responses to 

similar events across the Nation. Issues associated 

with handling data are more complex than ever 

before, with vast quantities of data being collected 

at tremendous rates. Some of this data collection 

may fall under the guise of Data Management and 

Communication (DMAC) and IOOS. However, 

HAB relevant issues will require specific input 

by the HAB community. Care needs to be taken 

in moving forward to ensure that “new” data are 

in a format compatible with the new data storage 

system and are accompanied by the appropriate 

metadata. The U.S. National Office of Harmful 

Algal Blooms at the Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution currently maintains several HABrelated databases (experts, maps), and a variety of 

species-specific HAB databases are maintained 

by state agencies responsible for HAB monitoring 

(e.g., Florida HAB Historical Database, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources). The CDC also 

has initiated a HAB-related illness surveillance 

system (HABISS) for reports of HAB-related 

illnesses. Other international HAB databases 

include the global network for hazard management 

of cyanobacterial HABs (CyanoNet, http://

www.cyanonet.org/) and the Intergovernmental 

Oceanographic Commission’s Harmful Algae 

Event Data Base for the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific (http://www.iode.org/haedat/). 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must coordinate 

with existing programs to ensure continued 

access and maintenance of existing databases. 

Mechanisms to do so may include a technical 

advisory committee under the NHC to determine 

how and if long-term HAB-related databases 

currently in existence should be maintained, 

and, perhaps, through long-term support for the 

National HAB Office.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must ensure that other 

databases such as tissue banks, culture lists, 

analytical services, socio-economic data, and 

wildlife and human health impacts are also 

compiled and linked to these established national 

and regional sites.

4.C. Monitoring and Emerging 

Observational Programs

Field monitoring is increasingly being conducted 

from buoys, airborne or satellite remote sensing, 

ships, ferries, and high frequency radar arrays. 

Box 21. Importance of public data.

“Science thrives on open access to compilations of 

data in electronic or other databases” 60
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 48

Chapter 4

Much of this network will be part of the newly 

emerging observing systems such as the IOOS, 

Ocean Observations Initiative (OOI), and the 

Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) which 

list HABs as a priority area of concern. This suite 

of observations can provide information on the 

environmental conditions favoring, accompanying, 

or inhibiting harmful algal species and their toxin 

expression. Monitoring for HABs and their 

adverse effects on humans and wildlife provides 

the foundation for operational modeling and 

forecasting and, when appropriately condensed 

and interpreted, can then be used to improve 

predictions of HAB events, promote mitigation 

efforts, and reduce public health risks.

4.C.1. Current Status

Many local “observatories” now exist that 

focus on routine water quality measurements 

of conductivity, salinity, temperature, dissolved 

oxygen (DO), currents, incident light, fluorescence, 

and in some cases, nutrients. These can be 

associated with mobile platforms, such as standard 

monitoring programs with ship-board horizontal 

and vertical sampling (e.g., Chesapeake Bay 

monitoring program, Box 22), but an expanding 

mobile autonomous system is currently being 

developed at specific sites along the U.S. coast. 

Several of IOOS’ stated goals including mitigation 

of the effects of natural hazards are to reduce 

public health risks, to sustain and restore living 

resources, and to preserve and restore healthy 

ecosystems. 

The IOOS system is divided into nine 

regional associations that span all the major 

coastal zones including the Great Lakes. These 

regional observing systems often form the basis 

of both operational monitoring and forecasting 

models. For example, there are well established, 

routine water quality (Maryland, Virginia, Texas, 

California, New York, and Michigan), plankton 

(Maryland, Virginia, Texas, Florida, New England 

States, Vermont, and Washington), shellfish (New 

England States, Florida, California, Oregon, and 

Washington), and marine mammal monitoring 

programs (California and Florida) along the 

U.S. coast and the Great Lakes. Several states 

have established human HAB-related disease 

surveillance and reporting protocols. Results 

from monitoring programs are often used locally 

Box 22. Maryland Chesapeake Bay monitoring and assessment of HABs and 

environmental conditions.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) is responsible for the long-term comprehensive 

Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Habitat Monitoring Program. In 1997 a toxic outbreak of Pfiesteria piscicida 

occurred on Maryland’s lower Eastern shore with estimated economic losses of over $40 million dollars to the 

seafood, fishing and tourist industries. In response to the outbreak, NOAA awarded MD DNR a MERHAB grant 

over a 5-year period to implement a HAB monitoring program.

In 2005, Maryland legislated and implemented a Targeted Watershed Restoration Program to restore the 

Corsica River, a tributary of the Chester River on Maryland’s upper Eastern shore that is highly eutrophic with 

persistent algal blooms, low D.O. and in the fall of 2005 and 2006, fish kills of over 30,000 dead fish. Through 

DNR’s HAB monitoring program, the fish kills were attributed to Karlodinium veneficum and low D.O. 

MD DNR, in an effort to conduct a highly focused study of the Corsica River and its water quality problems 

and with the integration of various partnerships including coordination with the University of Maryland’s Horn 

Point Laboratory, is conducting intensive water quality, habitat and plankton monitoring using new innovative 

technologies, developed through State, federal (NOAA MERHAB and ECOHAB) and local partnerships. These 

new technologies for spatially intensive water quality mapping and temporally intensive real-time monitoring of 

nutrients and physical parameters provide the data required by the research community and state agencies to 

ensure a coordinated response, understand bloom ecology and dynamics and to determine potential causes of the 

Karlodinium bloom and related fish kill. These new monitoring technologies have provided key nutrient results on 

a scale previously unattainable through traditional monitoring efforts and that address the immediate nutrient and 

water quality dynamics preceding bloom conditions.

Although much has been learned over the previous 2-year study, restoration strategies are not fully 

implemented and the nutrient inputs and water quality conditions have changed little over the time period. 

Furthermore, due to resource limitations, MD DNR will not have sufficient resources to continue the level of algal 

bloom assessments developed and conducted by the research community, limiting the capability to address 

potential bloom prevention strategies.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 49

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

and/or regionally for describing recent HA 

events and, less frequently, for forecasting future 

blooms or exposures. In the Gulf of Mexico, 

chlorophyll anomalies (deviation from monthly 

mean conditions) are used to assist Florida field 

teams in locating focused monitoring for Karenia

along the coast and using regional wind fields, 

projecting landfall from Florida to Texas (Box 

10). In Maryland, nowcasts of Karlodinium

distributions are now in place, derived from 

temperature and salinity ranges for the Bay’s 

population, and summer cyanobacteria bloom 

forecasts are distributed throughout the regional 

community. In the Gulf of Maine, a 

biophysical model of the region has been 

excellent in hindcasting past blooms of 

Alexandrium; forecasting, the next step, 

has been in demonstration mode since 

2005 and is also proving successful. 

Indeed, a successful prediction of a major 

regional bloom of Alexandrium was 

made in 2008. In the Pacific Northwest, 

landfall predictions of domoic acid-rich 

Pseudo-nitzschia appear more promising 

with continued field data collection and 

modeling studies. In addition to these 

large observing systems, numerous 

smaller freshwater observatory systems 

exist in states such as Nebraska, New 

York, and California. These multiple 

smaller systems need to be integrated 

into larger networks, perhaps through 

developing observatories such as 

National Observatory Network (NEON), 

Consortium of Universities for Advance 

of Hydrologic Services (CUAHSI), or the 

regional IOOS associations. 

4.C.2. Proposed Approach

4.C.2.a. Observing Systems 

A fundamental component of observing 

systems are the in-water data collection 

resources (platforms and instruments).

Development and maintenance of 

these networked observing platforms 

and instruments are costly and such 

capabilities are currently being developed 

by various groups, agencies, and organizations.

HAB observing efforts should be integrated 

with these existing and developing state (e.g., 

continuous monitoring), regional (e.g., Great Lakes 

Observatory System), and national (e.g., IOOS, 

Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), NEON, 

CUAHSI, Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) 

networks, and NERRS environmental efforts.

In fact, many such efforts such as the NOAAled IOOS and NSF’s OOI currently list ocean 

and human health issues, specifically HABs, as 

a priority focus for their observing systems (Box 

23). Key to the successful integration of HABBox 23. Developing observing systems have identified 

HAB monitoring and prediction as a significant benefit.

