[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS
AND HYPOXIA: STRENGTHENING
THE SCIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
85-516PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
NICK SMITH, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
VACANCY RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
ERIC WEBSTER Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member
ELYSE STRATTON Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 13, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Minority Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Senator George V. Voinovich from the State
of Ohio, U.S. Senate........................................... 11
Witnesses
Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Wayne W. Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and
Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences; Associate
Director, Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program, Wright State
University, Dayton, Ohio
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Discussion
Input on the Proposed Bill..................................... 57
Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms....................... 59
Research and Possible Treatments for HABs...................... 60
Potential Environmental Effects of Treatment Technologies...... 61
The Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. 63
Appendix 1: Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-
Hearing Questions
Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Biography.................................................... 68
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions.......................... 69
Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Biography.................................................... 72
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions.......................... 74
Dr. Wayne W. Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and
Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences; Associate
Director, Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program, Wright State
University, Dayton, Ohio
Biography.................................................... 80
Financial Disclosure......................................... 82
Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
Biography.................................................... 83
Financial Disclosure......................................... 85
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions.......................... 86
Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Biography.................................................... 90
Financial Disclosure......................................... 91
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions.......................... 92
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Dr. Robert E. Magnien, Director, Tidewater Ecosystem
Assessment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources........... 96
Draft of Bill to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998............................... 99
Copy of Title VI, Public Law 105-383, November 13, 1998.......... 106
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA: STRENGTHENING THE SCIENCE
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:30
a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Harmful Algal Blooms and
Hypoxia: Strengthening the Science
thursday, march 13, 2003
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 10:00 am the House Science
Committee's Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards will
hold a hearing to receive testimony regarding research on harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia. The Subcommittee will also review the assessments
produced by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Task Force and the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) occur in aquatic environments when
conditions trigger an increase in the abundance of plankton that
produce toxins detrimental to aquatic life and to humans. HABs have
been estimated to cost the U.S. economy as much as $50 million per year
due to closure of fisheries and beaches and treatment of human illness
from exposure to toxins. Hypoxia, caused by the decomposition of algal
blooms (although not necessarily by a harmful algal bloom), is a
condition where oxygen levels in an aquatic environment have been
depleted to levels unable to support marine life. As such it disrupts
the food webs that support fish and shellfish growth and causes
economic and ecological damage of its own. The Subcommittee is
reviewing the research provisions of the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA) as it looks to
reauthorize HABHRCA, which expired in 2001.
The Subcommittee plans to explore several overarching questions,
including:
(1) LWhat is the state of the science in understanding the
causes of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? To what extent
should future research efforts focus on freshwater vs. marine
blooms? What research and development efforts are needed to
enable better prediction of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia?
(2) LWhat are the current impacts on the Nation from harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia? What research and development efforts
are needed to develop methods to control and mitigate those
impacts?
(3) LHow successful was the 1998 Act in coordinating the
agendas and resources of federal agencies to address the
problems of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? How should the
Act be amended to improve these efforts?
Witnesses:
Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Dr. Wayne Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and Toxicology,
Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton,
Ohio.
Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts.
Mr. Dan Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Coastal Shellfish Lead,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Summary of Issues:
Under the 1998 Act the Task Force was required to produce two reports
assessing harmful algal blooms and hypoxia at a national scale, however
they were not required to provide nationwide action plans for following
up on recommendations in those reports. While the national assessments
are useful, the natural next step would be to develop nationwide
research and management plans based on the information contained in the
assessments.
Outbreaks of harmful algal blooms affect more than twice as many areas
as they did in 1970, and the reasons for this increase in occurrences
are unclear. Potential explanations include: natural causes, such as
dispersal through storms and ocean currents; human-related causes, such
as nutrient pollution; increased monitoring and identification of toxic
phytoplankton; the introduction of new toxic algal species from ballast
water; and, in the Great Lakes, the proliferation of invasive species
such as zebra mussels which alter nutrient dynamics in the lakes. It is
estimated that the average economic impacts from harmful algal blooms
total $50 million per year in the U.S., although some individual severe
algal blooms have cost that amount alone.
The quality of technology for detecting, modeling and predicting
harmful algal blooms could be improved with focused research funding.
For blooms producing pigments, such as red or brown tides, visual
observation is often sufficient. But detecting an increase in algae
before it reaches a harmful mass, or detecting harmful algae that do
not produce pigments, requires sophisticated lab analysis in
combination with observing systems in the water and on satellites. The
technology exists, but the time from sampling to lab analysis is long
and the expense remains quite large. Less cumbersome, cheaper, faster,
and automated detection techniques would greatly benefit managers in
responding to events more efficiently, such as when a resource manager
needs to decide about issuing shellfish consumption warnings.
Funding for research on developing prevention, control and mitigation
methods for harmful algal blooms has not been appropriated in the past.
There was an authorization in the 1998 Act for funds for a merit-
reviewed research program on prevention, control and mitigation methods
for harmful algal blooms, but little has been done at the federal level
to facilitate research on this topic. NOAA has never requested funds
for this purpose. There are two published reports with plans for this
type of research, one authored by SeaGrant and the other by the Coastal
Ocean Program (both part of NOAA). These plans could be used by NOAA to
develop a research program for this area.
Water quality data collection and reporting is not consistent among
different Federal and State agencies, reducing the effectiveness of the
data for modeling of hypoxia. Successful modeling and monitoring to
determine the presence and scope of a bloom requires the use of
detection and assessment techniques in a systematic way, something that
has not occurred in a consistent manner to date. To develop dependable
models, scientists need reliable data from both freshwater and marine
sources. Major federal sources of water quality data include USGS,
which provides water quality data on rivers and streams through its
stream gage network; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
collects data from state surveys of lakes and coastal environments; and
NOAA, which utilizes ocean and coastal observing programs with water
buoys and satellite data to assess water quality. There have been no
formal, effective efforts to coordinate the data collection methods so
that the information can be easily consolidated and shared.
Efforts to understand freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in
locations such as the Great Lakes have not been as extensive as
research on marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Great Lakes
have recently experienced an increase in the occurrence of harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia, causing substantial decline in water quality.
The reasons for this phenomenon are poorly understood, although one
proposed explanation is that invasive species such as zebra mussels are
altering nutrient behavior in the lakes.
Background:
Algae are microscopic, single-celled organisms present in aquatic
environments. Under normal conditions these organisms are benign and
serve a critical role as energy producers at the base of aquatic food
webs, supporting the growth of higher organisms. Under certain
circumstances, however, the population of a single algal species or
several related species will rapidly increase in abundance, creating
what is referred to as an ``algal bloom.'' Algal blooms have many
adverse effects on ecosystem and human health. ``Harmful algal blooms''
are blooms of algal species that produce toxins detrimental to humans
and marine life. ``Hypoxia'' refers to the depletion of oxygen to
levels unable to support marine life, a condition which often occurs
when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by bacteria.