“Identify decision processes and critical information gaps 

experienced by coastal public health officials that could be filled by 

the Integrated Ocean Observing System, with a specific focus on 

reducing the risk of illness or injury from direct human exposure to 

coastal waters from:

a. Microbial pathogens

b. Marine biotoxins and harmful algal blooms (HABs)

c. Emerging coastal public health threats”

Ocean.US 200661

“Enhancements to coastal observing systems could improve our 

response to episodic, deleterious events, such as harmful algal 

blooms of Florida red tide, toxic diatoms in California, and Pfiesteria

in the Mid-Atlantic region. These events can pose risks to humans 

and marine life, and public concerns regarding recreation and 

seafood consumption can cause substantive economic impacts 

even if the risks are not realized. A robust, integrated observing 

system would allow advance preparation where the risks are real

and reduce costly overreaction where they are not.”

Ocean.US 200662

 “Monitoring technologies that can be stationed in aquatic 

environments and continually measure for HABs are urgently 

needed.”

US Commission on Ocean Policy63, p. 345

“While these lists provide a starting point for further discussion, 

many of the items included are actually broad categories rather 

than specific variables to be measured. The lists do not specify 

which variables can be measured with current technologies, which 

particular contaminants and pathogens should be observed, or 

which sets of observations can be assimilated to predict potentially 

hazardous environmental conditions, such as harmful algal 

blooms.”

US Commission on Ocean Policy63, p. 400
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 50

Chapter 4

targeted observing systems into this network 

is for the HAB community to provide greater 

input into the location and decision-making 

process for these existing/developing systems, both 

at the national organization level (e.g., National 

Federation of Regional Associations and Ocean.

US) and at the regional level (e.g., individual LTER 

sites and IOOS Regional Associations).

An effective HAB observing system will include 

the transfer or incorporation of novel HABspecific sensing technologies into operational 

use. Laboratory-based protocols for species and 

toxin detection are now routine and efforts to 

shift these technologies to in-water platforms 

are in progress. While there are several existing 

programs focused on this technology development 

and transfer process (e.g., ECOHAB, MERHAB, 

Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine 

Environmental Technology (CICEET), NSF, 

Small Business Innovation Research), a clear 

need for facilitating the final step of technology 

adoption and movement through the high capitaldemanding commercialization phase (‘Valley of 

Death”; see Chapter 2) into operational use still 

remains. Specific mechanisms need to be identified 

to facilitate the inclusion of emerging sensors into 

HAB observing systems. In particular, partnerships 

with organizations such as the Alliance for Coastal 

Technologies to foster the further development, 

user training, and third-party evaluation of HABspecific sensors, and participation in national 

testing activities such as the EPA Environmental 

Technology Verification testing program, are 

appropriate. Once effective and reliable sensors 

are identified, funds must be designated for 

their purchase, operation, and maintenance as 

part of routine infrastructure so that they can be 

incorporated as routine tools in our nationwide 

observing system.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must foster active 

collaboration with existing and developing 

observatory programs at the local, state, 

regional, and national scale.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must identify 

mechanisms for a competitive, peer reviewed 

sensor development program designed to 

provide HAB sensors for platform deployment 

across freshwater and marine systems (see Phase 

1, Chapter 2).

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must foster methods for 

the development, testing, and deployment of inwater sensor techniques for routine operational 

use in most monitoring and observatory 

programs (see Phase 2, Chapter 2).

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program must identify and 

encourage commercial production and 

subsequent routine deployment and maintenance 

of validated algal/toxin sensors (see Phase 3, 

Chapter 2). 

4.C.2.b. Operational Monitoring and 

Forecasting Systems

Water quality monitoring networks are now well 

established throughout many states and regions. 

The next step is to use this information to develop 

regional operational forecasts. These forecasts 

represent a new and highly valued product 

combining basic HAB research and operational 

monitoring, with the expansion of HAB forecasting 

to include health and socio-economic impacts as a 

desired outcome. 

New data inputs to these operational monitoring 

and forecasting systems are continually being 

developed, both through expansion of some 

existing routine monitoring programs such as 

the NERRS, the developing observatories in 

IOOS, CUAHSI, NEON, and LTERs, as well 

as through basic research programs funded by 

ECOHAB and MERHAB. Initial development and 

deployment is largely through partnerships among 

state resource managers, academic researchers, 

NOAA operational buoy managers, and some 

industrial partners. In the future, however, longterm maintenance of the platforms and sensors 

as well as continuous distribution of data and 

associated derived products may need to be shifted 

from academic institutions to state, Federal, or 

private entities to ensure continuous support for 

maintenance and data management. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 51

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

Finally, once in place, long-term support 

should be guaranteed for routine production of 

the user-identified and, therefore, valued forecast 

products. Routine delivery of these products 

assures local acceptance and use, thereby 

potentially focusing monitoring in spatially 

explicit areas and reducing unnecessary costs 

for monitoring over large numbers of lakes or 

coastline. As forecasts and models are developed 

and/or enhanced, public frustration with HAB 

events may decrease as stakeholders are able to 

make informed decisions. These new tools will 

connect the HAB science community, resource 

managers, the healthcare community, and the 

general public in providing the information 

needed to make informed decisions at all levels.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should identify existing 

and planned monitoring and observatory 

programs and data sets for potential use 

in developing HA forecasts. This may be 

best addressed at the regional level where 

watershed to coastal ocean linkages and 

associated models are generally in place/

available. 

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should strongly 

encourage adoption and use of standard data 

management formats, such as the IOOS Data 

Management and Communwications (DMAC), 

to assure compatibility across developing 

national and international programs. Design of 

data streams and model development compatible 

with future operational forecasts must be 

encouraged.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program, in collaboration with 

the PCM program (Chapter 2), must identify 

mechanisms for long-term support for assuring 

technical transfer of developed models 

and forecasts to states and regions for their 

operational use in managing coasts and lakes 

to minimize the health and ecosystem risks 

associated with HAB events.

4.D. Communication and Networking

A primary goal of communication and 

networking is to maintain and disseminate 

information about HABs that is accurate, timely, 

and targeted to the appropriate audience so that 

individuals, groups, and communities understand 

the message, trust its source, and respond 

appropriately. Information should be developed in 

forms that are easily accessible and understandable 

to a variety of age and interest groups. Many 

impacted communities also have special cultural 

or other needs that should be recognized so 

that information is conveyed in formats that are 

meaningful and useful. Assistance from specialists 

to risk communication is needed to develop 

effective communication messages and delivery 

strategies. Risk communication specialists use 

social science methods (e.g., focus groups, message 

Box 24. Newsletters such as this one on 

Maryland HAB trends are useful in conveying 

information to general audiences. 

http://ian.umces.edu/pdfs/iannewsletter16.pdf

1960 1980 2000 2020

2

4

6

8

population (millions)

?

N-P-K

1960 1980 2000 2020

10

30

50

0

20

40 ?

nitrogen (106 kg yr-1)

N-P-K

N-P-K

1960 1980 2000 2020

2

6

10

0

4

8

12

?

hypoxia volume (109 m3

)

100000000

1000000

10000

1960 1980 2000 2020

100

1

?

cell numbers (ml-1)

IAN: www.ian.umces.edu and Dr. Bill Dennison: dennison@umces.edu

Results described in this newsletter were derived from interviews with Dr. Patricia 

M. Glibert. e research described herein was funded by the NOAA ECOHAB and 

MERHAB programs and by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Graphics, design and layout by Jane Hawkey

FURTHER INFORMATION

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

http://www.umces.edu

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES FOR IAN

• Foster problem-solving using integration of scientific data and information

• Support the application of scientific understanding to forecast consequences 

of environmental policy options 

• Provide a rich training ground in complex problem solving and science 

application

• Facilitate a productive interaction between scientists and the broader 

community

e Integration and Application Network (IAN) is a collection of 

scientists interested in solving, not just studying environmental 

problems. e intent of IAN is to inspire, manage and produce timely 

syntheses and assessments on key environmental issues, with a special 

emphasis on Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. IAN is an initiative 

of the faculty of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

Science, but will link with other academic institutions, various resource 

management agencies, and non-governmental organizations. 

Dr. Patricia M. Glibert, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, December 2006

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are growing in frequency around the world 

and their effects are being recognized by ecosystem managers, scientists, 

and the public alike. From the serious threat to public health created by 

seafood tainted with algal toxins, to human respiratory and skin irritations 

from exposures to aerosols along beaches with red tides, to stranded whales, 

manatees, and dolphin, to economically devastating fish kills, these events 

are serious threats to the viability of our coastal systems. ere are more HAB 

events more often and of longer duration than decades ago, and many more 

species are now recognized to contribute to a myriad of toxin syndromes 

and other deleterious impacts associated with these organisms. ere are 

many causes for such expansion, and several are related to human activities, 

including increased nutrient loading from expanding human population, 

increased agriculture and aquaculture activities, transportation and discharge 

of ballast water.

e Chesapeake Bay is no exception. e stresses to the Bay are well known:

• human population has increased roughly 50% in the watershed since the 

1970s;

• the use of nitrogen fertilizers for both agricultural application as well as lawn 

care has more than doubled over the same period;

• the area of the Bay lacking oxygen has increased nearly four-fold; and

• blooms of one of the major HAB species of the Bay, Prorocentrum minimum, 

have increased several orders of magnitude coincident with all of these other 

changes.

Shellfish stocks have also declined, so that there are also fewer consumers or 

natural controls on algal growth. Nutrient loading and loss of natural grazers 

collectively set in motion a trajectory of ecosystem degradation that includes 

increased HABs.

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) have been recognized for centuries and the human toll from their consumption of 

toxic seafood has been documented from the days of early explorers. Yet most HAB studies were local in nature 

and reactive to outbreaks. However, with the recent development of national and international cooperative 

strategies and programs, a comprehensive, proactive approach with an aim to understand, predict, and control 

such outbreaks is underway. Proactive efforts are being made to improve understanding of species of HABs and 

the common factors contributing to their outbreak in comparable ecosystems.

Nationally, the study of HABs is guided by the Harmful Algal Research and Response Environmental Science 

Strategy (HARRNESS), a blueprint for research for the next decade. is plan recognizes the complexity of 

HAB problems in the U.S., as well as the diversity of agencies and resources to address these problems. It is 

designed to facilitate coordination among researchers, management agencies, and stakeholders by highlighting 

specific needs and suggesting strategies or approaches to address them. HARRNESS suggests that the areas for 

continued or enhanced research include bloom ecology and dynamics, the impacts of HAB toxins, the effects of 

HABs on food webs and fisheries, and public health and socioeconomic impacts. 

Internationally, the study of the ecology and oceanography of HABs is being coordinated by 

the GEOHAB (Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms) Programme, under 

the auspices of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), a non-governmental 

organization, and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO. 

GEOHAB assists in bringing together investigators from different disciplines and countries to 

exchange technologies, concepts, and findings. GEOHAB has identified eutrophication and its 

relationship with globally expanding HABs as one of the priority research areas. e Chesapeake 

Bay is an important model system for global comparative studies because of the multiple 

nutrient sources it receives, the long-term data set available from decades of monitoring, the 

complexity of species composition, and the dedication of the management community.

With broad national and international partnerships, our understanding of the factors leading to 

HABs should expand, allowing us to improve our models for prediction and to make strides in 

mitigation and control measures.

Source: US Census.

 

Eutrophication is one of the major factors contributing to the increase in 

harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay.

Source: Kemp et al. 2005.

  

Source: Hagy et al. 2004.

 

Source: Glibert and Tango, unpub.

P 

e population in Maryland has increased more than 

50%.

e use of nitrogen fertilizers has doubled.

References

Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Wood, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950-2001: Long term changes in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. 

Estuaries 27: 634-658.

Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. 

Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M. R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 303: 1-29. e area of the Bay impacted by hypoxia has more 

than doubled.

e magnitude of harmful algal blooms has increased. 

Shown here is the cell number (per ml-1) of the species 

Prorocentrum minimum for several recent blooms 

compared to blooms of the 1960s.

M T  

Information about the GEOHAB 

Programme and links to all the GEOHAB 

publications can be found at

www.geohab.info.

Information about 

HARRNESS and 

electronic copies of the 

report can be found at 

www.whoi.edu/redtide.


	


	


		

	
	


		

	

		


	

	

	


	
	

Primary Symptom Expressions

	

			

Secondary Symptom Expressions

		
	

	

	

Inputs


		

			


			

N-P-K





Key Features

	





	
	




	

		




N-P-K
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 52

Chapter 4

pretest studies, and field surveys) to develop 

effective messages and delivery mechanisms 

integral to education and outreach efforts.

4.D.1. Current Status

Communication between agencies, investigators, 

regulators, and stakeholders is essential not only 

for a coordinated and well managed response to 

HAB events, but also for an increased general 

awareness of HABs. This communication can 

be developed and fostered through newsletters 

(Box 24), websites, working groups, as well as 

other forums. The HAB community is fortunate 

in that some of this basic infrastructure is already 

in place. HARRNESS2 specifically called for the 

establishment of a National HAB Committee to 

encourage and foster communication between 

researchers and end-users. With support from 

NOAA’s CSCOR, the U.S. National Office for 

Harmful Algal Blooms maintains a basic website 

(http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/) that provides 

information and a national focal point for HAB 

communication. This site is supplemented by 

a number of excellent local and state sites that 

focus more on particular issues or regions. In 

addition, most of the Federal programs such as 

ECOHAB and MERHAB also maintain websites 

to disseminate information and findings about their 

individual programs.

4.D.2. Proposed Approach

4.D.2.a. Communication 

Communication efforts must address four main 

user groups: the public, the HAB community, 

public health and natural resource health managers, 

and the media. Coordinated and informative 

delivery of easily understood scientific information 

to the public, local government, commercial, and 

medical communities is essential to effective, 

smoothly run HAB response policies along 

our coasts. Implementation of social science 

methods promotes effective information transfer 

mechanisms to alter local behaviors. Engagement 

of local leaders and community members through 

multi-ethnic broadcasts, local government 

assurances, hotel and restaurant distribution of 

alternative tourist activities for short-term beach 

closures, the development of clinical information 

(e.g., case definitions, treatment regimens) will 

assure communication coverage to groups in 

greatest need. The emphasis of communication 

will be to utilize and build upon existing regional 

websites for access and distribution of information 

while also providing a coordinated effort for 

HAB event response. The sharing of accurate, 

understandable, and useful information will help 

avoid duplication and conflicting messages. 

Evaluation and design of regional websites 

need to take advantage of current knowledge of 

effective and successful models of electronic-based 

outreach.

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should coordinate with 

the event response program in working with 

states to assist in establishing communication 

lines and links for conveying information on 

HABs and specific HAB events within and 

among regions. This coordination should take 

advantage of existing conduits through state and 

various extension agencies (e.g., Sea Grant and 

Land Grant Colleges).

4.D.2.b. Cyberinfrastructure

“Cyberinfrastructures” are networks, generally 

via the internet, of advanced data acquisition, 

data storage, data management, data integration, 

data mining, and data visualization tools and 

capabilities. They can be conceived of as 

comprehensive digital capabilities for advanced 

levels of computational, storage, and data transfer 

capacity. HAB cyberinfrastructure should be 

designed to minimize institutional and user 

infrastructure tensions and to optimize existing 

regional associations and communities. The 

cyberinfrastructure network would incorporate the 

operational regional associations (e.g., Great Lakes, 

Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic/Caribbean, 

Gulf of Mexico, Midwest, California Pacific 

Northwest, Hawaii, and territories) while also 

eliminating geographic constraints through direct 

connection of their distributed resources (e.g., 

culture facilities, repositories, analytical facilities, 

operational monitoring plateforms, observatories, 

education, and outreach efforts). 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 53

Infrastructure Workgroup Report

Requested Infrastructure: The Core 

Infrastructure Program should develop a 

program following the model of the NSF Office 

of Cyberinfrastructure to provide guidance for a 

HAB-related cyberinfrastructure.

4.E. Developing the Core 

Infrastructure Program

The numerous specific needs detailed above can 

be addressed through two specific implementation 

actions. These are:

• Action: Develop an inter-agency funding 

mechanism that will support the Core 

Infrastructure needs 

outlined above, including, 

but not limited to:

• Purchase of analytical 

equipment

• Development and 

validation of standard 

operating procedures and 

intercalibration exercises

• Support for 

maintenance and 

expansion of the national 

culture collections

• Preparation of 

certified and general 

reference materials

• Preparation of bulk 

certified toxins

• Long term storage of 

tissue collections

• Training workshops 

and higher education.

• Action: Develop regional 

networks to leverage 

existing resources, 

encourage coordination 

and foster active 

communication with users 

and stakeholders within the 

region and between regions. 