Harmful Algal Blooms
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) have occurred throughout recorded
history, however in the past 30 years the rate of occurrence and the
duration of harmful algal blooms have increased substantially. HABs
present a major threat to aquatic environments and to human health
because of the toxins released during the events. These compounds can
kill or injure large quantities of marine life that come in direct
contact with them. Also, toxins can accumulate in animals that are not
susceptible and cause illness when they are later consumed by other
animals and humans who are susceptible to the toxins. For some toxins,
consumption of a single contaminated clam or mussel can be enough to
cause illness. Humans may also be directly harmed by skin contact or
inhalation of spray from toxin-contaminated water. To protect the
public when harmful algae or toxins have been detected, State and local
governments close beaches to swimmers and shellfish beds to commercial
and recreational harvesting, and may have to recall already harvested
shellfish.
Average economic impacts from HABs total $50 million per year in
the U.S., although severe single events have cost that amount alone to
localities. The economic impacts of HABs include consideration of the
costs associated with conducting research and monitoring programs;
short-term and permanent closures of harvestable shellfish and fish
stocks; reductions in seafood sales; mortalities of wild and farmed
fish, shellfish, and submerged aquatic vegetation, and coral reefs;
declines in tourism; and treating human illness. Since HAB events are
increasing in frequency and duration, the annual economic impact will
likely grow if the HAB problem is not addressed adequately.
Hypoxia
Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by
bacteria in the water. The decomposition process consumes oxygen,
creating an environment in which plants and animals cannot survive.
Concern about hypoxia has focused primarily on the Gulf of Mexico,
where a hypoxic zone the size of New Jersey appears each summer and
persists for much of the season. This renders the affected area, which
normally contains some of the most valuable fisheries in the United
States, essentially lifeless. Most recent analysis of the Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone indicates that the size of the zone continues to
grow each year. Other areas of the country that experience chronic
hypoxia include the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and Sarasota
Bay.
Many experts agree that the major cause of hypoxia is nutrient
pollution in coastal areas. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico
illustrates the regional and national scale of this problem. The
Mississippi River Basin includes drainage from 31 states and carries
farm chemicals, treated sewage discharge, storm water runoff, and
pollutants from factories and refineries to the Gulf. Given the
economic importance and large geographic distribution of the pollutant
sources this presents a challenging, national management problem.
Hypoxia can be caused by any type of algal bloom, not only by
blooms of toxin-producing algae. Macroalgal, or seaweed, blooms also
can lead to hypoxia. Numerous factors, including nutrient pollution and
introduction of invasive species from ballast water, cause macroalgal
blooms. The result of these seaweed blooms can be shading or smothering
of other organisms that need sunlight to survive, habitat degradation,
and a significant decrease in available oxygen as the seaweeds
decompose. Macroalgal blooms have been particularly troublesome in
coral reef ecosystems where the slow-growing corals cannot keep pace
with rapidly growing marcroalgae.
Congressional Action
In 1997 an outbreak of Pfiesteria piscicida focused public and
Congressional attention on algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and was
partly responsible for prompting the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA). The Act established an interagency task
force on HABs and hypoxia. Four reports were required from the Task
Force: National Harmful Algal Bloom Assessment, Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
Assessment, Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, and a National Hypoxia
Assessment. The first three were published; the last is finished and
currently awaiting publication. NOAA coordinated the three assessments
while EPA coordinated the Gulf of Mexico Action Plan. A Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force was established to
implement the Gulf of Mexico Action Plan. This Task Force consists of
Federal, State and local stakeholders and meets regularly to discuss
the implementation process.
Additionally, HABHRCA authorized funding for HAB and hypoxia
research through NOAA. In particular the Act supported the Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program that the
Administration had launched in 1996. This program supports basic
research necessary to understand HABs and produce models to forecast
bloom development, persistence and toxicity. Grant applications are
solicited from universities, private research institutions, and federal
agencies and awarded through a merit-reviewed system. NOAA coordinates
ECOHAB with the participation of the EPA, the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Department of the Interior, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).
In January 2003, Sen. Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Breaux (D-LA)
introduced S. 247, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act
of 2003. It was referred to the Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee. The bill authorizes average annual funding at $26.5 million
over the next three years for continued HABHRCA activities, local and
regional HAB and hypoxia assessments, and the development of a
prediction and response plan.
Rep. Ehlers has drafted a Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Amendments bill that builds on the Senate bill. The witnesses have been
asked to provide written comments and suggestions on the draft
amendments bill. It would authorize average annual funding at $28
million over the next three years for continued HABHRCA activities, an
assessment and research plan for freshwater harmful algal blooms, and a
research plan for developing prevention, control and mitigation
methods.
Questions for witnesses:
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their written testimony to the Subcommittee.
Questions for Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean
Service, NOAA.
(1) LHow has the passage of HABHRCA advanced our understanding
of HABs? Why have we not made much progress on methods for
prevention, control and mitigation for HABs?
(2) LWhat were the major findings and recommendations from the
assessments produced by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Task Force and how has NOAA followed-up on the recommendations?
What role, if any, does the Task Force currently play in
addressing the problems of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia?
(3) LOne of the major priorities identified at a recent Coastal
Ocean Program (COP) workshop was to understand the recent
decline in water quality in the Great Lakes. Why has NOAA not
supported much research in this area in the past? Would that
change if NOAA formally recognizes the new priorities for Great
Lakes research?
(4) LPlease provide written comments and suggestions on the
draft reauthorization bill.
Questions for Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, USGS.
(1) LWhat are the challenges faced by researchers in developing
useful monitoring and modeling techniques of the Mississippi
River Watershed and what can we learn from these challenges for
such efforts in other watersheds?
(2) LWhat are the short-term and long-term goals of the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Task Force? Is it on-schedule
for achieving these goals?
(3) LTo what extent are federal research programs focused on
the appropriate issues to be most effective in understanding
hypoxia?
(4) LPlease provide written comments and suggestions on the
draft reauthorization bill.
Questions for Dr. Wayne Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and
Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University,
Dayton, OH.
(1) LPlease provide a brief overview of the most pressing water
quality issues that exist today in the Great Lakes regarding
the increase in occurrences of harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia. To what extent is there a scientific consensus for why
this is happening? What research is needed to better understand
and to help reduce the impact of algal blooms on the Great
Lakes?
(2) LTo what extent is research on freshwater harmful algal
blooms funded by private entities and what benefit does it
provide them? To what extent are federal research programs
focused on the appropriate issues in order to be most effective
in understanding harmful algal blooms?
(3) LWhat technologies exist or could be developed in the near
future to monitor for and to control and mitigate harmful algal
blooms in the Great Lakes?
(4) LPlease provide written comments and suggestions on the
draft reauthorization bill.
Questions for Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology
Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts.
(1) LTo what extent are we closer to answering the questions of
how and why HABs occur than we were in 1998?