The regional networks 

will be linked through 

National Coordinators for 

freshwater and marine HAB 

infrastructure. Funding 

will need to be provided 

to support national and 

regional coordinations and the development and 

maintenance of these regional entities.

Regionally coordinated networks for marine and 

freshwater HAB infrastructure, such as illustrated 

in Box 25, require National Coordinators in 

appropriate agencies (such as NOAA and EPA) 

who will work within both new and existing 

regional resources and communication capacities 

to provide inventories, updates, and contact 

information to users in the region (see Chapter 

3). This lead will maintain an active link to, and 

coordination with, other regional programs such 

as Sea Grant extension and outreach. He/she will 

Education and 

Outreach

Box 25. Diagram of Core Infrastructure Program.

National HAB 

Committee 

National HAB 

Office

Regional 

Coordinating 

Agency

Regional 

Advisory 

Committees

Coordination 

with other 

Regions

Communication 

Clearing House

Crisis 

Management 

Team

Extension and 

Outreach Inventory 

of Existing 

Resources

Improved 

Capacity

Analytical 

Capability

Tissue Material Taxonomy Sensors and 

IOOS Links

Operational 

Forecasts

Cyberinfrastructure

Certified and 

Reference 

materials

Culture 

Collection 

Support

Education and 

Outreach

Analytical 

Methods

Regional 

Response Plans

Improved 

Training

Regional 

Monitoring
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 54

Chapter 4

also interact with the National Coordinator for the 

regional Event Response Program to ensure access 

to, and familiarity with, resources and capacities 

of the region that can be mobilized for a HAB 

event. Regional Coordinators and a Regional 

Advisory Team of scientists, managers and industry 

representatives will regularly interact with the 

National Coordinator to further guarantee focused 

regional resource recognition. At the national 

level, the National and Regional Coordinators 

will interface with the NHC to continue to 

identify needs for the community as well as new 

partnerships enabling leveraging of all resources. 

Because of the similarity in structure and function 

between the national and regional networks for 

infrastructure and event response, the functions 

of the National and Regional Coordinators can 

initially be combined for the two programs, and 

if the programs expand as the need arises the 

functions can be separated.

In sum, the national capacity for harmful 

algal research, development, demonstration and 

technology transfer will be greatly advanced with 

additional resources for core infrastructure and 

through enhanced networking and leveraging of 

existing resources through regional associations. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 55

Implementation 

Plan

By D.M. Anderson

Chapter 5

5.A. Steps for Implementing the 

RDDTT Program

The proposed RDDTT Program is comprised 

of three components: 1) a component for HAB 

PCM, 2) an Event Response component, and 3) 

a Core Infrastructure component. The need and 

community readiness for each of these components 

varies with the status of currently existing research 

and the planning required for each activity. The 

RDDTT program can, therefore, be implemented 

in stages corresponding to the reauthorization 

of HABHRCA every five years, with projected 

funding needs increasing as the different 

components mature (Box 26.). The prevention, 

control, and mitigation (PCM) component is the 

central element of the RDDTT Program because 

it is only through PCM that the grave risks posed 

by HAB expansion can be successfully confronted 

in the long term. Thus, in the first stage (FY 09-

FY 13), the greatest emphasis is on developing 

the PCM component because many promising 

technologies, developed through other HAB 

research programs, are ready to be transitioned 

to operational use. Since Core Infrastructure and 

Event Response are integral to developing HAB 

response, these programs should be initiated in the 

first five years, but full implementation can develop 

over the next five year reauthorization (FY 14-FY 

18) based on the experience and plans developed 

during the first five years.

Implementing an RDDTT program will be 

more likely to be accomplished if the program 

is formalized through authorizations and 

appropriations. Wording changes are needed in the 

next HABHRCA reauthorization that specifically 

identify an RDDTT program in NOAA with the 

above three components and projected funding 

targets, as described in Box 26. Since many 

agencies, such as EPA, NSF, FDA, NASA, ONR, 

CDC, NIH, USFWS, USDA, and USGS, are also 

involved in HAB research and response1, it will be 

necessary to specify that the RDDTT Program is an 

interagency program and funds be appropriated to 

facilitate the participation of other agencies. 

The Freshwater HAB Report13 notes that 

most freshwater HAB research and response is 

conducted as part of other programs, and there 

are no programs dedicated to improving response 

to freshwater HABs. NOAA has a geographic 

mandate that only includes marine coastal waters 

and the upper reaches of estuaries, and the Great 

Lakes. Many freshwater HAB problems fall 

outside these boundaries and, therefore, parallel 

programs will need to be authorized and funded 

in an agency with an appropriate mandate, such 

as the EPA. Separate authorizing legislation is 

required to establish freshwater HAB programs 

because NOAA and EPA are under the purview 

of different Congressional committees, and 

separate appropriations are also required. Because 

freshwater HABs are a problem in nearly every 

state in the United States13, a freshwater RDDTT 

program needs to be funded at the same levels as 

the marine RDDTT program (Box 26).

Although the RDDTT will be the program 

that the public will most readily perceive as 

‘progress’ in the management of HABs, it is 

part of an integrated approach to HAB risk 

management that includes other research and 

response programs. Thus, it is essential that the 

RDDTT program be established as a separate 

program, with the expectation that other research 

and response programs will provide the innovative 

new technologies and approaches as well as the 

ecological and oceanographic context to guide 

its practical and applied activities. Funding to 

implement the entire RDDTT program over the 

next five years (FY09-FY13) is roughly projected 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 56

Chapter 5

to be equivalent to that of the ECOHAB and 

MERHAB Programs (Box 26).

5.B. Prevention, Control and 

Mitigation

The PCM component is designed to bring 

technologies for HAB prevention, control, and 

mitigation from initial, conceptual stages to full 

operational use through a three-phase program. 

The first phase, that of development and proof of 

concept, will require significant funding early in 

the program that is sustained through time to keep 

the flow of ideas and technologies moving into the 

other phases of the PCM program. Initial funding 

for Phase 2 and 3 projects (i.e., pilot-scale studies 

and major demonstration projects respectively) 

will be low in the early stages of the program but 

will grow significantly through time. It is likely 

that more projects will enter Phase 1 than Phases 

2 and 3, but individual projects in the later phases 

will be more expensive. Projects will be selected 

by competitive peer review and the transition from 

one phase to the next will be guided by a panel of 

experts.

Funding to implement the PCM component 

is projected to be approximately equivalent to 

funding authorized in HABHRCA 2004 for the 

PCM program at the outset ($4 million each for 

marine and freshwater PCM in FY 09) and rising 

over time ($6.5 million each in FY 13) due to 

the increasing numbers of projects entering the 

expensive demonstration and technology transfer 

phases, while maintaining a flow of new projects 

entering the development phase. Separate funding 

lines are needed to support equivalent marine and 

freshwater HAB activities. Funding needs for 

the subsequent 5 years (FY 14-FY 18) would be 

determined based on experience with the costs of 

implementing the Phase 2 and 3 programs, which 

a NOAA c Research, assessment, and operational activities for HABs and hypoxia at Federal facilities

b Not NOAA mandate d HABs and Hypoxia

 Program

Funding

($ million)

Federal 

Facilitiesc ECOHAB

RDDTT

MERHAB Regional 

Assessmentsd Total

Total 

RDDTT PCM Event Response

Core 

Infrastructre

HABHRCA 

2004

Marine and 

Great Lakesa 2.5 6.5 3 3 6 1.5 19.5

Proposed

FY09

Marine and 

Great Lakesa 3 6 6.5 4 0.5 2 5 1 21.5

Freshwaterb 3 6 6.5 4 0.5 2 5 1 21.5

Proposed 

FY10

Marine and 

Great Lakesa 3 6 7 4.5 0.5 2 5 1 22

Freshwaterb 3 6 7 4.5 0.5 2 5 1 22

Proposed 

FY11

Marine and 

Great Lakesa 3.5 6.5 8.5 5 1 2.5 6 1 25.5

Freshwaterb 3.5 6.5 8.5 5 1 2.5 6 1 25.5

Proposed 

FY12

Marine and 

Great Lakesa

3.5 6.5 9 5.5 1 2.5 6 1 26

Freshwaterb 3.5 6.5 9 5.5 1 2.5 6 1 26

Proposed 

FY13 

Marine and 

Great Lakesa

4 7 10.5 6.5 1 3 6.5 1 29

Freshwaterb 4 7 10.5 6.5 1 3 6.5 1 29

Box 26. Funding levels for RDDTT and other national HAB programs, authorized by HABHRCA 2004 and 

proposed to address future needs.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 57

RDDTT Plan

are presently not well known. Since the intent is to 

fully fund the PCM component in the first phase, 

large increases are not anticipated in the second 

phase. 

5.C. Event Response

Funds are needed for program coordinators at 

the Federal level who will initially compile an 

inventory of the many different monitoring and 

event response capabilities at the Federal and state 

levels that might relate to HABs, and subsequently 

help to administer and coordinate the program. 

Two full time equivalents (FTEs) are recommended 

for this activity, one in NOAA and one in an 

appropriate agency for fresh water event response, 

such as EPA.

A Contingency Fund has been proposed that 

will support the immediate response to unexpected 

or unusual HABs. It is, of course, impossible 

to predict the frequency at which these events 

occur, or their magnitude, but significant funds 

are needed, given the scale of past events. For 

example, the emergency response to the massive 

2005 New England red tide required many days 

of ship time and other activities that resulted in 

an allocation of approximately $540,000 for that 

single event.

An additional need for the Event Response 

program is a Technical Assistance Fund to be used 

in a competitive program for instrumentation, 

training, and other activities that lead to an 

enhancement of event response capabilities in 

states, localities, or regions. To maximize cost 

efficiency such a program would need to be 

coordinated with the Core Infrastructure Program 

(see next section) and the existing MERHAB 

Program.

The total sum requested at the outset of the 

RDDTT program for event response activities is 

$0.5 million per year for freshwater systems and 

the same amount for marine systems with increases 

later to $1 million each (see Box 26). In the 

second phase, the Event Response Program would 

be fully implemented with incorporation of the 

regional coordinators and fully developed regional 

programs. Costs would be approximately double 

the funding of the first phase.

5.D. Core Infrastructure

The Core Infrastructure Program can be 

implemented in phases. In the initial phase 

program coordinators at the Federal level should 

catalog available infrastructure resources and 

make this information available on the web. 

Since this activity overlaps with the activities of 

the Event Response Coordinators (see previous 

section), in the first phase the functions of the Core 

Infrastructure Coordinators could be combined 

with the Event Response Coordinators. Two 

programs should also be established, one for 

one-time only purchases of equipment or set up 

of facilities and another for providing sustained 

funding for certain activities that are recurrent in 

nature. Both could be modeled after existing peer 

reviewed NSF programs as described in Chapter 4.

Funding of approximately $1 million per 

year is needed initially for the equipment and 

instrumentation purchases and development. This 

amount would gradually increase as the RDDTT 

program moves through its 5-year life span 

(Box 26). As with other program elements, this 

same amount is needed for instrumentation and 

equipment for freshwater and for marine HABs. 

Another $2 million per year ($1 million each 

for marine and freshwater HABs) is needed for 

recurring costs associated with training, culture 

collection maintenance, equipment maintenance, 

preparation of standards, and other facilities needs. 

It is anticipated that many of the analytical facilities 

and some other Core Infrastructure activities will 

become self-supporting by charging fees to cover 

costs. This will take time, however, and thus 

initial investments are needed. At the outset of 

the program, a total of $2 million dollars per year 

is needed for Core Infrastructure activities and 

equipment for each of the freshwater and marine 

HAB programs. This would be scaled up through 

time to a total of $3 million each by the end of the 

5-year program. Additional funds will be needed 

in the next 5-year phase to fully implement the 

Core Infrastructure Program, and by then, it will 

probably be necessary to have separate Event 

Response and Core Infrastructure Coordinators. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 58

Chapter 5

5.E. Overview 

Overall, the RDDTT program would provide 

a substantial infusion of funds to activities that 

lie at the center of the national HAB program. 

All program elements are expected to grow in 

sophistication and capabilities through time and 

thus the funding requirements should increase 

as well. Given the restricted nature of NOAA’s 

focus on marine coastal waters and the Great 

Lakes, parallel authorization and funding is 

needed for other agencies such as EPA that can 

support freshwater HAB studies. As in all other 

aspects of HAB research and response, strong 

interagency partnerships are needed for full 

program implementation. Every effort must be 

made to engage Federal and state agencies in these 

new activities and to convince Congress to provide 

the funding support for the many RDDTT needs 

identified herein.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 59

References

References

1. Jewett, E.B., C.B. Lopez, Q. Dortch, S.M. Etheridge. 2007. National Assessment of Efforts to Predict and 

Respond to Harmful Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters, Interim Report. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal 

Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health. Washington, DC: Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. 

http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/sup_jsost_iwgs.html

2. Ramsdell, J.S., D.M. Anderson, P.M. Glibert (eds), HARRNESS- Harmful Algal Research and Response- A 

National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-2015. 2005. Ecological Society of America, Washington DC. 

3. Jewett, E.B., C.B. Lopez, Q. Dortch, S.M. Etheridge, L.C. Backer. 2008. Harmful Algal Bloom Management and 

Response: Assessment and Plan. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human 

Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. Washington, DC. http://ocean.ceq.gov/

about/sup_jsost_iwgs.html

4. Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, J.D. Joseph (eds), Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. 1993. 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical report WHOI 93-02, Woods Hole, MA. 

5. Bauer, M., (Ed.). 2006. Harmful Algal Research and Response: A Human Dimensions Strategy. National Office for 

Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 58 pp. 

6. Hoagland, P., S. Scatasta. 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. 

7. ECOHAB. 1995. The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms: A National Research Agenda. 

Anderson, D.M. (Ed), http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24158&pt=10&p=19132

8. Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, T.E. Whitledge. 1997. Harmful Algal 

Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation. Science for Solutions. NOAA Coastal 

Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 10, Special Joint Report with the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. 

9. CENR. 2000. National Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms in US Waters. National Science and Tecnology 

Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. 38 pp. 

10. Sea Grant. 2001. Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research Plan. NOAA National 

Sea Grant College Program. 28pp. 

11. Sandifer, P., C. Sotka, D. Garrison, V. Fay. 2007. Interagency Oceans and Human Health Research 

Implementation Plan: A Prescription for the Future. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, 

Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. Washington, DC. , 92 

pp. 

12. ISOCHAB 2007. Hudnell, H.K. (ed.). 2008.. Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms: State of the Science and 

Research Needs. Advances in Experimental Medicine & Biology, 619 

13. Lopez, C.B., E.B. Jewett, Q. Dortch, B.T. Walton, K. Hudnell. 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. http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/sup_jsost_iwgs.

html

14. Lopez, C.B., Q. Dortch, E.B. Jewett, D. Garrison. 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. In review.

15. Anderson, D.M., P. Andersen, V.M. Bricelj, J.J. Cullen, J.E. Rensel. 2001. Monitoring and Management Strategies 

for Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters. Asia Pacific Economic Program, Singapore, and Intergovernmental 

Oceanographic Commission, Paris. 268 pp.

16. Anderson, D.M. 2004. Prevention, control and mitigation of harmful algal blooms: Multiple approaches to HAB 

management. In: Hall, S., S. Etheridge., D. Anderson, J. Kleindinst, M. Zhu, and Y. Zou. (Eds.). Harmful Algae 

Management and Mitigation, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Singapore): APEC Publication #204-MR-04.2, 

pp. 123-130.

17. Trainer, V.L., B.M. Hickey, R.A. Horner. 2002. Biological and physical dynamics of domoic acid production off the 

Washington U.S.A. coast. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47: 1438-1446. 

18.Anderson, D.M., C.A. Stock, B.A. Keafer, A. Bronzino Nelson, B. Thompson, D.J. McGillicuddy, M. Keller, P.A. 

Matrai, J. Martin. 2005. Alexandrium fundyense cyst dynamics in the Gulf of Maine. Deep-Sea Res. II 52(19-21): 

2522-2542.

19. McGillicuddy, D.J., Jr., D.M. Anderson, D.R. Lynch, D.W. Townsend. 2005. Mechanisms regulating large-scale 

seasonal fluctuations in Alexandrium fundyense populations in the Gulf of Maine: Results from a physicalbiological model. Deep-Sea Res. II 52(19-21): 2698-2714. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 60

References

20. Walsh, J.J., J.K. Jolliff, B.P. Darrow, J.M. Lenes, S.P. Milroy, A. Remsen, D.A. Dieterle, K.L. Carder, F.R. Chen, 

G.A. Vargo, R.H. Weisberg, K.A. Fanning, F.E. Muller-Karger, E. Shinn, K.A. Steidinger, C.A. Heil, C.R. Tomas, 

J.S. Prospero, T.N. Lee, G.J. Kirkpatrick, T.E. Whitledge, D.A. Stockwell, T.A. Villareal, A.E. Jochens, P.S. 