(2) LWhat is the next step that marine harmful algal bloom
research should take to improve our understanding of HABs and
better predict their occurrence? To what extent are federal
research programs focused on the appropriate issues to be most
effective in understanding HABs?
(3) LHow has research regarding harmful algal blooms been used
to develop useful management tools for resource managers? What
could the Federal Government do to facilitate such development?
(4) LPlease provide written comments and suggestions on the
draft reauthorization bill.
Questions for Mr. Dan Ayres, Coastal Shellfish Lead Biologist,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(1) LWhat kind of activities does the state of Washington
undertake to monitor for HABs? How does the state respond when
it detects an HAB event?
(2) LWhat new technologies would improve your ability to
predict and respond to HABs? How would you utilize such
technologies on a day-to-day basis?
(3) LTo what extent have federal programs assisted you in
monitoring for and responding to HABs?
(4) LPlease provide written comments and suggestions on the
draft reauthorization bill.
Chairman Ehlers. Let us call this hearing to order. Knowing
that some Members of the Subcommittee have another markup to
attend, I condensed my opening statement for the first markup.
However, now that we have finished that markup, I want to say a
few words about the activities of our Subcommittee. Last
Congress, the Subcommittee was very busy. We focused our energy
in a bipartisan manner on the issues upon which the American
public demanded action and on which we could make a difference.
As a result, we passed important legislation dealing with, to
name just a few items, cyber security, research on voting
standards and equipment, reforms to the Sea Grant Program,
improving manufacturer supply chains, improving the flood
warning system, and improving science at the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I expect that we will be just as busy, if not busier, this
Congress. We will review issues such as, again, just to name a
few, legislation to reauthorize and improve the Harmful Algal
Bloom Research Program, legislation to reauthorize the
Transportation Research and Development Programs created under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, climate
change research, the laboratory programs at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, which I know is near and
dear to Mr. Udall's heart, and science programs at the
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Invasive
Species Program that we just dealt with a few moments ago.
Now I am pleased to begin today's hearing on Harmful Algal
Blooms and Hypoxia. Many of you may be more familiar with these
blooms as red tides or brown tides, which are more common terms
for these events. What many of you may not realize is that
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are a significant threat to
human health, commercial fishing, and recreational water use
throughout the United States.
Harmful algal blooms actually encompass a wide variety of
events. They occur in both marine and freshwater environments.
These dense mats of algae produce toxins dangerous to aquatic
life and to humans, some of which are so potent that eating
just one contaminated mussel could make you ill, resulting in
anything from mild nausea to paralysis, and even death in some
cases, depending upon the species causing the bloom.
Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed
by bacteria in the water. This process depletes oxygen to
levels so low they cannot support aquatic life, which decreases
fisheries production and can produce nasty odors that make the
water undesirable for recreational use--dead fish and foul
smelling water tend to drive away tourists.
It is estimated that harmful algal blooms cost the U.S. $50
million a year, while hypoxia causes severe conditions in many
locations, including the Gulf of Mexico, where a ``dead zone''
the size of New Jersey develops each summer. That is not to
imply that New Jersey itself is a ``dead zone'' however. I want
to make that clear.
Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are also causing problems
closer to my home, the Great Lakes, where these events are more
frequently fouling the water. In the past 30 years, major
advances were made to improve Great Lakes water quality, but
recently, scientists have observed an increase in both harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia. The reasons for this are unclear, but
may be related to invasive species changing the way nutrients
are cycled in the lakes.
In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act. The Act created a task force
to examine these problems, and it issued three reports, and we
are still waiting for the fourth. Additionally, the 1998 Act
authorized funding for research and monitoring activities
related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
This hearing will examine the state of science in
understanding the causes of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia,
as well as the impacts on the Nation from these problems.
First, we will have an overview of the Task Force reports and
the research coordinated through NOAA under the 1998
authorizations. Then we will hear about more specific
activities related to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and
challenges faced by scientists in monitoring and modeling this
problem. Next we will hear about freshwater harmful algal
blooms, a concern of mine, since the Great Lakes have recently
experienced an increase in harmful algal bloom events. Then we
will hear about advances in understanding harmful marine algal
blooms and about how all this research has helped local
resource managers respond to the problem. Finally, we will ask
the witnesses to comment on draft legislation I have been
working on to reauthorize the 1998 Act. And of course, our
ultimate objective is to modernize the Act as we go through the
reauthorization process and make it more effective.
It is my hope that by the end of the Hearing, we will have
learned how our understanding of harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia has improved in the past five years, defined what
research priorities are needed for the future, and receive
suggestions for improving my draft legislation. I thank our
distinguished panel for being here today and I look forward to
their testimony.
I will now recognize Congressman Udall, the Ranking
Minority Member, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Now that we have finished the markup, I am pleased to begin today's
hearing on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Many of you may be more
familiar with these blooms as red tides or brown tides, which are more
common term for these events. What many of you may not realize is that
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are a significant threat to human
health, commercial fishing, and recreational water use throughout the
United States.
Harmful algal blooms actually encompass a wide variety of events.
They occur in both marine and freshwater environments. These dense mats
of algae produce toxins dangerous to aquatic life and to humans, some
of which are so potent that eating just one contaminated mussel could
make you ill, resulting in anything from mild nausea to paralysis, and
even death in some cases, depending upon the species causing the bloom.
Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by
bacteria in the water. This process depletes oxygen to levels so low
they cannot support aquatic life, which decreases fisheries production
and can produce nasty odors that make the water undesirable for
recreational use--dead fish and foul smelling water tend to scare away
tourists.
It is estimated that harmful algal blooms cost the U.S. $50 million
a year, while hypoxia causes severe conditions in many locations,
including the Gulf of Mexico, where a ``dead'' zone the size of New
Jersey develops each summer (not to imply that New Jersey itself is a
``dead zone,'' however).
Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are also causing problems closer
to my home, the Great Lakes, where these events are more and more
frequently fouling the water. In the past 30 years major advances were
made to improve Great Lakes water quality, but recently scientists have
observed an increase in both harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The
reasons for this are unclear, but may be related to invasive species
changing the way nutrients are cycled in the lakes.
In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act. The Act created a Task Force to examine these
problems, and it issued three reports and we are still waiting for the
fourth. Additionally, the 1998 Act authorized funding for research and
monitoring activities related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
This hearing will examine the state of science in understanding the
causes of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia as well as the impacts on
the Nation from these problems. First, we will have an overview of the
Task Force reports and the research coordinated through NOAA under the
1998 authorizations. Then we will hear about more specific activities
related to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and challenges faced by
scientists in monitoring and modeling this problem. Next we will hear
about freshwater harmful algal blooms, a concern of mine since the
Great Lakes have recently experienced an increase in harmful algal
bloom events. Then we'll hear about advances in understanding harmful
marine algal blooms and about how all this research has helped local
resource managers respond to the problem. Finally, we will ask the
witnesses to comment on draft legislation I have been working on to
reauthorize the 1998 Act.
It is my hope that by the end of the hearing we will have learned
how our understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia has improved
in the past five years, defined what research priorities are needed for
the future, and received suggestions for improving my draft
legislation.
I thank our distinguished panel for being here today, and I look
forward to their testimony.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Chairman has
discussed, harmful algal blooms along our coastlines have drawn
increased attention over the past decade due to the increased
closure of fisheries and recreational restrictions that they
have caused. Public attention first focused on this problem
back in the '70's and '80's when the increasing frequency and
intensity of freshwater algal blooms were having a major impact
on our water quality. Back then we identified the source of the
problem, which led to reductions of phosphates in detergents
and nutrients from point sources. In addition, we expanded
sewage treatment to control nutrients and other pollutants. And
I have been disturbed, as I know the Chairman has, to learn
that the problem has returned with increasing frequency today,
harming the environment and public health.
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has brought us
new understanding and appreciation for the dimensions and
complexity of these phenomenon. We have made some progress in
identifying harmful species and in providing timely information
to fisheries and recreational managers to prevent human health
problems. Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in
developing and implementing management strategies or
technologies to reduce the frequency or the intensity of the
blooms. I hope that our witnesses today will be able to provide
us with suggestions about how we can build upon the current
program and better translate the findings of this research into
long-lasting solutions that will return our aquatic systems to
a healthy state. I would also like their suggestions on how to
improve communications between the research community and water
resource managers.
In the west, we recognize that water is a valuable and
essential resource. In fact, the saying in the west some of you
are familiar with is whiskey is for drinking and water is for
fighting over. But we care very deeply about doing everything
we can to maintain the quality of our waters and the health of
our aquatic ecosystems. So I, too, want to thank our witnesses
for joining us, and I look forward to your testimony.
I will yield back whatever time I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
Harmful algal blooms along our coastlines have drawn increased
attention over the past decade due to the increased closure of
fisheries and recreational restrictions that they have caused. Public
attention first focused on this problem back in the seventies and
eighties when the increasing frequency and intensity of freshwater
algal blooms were having a major impact on our water quality.
Back then, we identified the source of the problem, which led to
reductions of phosphates in detergents and nutrients from point
sources. In addition, we expanded sewage treatment to control nutrients
and other pollutants. Now the problem has returned with increasing
frequency, harming the environment and public health.
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has brought us new
understanding and appreciation for the dimensions and complexity of
these phenomenon. We have made some progress in identifying harmful
species and in providing timely information to fisheries and
recreational managers to prevent human health problems.
Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in developing and
implementing management strategies or technologies to reduce the
frequency or the intensity of the blooms.
I hope that our witnesses today will be able to provide us with
suggestions about how we can build upon the current program and better
translate the findings of this research into long-lasting solutions
that will return our aquatic systems to a healthy state. I would also
like to hear suggestions on how to improve communications between the
research community and water resource managers.
We in the West recognize that water is a valuable and essential
resource. We must do everything that we can to maintain the quality of
our waters and the health of our aquatic ecosystems.
I thank all of our witnesses for participating this morning and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
Chairman Ehlers. I thank the Ranking Member for his
statement. If there are no objections, all additional opening
statements submitted by the Subcommittee Members will be added
to the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Voinovich of Ohio has also shown great interest in
this issue and held a field hearing concerning hypoxia in Lake
Erie last August. He wished to testify in person at this
hearing, but unfortunately, he is chairing a hearing of his own
at this particular time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that his statement be added to the record. Without objection,
so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator George V. Voinovich
Good morning. I want to first commend Chairman Ehlers on holding
this important hearing and thank him for the opportunity to provide a
statement. I wish that I could be present, but I am currently holding a
hearing as Chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee on air quality and
transportation programs. I look forward to reviewing the statements of
the witnesses in detail and thank them for taking time out of their
busy schedules to participate in this hearing.
Today's hearing is about two very serious problems: harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia. Unfortunately, our understanding of these
occurrences is limited and inadequate. This has prevented us from
effectively dealing with these costly and grave problems.
Algal blooms are a concern because they can produce toxins in the
water, which can negatively impact the environment, economy, and public
health. While this was first considered only a regional problem,
harmful algal blooms are now reported by almost every coastal state.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claims that
these blooms may have caused coastal resources and communities to lose
more than $1 billion directly in the last two decades.
Additionally, algal blooms can cause hypoxia or depleted oxygen
levels in water when they die and are decomposed by bacteria. This
decomposition process consumes oxygen, creating an environment in which
plants and animals cannot survive. A hypoxic zone the size of New
Jersey that appears regularly each summer in the Gulf of Mexico is a
prime example of this devastating condition. Each year, this area
becomes essentially lifeless. The Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound,
and Sarasota Bay are other areas that experience chronic hypoxia.
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act of 1998 was created
by Congress to improve our understanding of these problems and identify
ways to address them. The Act established an interagency task force and
required four reports on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia nationally
and specifically for the Gulf of Mexico. The Act also authorized
important finding for research through NOAA.
I am interested to hear from the witnesses about the effectiveness
of the Act to coordinate federal efforts, the state of the science,
remaining research and development needs, and suggestions for
legislative improvements. I am also very interested to know what is
being done or should be done in terms of research on freshwater.
On August 5, 2002, 1 conducted a field hearing of the Environment
and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen
depletion in the central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been
referred to as a ``dead zone.'' Anoxia over the long term could result
in massive fish kills and bad-tasting or bad-smelling water.
As is the case in our coastal waters, hypoxia in Lake Erie has been
linked to decaying algal blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of
the lake. In the past, excessive phosphorus loading from point sources
such as municipal sewage treatment plants and farms were greatly
responsible for the blooms. This acceleration of biological production
is called eutrophication. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus entering
the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have
resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the
system.
In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been
increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not.
Scientists have been unable to account for the increased levels of
phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic
nuisance species--the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their
influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way
phosphorus cycles through the system.
Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion
in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast
quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate
deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the
bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen.
Although invasive species may be an important factor in Lake Erie's
dead zone problem, science has been unable to explain why the hypoxic
zones are forming or what can be done to address them. Over the last 30
years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and
restoring the natural resources of our nation's aquatic areas, and we
need to prevent any backsliding on this progress.
Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the
state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the
northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying
lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake Erie's decline was covered
extensively by the media and became an international symbol of
pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British
Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary
about it. One reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a major
source of drinking water.
Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the
surrounding region, I knew we had to do more to protect the environment
for our children and grandchildren. As a state legislator, I made a
commitment to stop the deterioration of the lake and to wage the
``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's Great
Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career--as County
Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio,
and United States Senator.
It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in
public service, I am still involved, as a member of the United States
Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle
to save Lake Erie.
Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It
is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the
area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main
source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however,
there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and
protect Ohio's greatest natural asset.
I have had a love affair with the Great Lakes--and in particular,
Lake Erie--all my life. In terms of my public service, one of my
greatest sources of comfort and accomplishment has been my work to help
clean up and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie.