Bontempi. 2006. Red tides in the Gulf of Mexico: where, when, and why? Journal of Geophysical Research vol. 

111, C11003, doi: 10.1029/2004JC002813. 

21. Smil, V. 2001. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food. The MIT 

Press, Cambridge, UK

22. Howarth, R.W., A. Sharpley, D. Walker. 2002. Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in the United States: 

Implications for achieving coastal water quality goals. Estuaries 25, 656-676 

23. Boesch, D.F. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for science in reducing nutrient over-enrichment of coastal 

ecosystems. Estuaries 25, 886-900. 

24. Seitzinger, S.P., J.A. Harrison, E. Dumont, A.H.W. Beusen, A.F. Bouwman. 2005. Sources and delivery of 

carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus to the coastal zone: An overview of Global Nutrient Export from Watersheds 

(NEWS) models and their application. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19: 1-11. 

25. Glibert, P.M. S. Seitzinger, C.A. Heil, J.M. Burkholder, M.W. Parrow, L.A. Codispoti, V. Kelly. 2005. The role 

of eutrophication in the global proliferation of harmful algal blooms: new perspectives and new approaches 

Oceanography 18 (2): 198-209

26. Glibert, P.M., J.M. Burkholder. 2006. The complex relationships between increasing fertilization of the earth, 

coastal eutrophication and proliferation of harmful algal blooms. pp 341-354 in: E. Graneli and J. Turner (eds), 

Ecology of Harmful Algae. Springer.

27. Smayda, T. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: Evidence for a global epidemic. In: 

Granéli, E., B. Sundstrom, L. Edler, and D.M. Anderson (Eds.), Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, Elsevier, New York, 

pp. 29-40. 

28.Anderson, D.M., P.M. Glibert, J.M. Burkholder.2002. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, 

composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25(4b): 562-584.

29. Heisler, J., P. Glibert, J. Burkholder, D. Anderson, W. Cochlan, W. Dennison, C. Gobler, Q. Dortch, C. Heil, E. 

Humphries, A. Lewitus, R. Magnien, H. Marshall, K. Sellner, D. Stockwell, D. Stoecker, M. Suddleson. 2008. 

Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: A scientific consensus. Harmful Algae.

30. GEOHAB 2006. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms: Eutrophication and HABs. P. Glibert 

(ed.) IOC and SCOR, Paris and Baltimore.

31. Okaichi, T. 1997. Red tides in the Seto Inland Sea. In: Okaichi, T. and Y. Yanagi (Eds.), Sustainable Development 

in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan - From the Viewpoint of Fisheries, Terra Scientific Publishing Company, Tokyo, 

Japan, pp. 251-304.

32. Yung, Y.K., C.K. Wong, M.J. Broom, J.A. Ogden, S.C.M. Chan, Y. Leung. 1997. Long-term changes in 

hydrography, nutrients, and phytoplankton in Tolo Harbour, Hong Kong. Hydrobiologia 352: 107-115. 

33. Bodeanu, N. 1993. Microalgal blooms in the Romanian area of the Black Sea and contemporary eutrophication 

conditions. In: Smayda, T.J., Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Toxic Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea. Proceedings of the Fifth 

International Conference on Toxic Marine Phytoplankton. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 203-209. 

34. Bodeanu, N., G. Ruta. 1998. Development of the planktonic algae in the Romanian Black Sea sector in 

1981-1996. In: Reguera, B., J. Blanco, M. L. Fernandez, T. Wyatt (Eds.), Harmful Algae. Xunta de Galicia and 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris, France, pp. 188-191. 

35. Makarewicz, J.C. and P. Bertram. 1991. Evidence for the restoration of the Lake Erie ecosystem. Bioscience: 216-

223. 

36. Nelson, G.C., E. Bennett, A. A. Berhe, K. Cassman, R. DeFries, T. Dietz, A. Dobermann, A. Dobson, A. Janetos, 

M. Levy, D. Marco, N. Nakicenovic, B. O’Neill, R. Norgaard, G. Petschel-Held, D. Ojima, P. Pingali, R. Watson, M. 

Zurek. 2006. Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecosystem Change: An Overview. Ecology and Society 11(2): Art. 29. http://

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art29/

37. McMinn, A., G. Hallegraeff, J. Roberts, J. Smith, A. Lovell, A. Jenkinson, H. Heijnis. 2001. Recent introduction 

of Gymnodinium catenatum to Port Lincoln, South Australia, p. 477-480. In: G.M. Hallegraeff, S.I. Blackburn, 

C.J. Bolch, and R.J. Lewis (Eds.), Harmful Algal Blooms 2000. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of 

UNESCO.

38. Lilly, E.L., D.M. Kulis, P. Gentien, D.M. Anderson. 2002. Paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins in France linked to 

a human-introduced strain of Alexandrium catenella from the Western Pacific: Evidence from DNA and toxin 

analysis. J. Plankt. Res. 24(5): 443-452.

39. Gollasch, S., M. David, M. Voigt, E. Dragsund, C. Hewitt, Y. Fukuyo. 2007. Critical review of the IMO international 

convention on the management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. Harmful Algae 6: 585–600. 

40. Anderson, D.M. 1997. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388: 513-514. 
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 61

References

41. Na, G.H., W.J. Choi, Y.Y. Chun. 1996. A study on red tide control with loess suspension. J. Aquaculture 9: 239-

245.

42. Sengco, M.R. 2001. The aggregation of clay minerals and marine microalgal cells: Physicochemical theory 

and implications for controlling harmful algal blooms. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 237 pp. 

43. Sengco, M.R., D.M. Anderson. 2004. Controlling harmful algal blooms through clay flocculation. J. Eukaryot. 

Microbiol. 51(2): 169-172. 

44. Salomon, P.S., I. Imai. 2006. Pathogens of harmful microalgae. In: Granéli, E. and J.T. Turner (Eds.), Ecology of 

Harmful Algae, Ecological Studies, Vol. 189, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 271-282. 

45. Hokkanen, H.M.T., J.M. Lynch. 1995. Biological control: Benefits and risks. Cambridge Univ. Press. 304 pp.

46. Rounsefell, G.A., J.E. Evans. 1958. Large-scale experimental test of copper sulfate as a control for the Florida 

red tide. U.S. Fish Wildlife Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. 270. 

47. Lembi, C.A. 2002. Aquatic Plant Management Barley Straw for Algal Control, Purdue University Cooperative 

Extension Service Publication APM-1-W (http://www.btny.purdue.edu/pubs/APM/APM-1-W.pdf)

48. National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. 

Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press. 

49. Trainer, V. M., M. Suddleson. 2005. Monitoring approaches for early warning of domoic acid events in 

Washington State. Oceanography 18 (2): 228-237. 

50. Rensel, J.E., J.N.C. Whyte. 2003. Finfish mariculture and harmful algal blooms. In: Hallegraeff, G.M., D.M. 

Anderson and A.D. Cembella (Eds.), Manual on Harmful Marine Algae – Revised Edition, (IOC UNESCO), pp. 

693-722. 

51. Stumpf, R.P., M.E. Culver, P.A. Tester, M. Tomlinson, G.J. Kirkpatrick, B.A. Pederson, E. Truby, V. 

Ransibrahmanakul, M. Soracco. 2003. Monitoring Karenia brevis blooms in the Gulf of Mexico using satellite 

ocean color imagery and other data. Harmful Algae 2(2): 147-160. 

52. Luerssen, R.M., A.C. Thomas, and J. Hurst. 2005. Relationships between satellite-measured thermal features and 

Alexandrium-imposed toxicity in the Gulf of Maine. Deep-Sea Res. II 52(19-21): 2656-2673.

53. Landsberg, J.H., Hall, S., Johannessen, J.N., White, K.D., Conrad, S.M., Abbott, J.P., Flewelling, L.J., Richardson, 

R.W., Dickey, R.W., Jester, E.L., Etheridge, S.M., Deeds, J.R., Van Dolah, F.M., Leighfield, T.A., Zou, Y., Beaudry, 

C.G., Benner, R.A., Rogers, P.L., Scott, P.S., Kawabata, K., Wolny, J.L., Steidinger, K.A. 2006. Saxitoxin puffer fish 

poisoning in the United States, with the first report of Pyrodinium bahamense as the putative toxin source. Environ 

Health Perspect. Oct;114(10):1502-7.