The Lake Erie dead zone is a reoccurring problem as it is in the
Gulf of Mexico. We must focus our resources on understanding this
phenomenon before it becomes widespread throughout the Great Lakes. The
Lakes are extremely important to the Nation in terms of their ecologic,
economic, and public health benefit. I believe that we need to research
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in both marine and freshwater.
I am pleased to be working with Chairman Ehlers to reauthorize the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act. We both have concerns
about the coastal waters of the U.S. and the Great Lakes. The draft
bill that has been distributed for comments would authorize funding, an
assessment and research plan for freshwater harmful algal blooms, and a
research plan for developing prevention, control, and mitigation
methods.
I know that Senators Snowe and Breaux also have introduced a bill
to reauthorize the Act, and I look forward to working with them.
Reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act is
imperative to making progress to stop harmful algal blooms and hypoxia
from occurring on our coasts and in our Great Lakes. Again, I thank
Chairman Ehlers for his leadership on this issue and for inviting me to
provide a statement.
Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witnesses. First we have Dr. Donald Scavia, the Chief
Scientist at the National Ocean Service, which is part of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Next we have
Dr. Charles ``Chip'' Groat; he is Director of the United States
Geological Survey. Third, Dr. Wayne Carmichael, a Professor of
Aquatic Biology and Toxicology at Wright State University in
Dayton, Ohio, one of the many states I have lived in. Fourth we
have Dr. Donald Anderson, who is a Senior Scientist in the
Biology Department at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in
Massachusetts. Our final witness will be introduced--will
receive a special introduction by Congressman Baird, and I
recognize him for that purpose.
Mr. Baird. I thank my Chairman, and I want to welcome Dan
Ayres, who is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist who leads the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Coastal Shellfish
Unit. He has been studying the harmful algal bloom problem as
part of our Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom Program. The
kind of issues you raise, Mr. Chairman, are precisely the kind
of things Mr. Ayres studies.
Let me give you one example, a little bitty coastal
community which currently suffers almost double digit
unemployment depends for much of its revenue on clamming. And a
harmful algal bloom has been off our coast for the last six
months and the whole razor clam season has been shut down. This
is one of the main sources of annual revenue, and you have got
all these small mom and pop hotels out there who depend on the
influx of tourists from Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, coming
out to the coast. When that algal bloom comes in, that just
shuts the economy of that community down, and some of these
folks, literally, may not recover.
So again, just like invasives, it is an issue that seems to
be an esoteric sort of pointy headed intellectual scientific
thing, but it has real economic consequences, and if you can
die from it, it has pretty darn serious consequences as well.
Mr. Ayres is an expert, I am glad he is here, and I thank the
Chairman for his time.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you for that introduction, and I
hope you weren't making a derogatory comment about pointy
headed intellectual scientists.
Mr. Baird. As a Ph.D. neuropsychologist, myself, my friend,
that would include both of us. I resemble that remark.
Chairman Ehlers. That is right. As the witnesses have
presumably been informed, spoken testimony is limited to five
minutes each. Anything beyond that can be entered into the
written record. And after your five minutes each, Members of
the Committee will also each have five minutes to interrogate
you. We will start our testimony with Dr. Scavia.
STATEMENT OF DONALD SCAVIA, CHIEF SCIENTIST, NATIONAL OCEAN
SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Scavia. Good morning. I am Don Scavia, the Chief
Scientist for NOAA's National Ocean Service, and I appreciate
the opportunity to discuss with you the issues of Great Lakes
and coastal ocean harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and the
reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act.
Your opening remarks, as well as others on this panel, have
given more detailed information on the extent and scope of
these harmful blooms and hypoxia, so I will simply add that
these issues are now among the most pressing in all of these
coastal and Great Lake states. Also, before summarizing our
accomplishments, I want to start by saying that this Act--we
call it HABHRCA because we can't pronounce it either--has
helped focus our science programs. We have integrated our
intramural and extramural programs, particularly, through our
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, to maximize the
effectiveness of the appropriations associated with this Act.
Implementing HABHRCA has also generated significant
cooperation among federal agencies, state programs, and
academia. Through this coordinated effort, we have made
progress in our ability to detect, monitor, assess, and in some
cases, predict both harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. We look
forward to working with you and your staff on reauthorizing to
further strengthen the science behind this Act.
I would like to now summarize our accomplishments to date
in this Act. In May of 2000, the National Science and
Technology Council delivered to Congress an assessment of
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. This assessment examines the
factors that contribute to the development of Gulf hypoxia and
evaluates potential management options as key scientific input
to the action plan that is also called for in this Act. This
action plan was delivered to the Congress in January of 2001 by
the Mississippi River Nutrient Task Force, which is composed of
eight federal agencies, nine Mississippi Basin states, and two
Indian tribes.
In balancing the environmental, social, and economic needs
of this enormous watershed, the action plan established goals
for reducing the aerial extent of hypoxia in the Gulf, for
restoring and protecting the waters of the 31 basin states, and
for protecting the social and economic fabric of the
communities across that basin. Efforts are now underway to
begin implementing that plan.
In February of 2001, the NSTC delivered a ``National
Assessment of Coastal Harmful Algal Blooms'' to the Congress.
This report assessed what was truly known at that time about
the impacts and potential causes of harmful algal blooms and
potential approaches for reducing, mitigating, and controlling
them.
This Act also called for the national assessment of coastal
hypoxia, and as you mentioned in your opening remarks, that has
not yet been delivered to the Congress. The Task Force delayed
this assessment to take advantage of the findings of the Gulf
of Mexico assessment, a NOAA eutrophication survey, and the
National Research Council's ``Clean Coastal Waters'' report.
With those studies now complete, the Task Force has drafted its
assessment and submitted it for final clearance. We anticipate
delivering this assessment to Congress in the fairly near
future.
Section 605 of the Act also authorized scientific
activities that afford us the opportunity to address, in part,
the eight objectives outlined in the 1993 National Plan for
Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae, as well as to extend our
work in hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, our
laboratories and centers have developed molecular probes to
improve harmful algal bloom detection, characterized the
chemical structures of some of the toxins created by these
organisms, developed the ability to detect and track red tides
with satellites, and added insight into the physiology and
environmental toxicology of Pfiesteria.
NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program leads two related inter-agency
competitive peer review programs, the Ecology and Oceanography
of Harmful Algal Bloom or the ECOHAB Program, and the
Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Bloom or the
MERHAB Program. ECOHAB has isolated factors that regulate some
of these harmful blooms, developed biophysical models that form
a critical base for HAB forecasts, applied remote sensing,
molecular, and biochemical tools for detecting and tracking
blooms, and for targeting state monitoring and management
efforts in support of Dr. Anderson's national database and
website where research findings are shared amongst scientists
and with the public.
MERHAB has put new tools in the hands of State and Tribal
monitoring programs and will continue to test and refine these
and other technologies for cost effective early warning
detection of harmful algae and their toxins. In the Coastal
Ocean Program we have also expanded efforts to monitor, model,
and predict the dynamics and impact of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia
in support of implementing the action plan, and we are now
working with the academic community and other federal agencies
to implement a new national research program on coastal and
Great Lakes hypoxia.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the Committee is particularly
interested in how these issues impact the Great Lakes. Over the
past several years, NOAA has supported efforts that should help
the scientific community address these problems. Our funding of
Great Lakes Coast Watch and the Great Lakes Forecast System
should provide important tools for the community. In addition,
the recently completed study on the impacts of episodic events
in Lake Michigan and new efforts to monitor and assess harmful
algal bloom impacts in the lower Great Lakes are bringing
additional focus and resources to these efforts.
Most recently, we supported a workshop in Michigan to help
define priorities for additional efforts in the Great Lakes,
and it is here that the re-emergence of Great Lakes hypoxia was
highlighted. We will continue to work with the Great Lakes
scientists and managers to design appropriate programmatic
responses to these issues.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions from you
or the Members. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Scavia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald Scavia
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Donald Scavia, Senior Scientist of NOAA's National Ocean Service. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss NOAA's role in addressing
national issues surrounding harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia in
the Nation's Great Lakes and coastal waters, and the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. My testimony today
does not address reauthorization of the Act. NOAA is currently
reviewing the draft bill, and will provide comments in the future.
Others on this panel will provide more detailed information on the
scope and extent of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and hypoxia. So, I will
simply report that HABs are increasing in abundance and intensity in
Great Lakes and coastal waters. Harmful Algal Blooms occur in the
waters of every coastal and Great Lake State and have been responsible
for an estimated $1 billion in economic losses over the past few
decades. These blooms have decimated the scallop fishery in Long
Island's estuaries; have led to seasonal closures of various shell
fisheries on Georges Bank, from North Carolina to Louisiana, and
throughout the Pacific Northwest; may have contributed to the deaths of
hundreds of manatees in Florida, sea lions in California, and other
marine mammals, including dolphins in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. HABs
have also caused significant respiratory and other illness in coastal
residents and vacationers. There are several causes of harmful algal
blooms. Some are natural, but others are human-induced, and on-going
research continues to identify and distinguish these causes.
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act brings
together the critical issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia--or
low oxygen syndrome--because excess nutrient loads can be responsible
for the general overgrowth of algae in many coastal ecosystems. And
while not all algae are toxic, the death and subsequent decay of
massive non-toxic blooms can lead to severe oxygen depletion (e.g.,
oxygen levels low enough to cause significant ecological impairment) in
the bottom waters of estuaries and coastal environments.
While significant attention has been paid in recent years to the
enormous hypoxic area off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, NOAA's
recent National Eutrophication Assessment has revealed that at some
time each year, over half of our nation's estuaries experience natural-
caused and/or human-induced hypoxic conditions. Thirty percent
experience anoxia (e.g., areas where all of the oxygen is absent)
resulting in fish kills and other resource impacts. In addition,
hypoxia in the Great Lakes is re-emerging as a problem. Harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia are now among the most pressing environmental issues
facing coastal states.
To address these important issues facing the Nation's coastal
communities, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act of 1998 called for development of three scientific assessments and
an action plan; and authorized a suite of scientific programs to help
support efforts to prevent, control, and mitigate the impacts of HABs
and hypoxia. In response, NOAA and our Federal, State, and academic
partners have made considerable progress in the scientific
understanding, detection, monitoring, assessment, and prediction of
HABs and hypoxia in Great Lakes and coastal ecosystems. These advances
are helping coastal managers undertake short- and long-term efforts to
prevent and mitigate the detrimental effects of these phenomena on
human health and on valuable coastal resources. My remarks outlining
these accomplishments are organized around the key sections of the
original Public Law.
Sec 604(a)--Assessment of Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
The National Science and Technical Council, through the Inter-
Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia, delivered the
report, ``Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico,'' to the Congress in May 2000. The assessment examined the
distribution, dynamics, and causes of Gulf hypoxia; its ecological and
economic consequences; the sources and loads of nutrients transported
by the Mississippi River system to the Gulf of Mexico; the effects of
reducing nutrient loads; methods for reducing nutrient loads; and
social and economic costs and benefits of such methods. This integrated
assessment provided the scientific underpinning for the subsequent
Action Plan to reduce the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone.
Sec 604(b)--Plan to Reduce, Mitigate, and Control Gulf Hypoxia
The Action Plan was delivered to the Congress in January 2001 by
the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force,
which is composed of eight federal agencies, nine Mississippi Basin
States, and two Indian Tribes. The Action Plan was based on the
Integrated Assessment required by this statute, as well as other
scientific and public input and consultations required by the law,
gathered through seven public meetings. In balancing the environmental,
social, and economic needs of this enormous watershed, the Plan
established three goals:
LCoastal Goal: By the year 2015, reduce the five-year
running average extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone to
less than 5,000 square kilometers.
LBasin Goal: Restore and protect the waters of the 31
States and Tribal lands within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya
River Basin.
LQuality of Life Goal: To improve the communities and
economic conditions across the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River
Basin.
To connect the environmental endpoint goal for the Gulf of Mexico
to actions within the basin, the Action Plan also recognized the need
to reduce nitrogen loads by at least 30 percent. This Watershed Task
Force is currently creating sub-basin committees that are to be led by
States and tasked with developing implementation strategies. This
approach was chosen by the Watershed Task Force with input from the
States to best meet local needs. The action plan highlights that there
are a variety of options available to meet the overall goal and each
has associated costs and benefits that vary by locale. The Watershed
Task Force has also drafted a Monitoring, Modeling, and Research
Strategy to ensure that actions taken over the next decade to reduce
hypoxia are guided by the best science.
Sec 603(b)--National Assessment of Coastal Harmful Algal Blooms
The National Science and Technical Council, through its Inter-
Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia, produced the
report, ``National Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms in US Waters.''
The assessment, delivered to the Congress in February 2001, examines
the ecological and economic consequences of harmful algal blooms;
alternatives for reducing, mitigating, and controlling harmful algal
blooms; and the social and economic costs and benefits of such
alternatives. Highlights from the assessment include:
LHAB events threaten human health and marine mammals,
contaminate local fish and shellfish, and depress coastal
tourist and recreational industries.
LHAB events are increasing nationwide. There are more
toxic species, more events, and more areas affected than 25
years ago.
LNatural events (e.g., storms and ocean currents), as
well as human activities (e.g., excess nutrient loads), appear
to contribute to this increase.
LManagement options are limited at this time, with the
focus on diligent monitoring. Recent advances in both molecular
and remote-sensing detection methods are promising.
LIt may be possible to prevent some HABs by
controlling nutrient inputs, or to control blooms with clays to
precipitate or viruses to attack the algal cells. More research
is needed to determine the effectiveness and the potential
environmental impacts of these methods.