54. Hudnell, H.K. 2005. Chronic biotoxin-associated illness: Multiple-system symptoms, a vision deficit, and effective 

treatment, Neurotoxicol Teratol 27:733-743.

55. Kirkpatrick, B., L.E. Fleming, D. Squicciarini, L.C. Backer, R. Clark, W. Abraham, J. Benson, Y. S. Cheng, D. 

Johnson, R. Pierce, J. Zaias, G.D. Bossart, D.G. Baden. 2004. Literature review of florida red tide: implications 

for human health effects. Harmful Algae 3: 99-115. 

56. Geraci, J.R., V.J. Lounsbury. 1997. The Florida manatee: Contingency plan for health-related events. Prepared for 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL. Contract 

No. MR199. 101 pp 

57. National Science and Technology Council. 2005. Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction. A Report of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction. 21, pp. http://www.sdr.gov/SDRGrandChallengesforDisasterReduction.pdf

58. Bauer, M.B., D. L. Ayres, B. G. Blount, P. Hoagland, L. L. Lampl, T. M. Leschine, C. M. Pomeroy, C. W. Scherer, 

J. Schumacker, K. G. Sellner, M. R. Sengco, P. A. Tester. Human dimensions research for harmful algal bloom 

response: Enhancing scientific support for coastal decisionmaking. In prep. 

59. Stone, D., W. Bress. 2007. Addressing public health risks for cyanobacteria in recreational freshwaters: The 

Oregon and Vermont Framework. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3: 137-143.

60. Gardner, W., J. Rosenbalm. 1998, Intellectual Property: Database Protection and Access to Information. 

Science, 281, 786-7870. 

61. Ocean.US. 2006. Public Health Risks: Coastal Observations for Decision-Making, Publication No. 15, Arlington, 

VA. 40 pp. 

62. Ocean.US. 2002. An Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System (IOOS) for the United States: Design 

and Implementation. Ocean.US, Arlington, VA. 21pp 

63. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, 

D.C. ISBN#0-9759462-0-X.
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 62

Appendices

Appendices
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 63

Appendices

Don Anderson (Co-Chair, Work Group Lead)

Director - Coastal Ocean Institute

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Biology Department

Mail Stop 32, Redfield 332

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1049

(508) 289-2351 

danderson@whoi.edu

Quay Dortch (Co-Chair)

ECOHAB Program Coordinator

Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean 

Research/NOAA

1305 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3338 x 157

Quay.Dortch@noaa.gov

Patricia M. Glibert (Co-Chair, Work Group 

Lead)

University of Maryland Center for 

Environmental Science 

Horn Point Laboratory 

PO Box 775 

Cambridge, MD 21613 

(410) 221-8422

glibert@hpl.umces.edu

Megan Agy

National Sea Grant College Program

NOAA

1315 East-West Highway R/SG

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713 - 2431 x 150

megan.agy@noaa.gov

Dan L. Ayres (Work Group Lead)

Coastal Shellfish - Lead Biologist

Washington State Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Region Six Office

48 Devonshire Road

Montesano, WA 98563

(360) 249-4628 x 209

ayresdla@dfw.wa.gov

Gregory L Boyer

Professor of Biochemistry

State University of New York

College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Syracuse, NY 13210

(315) 470-6825

glboyer@esf.edu

Stacey M. Etheridge

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

US Food and Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Parkway

College Park, MD 20740

(301) 436-1470

Stacey.Etheridge@fda.hhs.gov

Porter Hoagland

Marine Policy Center

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Woods Hole, MA 02543

(508) 289-2867 

phoagland@whoi.edu

Michelle J. Hooth

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/

National Toxicology Program

79 T.W. Alexander Drive

P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-35

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

(919) 316-4643

hooth@niehs.nih.gov

Libby Jewett 

Senior Science Policy Analyst

Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research/

NOAA

1305 East-West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3338 x 121

Libby.Jewett@noaa.gov

Judy Kleindinst

Biology Department

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Woods Hole, MA 02543

(508) 289-2745

jkleindinst@whoi.edu

Jan Landsberg

Research Scientist

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

100 Eighth Avenue SE

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095

(727) 896-8626

jan.landsberg@myfwc.com

Appendix I. RDDTT Workshop Steering Committee
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 64

Appendices

Cary Lopez 

Science Policy Analyst

Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean 

Research/NOAA

1305 East-West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3338 x170

Cary.Lopez@noaa.gov

George Luber

Epidemiologist

Health Studies Branch NCEH

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

4770 Buford Highway NE

Chamblee, GA 30341

(770) 488-3429

gluber@cdc.gov

Tiffany A. Moisan

Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Wallops Flight Facility

Wallops Island, VA 23337

 (757) 824-1046

tmoisan@osb.wff.nasa.gov

Gina Perovich

Environmental Scientist

USEPA, National Center for Environmental 

Research

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460-0001

(202) 343-9843

Perovich.Gina@epamail.epa.gov

Mark Poli

Principal Investigator

Integrated Toxicology Division

USAMRIID

Ft Detrick, MD 21702-5011

(301) 619-4801

mark.poli@det.amedd.army.mil

Chris Scholin

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 

(MBARI)

7700 Sandholdt Rd.

Moss Landing, CA 95039-0628

(831) 775-1779

scholin@mbari.org

Tara S. Schraga

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road MS496 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

(650) 329-4381

tschraga@usgs.gov

Kevin Sellner

Executive Director

Chesapeake Research Consortium

645 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater, MD 21037

(443) 482-2350

sellnerk@si.edu

Mary Silver

Department of Ocean Sciences

University of California

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

(831) 459-2908

msilver@ucsc.edu
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 65

Appendices

Appendix II. RDDTT Workshop Invitees

Lorraine C. Backer

Team Leader

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

NCEH MS F-46

4770 Buford Highway NE

Chamblee, Georgia 30341

(770) 488-3426

lfb9@CDC.GOV

Marybeth Bauer

Human Dimensions Research Coordinator 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science/ 

NOAA

1305 East-West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Marybeth.Bauer@noaa.gov

Wayne W. Carmichael

Professor Emeritus

Department of Biological Sciences

Wright State University

Dayton, Ohio 45435 

(503) 755-0711

wayne.carmichael@wright.edu

Frank Cox

Biotoxin Coordinator

Office of Shellfish & Water Protection

Division of Environmental Health

Washington State Department of Health

111 Israel Road Southeast 

Tumwater, WA 98501

(360) 236-3309

Frank.Cox@doh.wa.gov

Darcie C. Couture

Director, Biotoxin Monitoring 

Maine Department of Marine Resources

PO Box 8 

West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575

(207) 633-9570

darcie.couture@maine.gov

Robert W. Dickey

Acting Director, Division of Seafood Science 

and Technology

FDA, CFSAN, Office of Food Safety

Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory

1 Iberville Drive

Dauphin Island, AL 36528

(251) 690-3368

rdickey@cfsan.fda.gov

Gregory J. Doucette

Marine Biotoxins Program

NOAA/National Ocean Service

219 Fort Johnson Road

Charleston, SC 29412

(843) 762-8528

greg.doucette@noaa.gov

David Fyfe 

Shellfish Biologist

NW Indian Fisheries Commission

P.O. Box 498 

Suquamish WA, 98392

(360) 598-6077

dfyfe@nwifc.org

Lynn M. Grattan

Associate Professor of Neurology, Epidemiology

and Preventive Medicine

Director, Neuropsychological Diagnostic and 

Research Laboratory

University of Maryland School of Medicine

22 S. Greene Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

(410) 328-6297

lgrattan@epi.umaryland.edu

Frances Gulland

Director of Veterinary Science

Marine Mammal Center

Marin Headlands

1065 Fort Cronkhite

Sausalito, CA 94965

(415) 289-7344

gullandf@tmmc.org

Ruoying He 

Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

North Carolina State University

2800 Faucette Drive 

Raleigh, NC 27695

(919) 513-0249

rhe@ncsu.edu

Cynthia Heil

Senior Research Scientist

Harmful Algal Bloom Program

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

100 Eighth Ave. South

St. Petersburg, Fl 33701

(727) 896-8626 x 1524

Cindy.Heil@MyFWC.com
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 66

Appendices

Lori Howell

Spinney Creek Shellfish, Inc.