While the analyses in this report have helped shape subsequent
investments in our research and monitoring programs, there is still
much to do.
Sec 603(c)--National Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia
The Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
delayed development of this assessment to take advantage of the
findings and recommendations of the Gulf of Mexico Integrated
Assessment, outlined above, the NOAA Eutrophication Survey, and the
National Research Council report, Clean Coastal Waters. With those
studies now complete, the Task Force has drafted the assessment and has
submitted it for final clearance. The assessment outlines status and
trends in coastal hypoxia, its causes and consequences, methods
available to reduce its occurrence, and the science needed to reduce
uncertainties in future assessments. Once final clearance is achieved,
we will deliver the report to the Congress.
Section 605--Authorization of Appropriations
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of
1998 also provided authority for NOAA to make progress in addressing
some of the eight objectives outlined in the 1993 National Plan for
Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae. It also extends NOAA's efforts
related to Gulf hypoxia. Most of the efforts authorized by this Act are
implemented by NOAA through competitive, peer review to engage the best
scientists to focus on these important issues.
In our laboratories and through the Ecology and Oceanography of
Harmful Algal Blooms program (ECOHAB), NOAA and our partners have
investigated factors that regulate the dynamics of HABs and the
mechanisms by which they cause harm. We have produced coupled bio-
physical models that form a critical base for building HAB forecasts;
applied technology from remote sensing, and medical science, to the
detection and tracking of algal species and their toxins to help states
target their monitoring and management efforts; and developed a
national database where research findings are shared and made available
to scientists and the public. Through the Monitoring and Event Response
for Harmful Algal Blooms program (MERHAB), NOAA puts these new tools
within reach for the routine monitoring efforts of States and tribes in
several U.S. coastal regions. MERHAB partners are testing and refining
these technologies for reliable, cost-effective detection and
monitoring of harmful algal species and their toxins. Through the
Coastal Ocean Program, we have expanded efforts to monitor, model, and
predict changes and impacts of hypoxia on Gulf of Mexico resources. The
following paragraphs highlight accomplishments in the five areas of
statutory authority:
HAB Research and Assessment Activities in NOAA Laboratories--NOAA's
laboratories have focused on two key impediments to effective HAB
management: 1) the lack of sensitive, toxin-specific assays and toxin
standards for research and field application, and 2) an understanding
of how the physiology of these organisms affect toxin movement through
the food web. Results from investments in these laboratories have led
to developments that are now aiding coastal scientists and managers
with critical, timely information on the occurrence of HAB and other
toxins. Recent accomplishments include:
LIdentification of the chemical structures of some key
HAB toxins;
LDevelopment of toxin- and species-specific detection
probes and assays that will significantly enhance HAB research,
monitoring, and management;
LIncreased understanding of bio-physical processes
controlling red tides originating in the Gulf of Mexico that
have traveled in the Gulf Stream as far north as North
Carolina; and
LAdded insight into physiology and environmental
toxicity of Pfiesteria species.
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB)--
Administered by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program, ECOHAB is run
cooperatively with the National Science Foundation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
the Office of Naval Research. ECOHAB seeks to understand the causes and
dynamics of HABs; develop forecasts of HAB growth, movement, landfall,
and toxicity; and produce new detection methodologies for HABs and
their toxins. Projects selected for support must successfully compete
in a peer-review process that ensures high-level scientific merit. Some
highlights of ECOHAB's large-scale regional studies include:
LThe Florida project is testing the hypothesis that
the iron in Saharan dust clouds may stimulate red tides in the
Gulf of Mexico. Iron in this dust may stimulate growth of
nitrogen-fixing algae, ultimately providing a new nitrogen
source for red tide organisms. Using satellite sensors, which
can detect dust clouds, it may be possible to forecast these
offshore red tide blooms.
LThe Long Island Brown Tide study has correlated this
organism's unique physiology and ecological niche with the
series of complex environmental conditions that precipitate
these blooms, showing that its ability to grow in conditions of
high dissolved organic nitrogen allows it to occupy a
particular niche in phytoplankton bloom succession.
LThe Gulf of Maine project has described the critical
life-history stages of the Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP)
species, documented its dependence on environmental
oceanographic conditions and is nearing completion of a
biophysical model for simulating and ultimately forecasting the
distribution of the species responsible for PSP Gulf of Maine.
LA new large-scale regional effort will begin this
year to develop a model of bloom formation and movement in the
Pacific Northwest based on physical and biological factors
controlling blooms of domoic-acid producing organisms that
cause amnesic shellfish poisoning.
Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB)--
Also administered by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program, MERHAB works through
existing Tribal, State, and regional monitoring efforts to transfer
research results to local monitoring jurisdictions for early detection
of HAB events. Projects selected for support successfully compete in a
peer-review process that ensures high-level scientific merit and
resource management relevance. Highlights of program accomplishments to
date include:
LSupport for regional HAB mitigation efforts include
developing early warning systems along the Olympic coast;
providing rapid, cost effective, and highly sensitive toxin
detection methods to the Quileute Tribe to help reduce public
health risks of coastal Native Americans from California to
Alaska; and incorporating continuous, real-time monitoring of
inaccessible and remote coastal habitats into Chesapeake Bay
and Florida state HAB monitoring programs.
LSimilar, recently-initiated efforts seek to augment
state HAB monitoring and response capabilities in the Great
Lakes, Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of Maine; and are
currently testing the feasibility of new detection methods in
coastal waters of Texas, Florida, and Virginia.
LNew techniques have enhanced Pfiesteria bioassay
laboratories in Florida and North Carolina and improved access
to expertise, laboratory facilities, sampling platforms, and
remote sensing imagery by local and federal agencies responding
to unexpected HAB-related events, such as die-offs of sea
lions, bottle-nose dolphins, and manatees;
LSupport through the Alliance for Coastal Technologies
and the Small Business and Innovative Research program has
brought together scientists, state managers, and the private
sector to overcome impediments of adopting new technologies.
Research on HAB Prevention, Control, and Mitigation (PCM)--While
research on HAB prevention and control has received only limited
attention to date, some advancements have been made in: using clay to
scavenge HAB organisms from the water column; identifying natural
Pfiesteria predators; using viral agents for suppressing brown tide
organisms; and using bacterial agents that may ultimately prove useful
in controlling red tide organisms. While research on prevention and
control has been limited, there have been significant ECOHAB and MERHAB
investments to develop tools that help mitigate HAB impacts. For
example:
LNew remote sensing tools are used to track Florida
Gulf coast HAB movements and provide the first-ever HAB
forecasts for Florida resource managers. These tools are also
being tested in Texas waters and off the West Coast.
LBiophysical models for the Gulf of Maine and the west
Florida Shelf will enhance this ability to forecast HAB
movement and landfall providing early warnings.