P.O. Box 310

27 Howell Drive

Eliot, Maine 03903

(207) 439-2719 x2

lahowell@spinneycreek.com

Ken Hudnell

Neurotoxicologist

US Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7866

Hudnell.Ken@epamail.epa.gov

Barbara Kirkpatrick

Senior Scientist and Program Manager

Environmental Health

Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 Ken Thompson Parkway

Sarasota, FL 34236

(941) 388-4441 x 226

bkirkpat@mote.org

Gregg W. Langlois

Senior Environmental Scientist

California Department of Public Health

850 Marina Bay Parkway, G165

Richmond, CA 94804

(510) 412-4635

glangloi@dhs.ca.gov

Sherry L. Larkin

Associate Professor

Food & Resource Economics

University of Florida

1095 McCarty B

PO Box 110240

Gainesville, FL 32611-0240

(352) 392-1845 Ext. 431

slarkin@ufl.edu

Judith E. McDowell

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Biology Department and Sea Grant Program 

Woods Hole, MA 02543

(508) 289-2557

jmcdowell@whoi.edu

Bruce Michael

Acting Director, Resource Assessment Service

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Tawes State Office Bldg.

Annapolis, MD. 21401

(410) 260-8627

bmichael@dnr.state.md.us

John S. Ramsdell

Chief, Coastal Research Branch

Center for Coastal Environmental Health and 

Biomolecular Research/NOAA

219 Fort Johnson Road

Charleston, SC 29419

(843) 762-8510

John.Ramsdell@noaa.gov

Teri Rowles

Office of Protected Resources

NOAA

1315 East West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-2322 x 178

Teri.Rowles@noaa.gov

Clifford W. Scherer

Department of Communication

Social and Behavioral Research Unit

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

(607) 255-7498

cws4@cornell.edu

Mario Sengco

Research Scientist and Ecologist 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

647 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater, MD 21037-0028

(443) 482-2362

sengcom@si.edu

Karen A. Steidinger

HAB Specialist 

Florida Institute of Oceanography

830 1st Ave South

St Petersburg, FL, 33701

(727) 896-8626 x 1524

Karen.Steidinger@MyFWC.com

Dave Stone

Assistant Professor and Director

National Pesticide Information Center

Department of Environmental and Molecular 

Toxicology

Oregon State University

327 Weniger Hall

Corvallis, OR 97331

(541) 737-4433

Dave.Stone@oregonstate.edu
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 67

Appendices

Richard P. Stumpf

Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment/

NOAA

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3028 x 173

Richard.Stumpf@noaa.gov

Mario N. Tamburri

Executive Director, Alliance for Coastal 

Technologies 

Research Associate Professor, Chesapeake 

Biological Laboratory

University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

Science

One Williams Street

Solomons, Maryland 20688

(410) 326-7440

tamburri@cbl.umces.edu

Vera L. Trainer

Program Manager

Marine Biotoxin Group

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA

2725 Montlake Blvd. E.

Seattle, WA 98112 USA

(206) 860-6788

Vera.L.Trainer@noaa.gov

Frances M. Van Dolah

Center for Coastal Environmental Health and 

Biomolecular Research 

NOAA

219 Fort Johnson Rd

Charleston, SC 

(843)762-8529 

Fran.Vandolah@noaa.gov

Mary C. Watzin

Professor, Rubenstein School of Environment and 

Natural Resources

Director, Rubenstein Ecosystem Science 

Laboratory

University of Vermont

3 College St.

Burlington, VT 05401

(802) 859-3086

Mary.Watzin@uvm.edu

Steven W. Wilhelm

Associate Professor

Department of Microbiology

The University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN 37996-0845

(865) 974-0665

wilhelm@utk.edu
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 68

Appendices

Appendix III. RDDTT Workshop Agenda

3DJH

5''77
+$%:RUNVKRS$JHQGD

'DWHV-XQH±

/RFDWLRQ:+2,-RQVVRQ&HQWHU

6XQGD\-XQH

 SP6&0HHWLQJDW/DQGIDOO5HVWDXUDQWQHDU+RWHO

0RQGD\-XQH

  %UHDNIDVWDW-RQVVRQ&HQWHU0DLQ+RXVH

±%DFNJURXQGWDONV&DUULDJH+RXVH

±2YHUYLHZRI+$%+5&$DQG5''773URFHVV±4XD\'RUWFK

±2YHUYLHZRI+$551(66±3DW*OLEHUW

±+XPDQ'LPHQVLRQV±0DU\EHWK%DXHU

±,QIUDVWUXFWXUH±-RKQ5DPVGHOODQG.HYLQ6HOOQHU

±%UHDN

±(YHQW5HVSRQVH±/LEE\-HZHWW

±3&0±0DULR6HQJFR

±&KDUJHVWR:RUN*URXSVPLQHDFK±:RUNJURXSOHDGV

± /81&+DW-RQVVRQ&HQWHU0DLQ+RXVH

 ± :RUN*URXSV%UHDN2XW

± %UHDN

 :RUN*URXSV%UHDN2XW

 3OHQDU\±2SSRUWXQLW\IRUTXHVWLRQVDQQRXQFHPHQWVHWF

±  :RUNJURXS&KDLUV5DSSRUWHXUV&RFKDLUV&RQYHQH

'LQQHURQRXURZQ

7XHVGD\-XQH

 %UHDNIDVWDW-RQVVRQ&HQWHU&DUULDJH+RXVH

±3OHQDU\

  (DFK:RUN*URXSSUHVHQWVSURJUHVVGLVFXVVLRQ

±'DQ$\UHV±(YHQW5HVSRQVH

 ±'RQ$QGHUVRQ±3&0

±3DW*OLEHUW,QIUDVWUXFWXUH

 

±%UHDN 

 :RUN*URXSV%UHDN2XW

± /81&++XPDQ'LPHQVLRQV5HSVPHHW

  :RUN*URXSV%UHDN2XW


1DWLRQDO6FLHQWLILF5HVHDUFK'HYHORSPHQW'HPRQVWUDWLRQDQG7HFKQRORJ\7UDQVIHU

3ODQRQ5HGXFLQJ,PSDFWVIURP+$%V5''773ODQ
HAB Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer National Workshop Report 69

Appendices

3DJH

5''77
+$%:RUNVKRS$JHQGD

7XHVGD\-XQH&RQW 

± %UHDN

 :RUN*URXSV%UHDN2XW

 3OHQDU\±2SSRUWXQLW\IRUTXHVWLRQVDQQRXQFHPHQWVHWF

±  :RUNJURXSOHDGVUDSSRUWHXUVDQGVWHHULQJFRPPLWWHHFR FKDLUV

PHHW 

2 5HFHSWLRQDW-RQVVRQ&HQWHU0DLQ+RXVH

± *URXS'LQQHUDOVRLQ0DLQ+RXVH

:HGQHVGD\-XQH

 ± %UHDNIDVWDW-RQVVRQ&HQWHU0DLQ+RXVH

±3OHQDU\&DUULDJH+RXVH

(DFK:RUN*URXSSUHVHQWVSURJUHVVGLVFXVVLRQ

±'RQ$QGHUVRQ±3&0

 ±3DW*OLEHUW,QIUDVWUXFWXUH

 ±'DQ$\UHV±(YHQW5HVSRQVH

 ±0DU\EHWK%DXHU±+XPDQ'LPHQVLRQV

± %UHDN

 :RUN*URXSVRXWOLQHUHSRUWV

± /81&+0DLQ+RXVH

 :RUN*URXSVRXWOLQHZULWHUHSRUWV

± %UHDN

 :RUN*URXSVZULWHUHSRUWV

 )LQDO3OHQDU\

 

7KXUVGD\-XQH

 ±  %UHDNIDVW0DLQ+RXVH

±  /XQFK0DLQ+RXVH

 6RPH6WHHULQJ&RPPLWWHHVHVVLRQFKDLUVUDSSRUWHXUVUHPDLQ

 5HVWRISDUWLFLSDQWVGHSDUW

 $OOGD\ZULWLQJRIUHSRUWVXQWLOSP


1DWLRQDO6FLHQWLILF5HVHDUFK'HYHORSPHQW'HPRQVWUDWLRQDQG7HFKQRORJ\7UDQVIHU

3ODQRQ5HGXFLQJ,PSDFWVIURP+$%V5''773ODQ