LNew analytical capabilities for rapid and inexpensive
detection of algae and toxins, including molecular probes for
Pfiesteria, moored detectors for species responsible for
Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, optical detectors on moorings and
autonomous gliders to detect and map red tide species.
Hypoxia Research and Monitoring--In the 1990s, through support from
NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program, the scientific community documented the
distribution and dynamics of the hypoxic zone over the Louisiana
continental shelf. These model simulations and research studies
produced considerable evidence that nutrient loading from the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya River system is the dominant factor in
driving hypoxia and that the duration and extent of hypoxia in the
region is far greater than it was historically. These efforts provided
the primary data and information for the six technical reports and the
Integrated Assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf hypoxia
and the Action Plan produced under Sections 604(a) and 604 (b) of this
statute.
The Coastal Ocean Program initiated a new study in the Gulf in 2000
to improve our understanding of, and ability to forecast the effects of
changes in ocean conditions and river nutrient loads on hypoxia and its
effects on Gulf productivity. These studies are providing a consistent
and sequential series of long-term data that document the temporal and
spatial extent of hypoxia, and are collecting the hydrographic,
chemical (including nutrient), and biological data related to the
development and maintenance of hypoxia over seasonal cycles. Studies
focus on relationships among nutrient fluxes, nutrient ratios,
phytoplankton species composition, and carbon production and flux are
being conducted and augmented with efforts to model changes in oxygen
budgets and the effects of the hypoxic zone on fisheries. These studies
are a key component of the Task Force's monitoring, modeling, and
research strategy supporting the Action Plan.
While the focus to date has been on hypoxia on the Louisiana and
Texas continental shelf, we have recently supported development of a
consensus science plan for addressing hypoxia issues nationally. We
have begun discussions with that academic science community and other
federal agencies on implementation of a potential joint national
program.
Efforts in the Great Lakes
We understand this subcommittee is particularly concerned with
issues related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in the Great Lakes.
I would like to outline recent accomplishments from our related Great
Lakes efforts and suggest where we may be going in the near future.
Support in the early 1990s from the Coastal Ocean Program (COP)
helped move the Great Lakes Coastal Forecast System from research to
operations. This system, developed by the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory (GLERL) and the Ohio State University for
forecasting local winds, waves, water levels, and currents, is now
being run routinely for forecasts in Lake Erie and now casts in all
five Great Lakes. Discussions are underway for incorporating it into
NOAA's operational run streams. Early COP support also developed the
Great Lakes CoastWatch Program, which is now run out of GLERL.
CoastWatch produces remotely sensed environmental data and products to
support Great Lakes environmental science, resource management, and
decision-making.
These early efforts provided key tools that were subsequently used
in two five-year, multi-million dollar regional efforts supported
through a joint COP-NSF Coastal Ocean Processes program. From 1998
through 2002, COP and NSF, with support from GLERL and EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office, sponsored the Episodic Events-Great
Lakes Experiment (EEGLE) program in Lake Michigan and the Keewenaw
Interdisciplinary Transport Experiment in Superior (KITES) in Lake
Superior. The EEGLE program produced information and models of storm-
related release, redistribution, and impacts of biologically important
materials (sediment, nutrients, contaminants) at the whole-lake scale.
The companion KITES study focused on the Keewenaw Current and its role
in the transport of these biologically important materials along the
Keewenaw Peninsula.
In FY 2002, COP's MERHAB program initiated a new five-year, multi-
million dollar effort to develop an improved monitoring system for
toxic cyanobacteria in the lower Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. This
enhanced `early warning' system will be based on transferring state-of-
the-art HAB research products into local management tools. This tiered
system uses a series of indicators or alerts to trigger more intense
monitoring and response protocols to provide maximum protection to the
public.
To guide future investments in Great Lakes research and monitoring,
COP recently sponsored a Great Lakes Research Issues Workshop at the
University of Michigan to identify major Great Lakes issues that fit
within the goals and mandates of COP and HABHRCA. Scientists from U.S.
and Canadian agencies, academia, and the private sector outlined
current issues and identified those requiring the most immediate
research attention. While the report from that workshop has not been
finalized, it appears that the consensus of that community is that the
recent degradation of water quality and habitat warrants most immediate
research attention.
This ``re-degradation'' of Great Lakes water quality, which is
surprising in that it is a problem that most thought was solved decades
ago, is especially evident in Lake Erie where harmful algal blooms, and
hypoxia, and phosphorous concentrations have increased in recent years
despite decreased phosphorus loads. The origins and fate of nutrients
in the Great Lakes seem to be operating under a potentially new
paradigm. This situation raises fundamental questions about
interactions between land and lake production, including land-lake
margin processes, benthic-pelagic coupling, episodic events, species
introductions, physical-biological coupling, long-term weather and
climate changes, and ecosystem resiliency.
We will continue to work with the Great Lakes community to define
and develop a new set of tools to address these re-emerging issues,
with a focus on developing ecological forecast models that account for
the new ecological state of the Lakes.
Concluding Remarks
The impacts of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on coastal and
Great Lakes ecosystems, resources, and economies are as great now as
they were in 1998. Reauthorization and revision of the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act is timely and warranted.
We have not had sufficient time to review and provide comment on
the draft bill provided in the invitation to testify at this hearing.
However, we will provide those comments soon, and we look forward to
working with you and your staff on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or other Members may have.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you very much, and I neglected to
mention that you do have warning signs in front of you in the
little box. Green is the first four minutes, yellow during the
fifth, and red means the trap door could open at any moment, so
I just wanted to let you know. Dr. Groat.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. GROAT, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Groat. I want to thank the Subcommittee for providing
the U.S. Geological Survey the opportunity to present testimony
this morning and to acknowledge that the Department of the
Interior, as well as the USGS, supports strongly the research
and assessment activities that are included under HABHRCA, not
only because the problem continues, but because the problem
continues to expand. And as you noted, the Great Lakes are
facing threats and the Chesapeake Bay is not without concerns
about both algal blooms and hypoxia.
You provided me some questions to answer, so I am going to
frame my testimony in connection with those questions, and the
first had to do with the challenges faced by researchers in
developing useful modeling and monitoring techniques for the
Mississippi River watershed and what are the priorities there.
The major challenge faced in the Mississippi River Basin, and
if not throughout the area of concern, is developing and
implementing modeling tools that allow us to predict the
effects and to mitigate the effects of nutrients on hypoxia and
algal bloom. Driving the models has to be sufficient monitoring
data. We have to understand the landscape and what is going on.
And if there is one overriding concern in supporting our
understanding of these phenomena, from the point of view of the
USGS involvement, it has to be the monitoring situation, and I
will close with a couple of comments on that. Clearly, models
have to be developed and made more sophisticated if we are able
to use them as effective tools, not only for understanding the
phenomena, but also for informing decision support as needs to
be done. Models driven by monitoring, good models have good
data, not only to form the models but also to validate them. So
here, again, monitoring raises its head as an extremely
important function.
One of the challenges we face in monitoring is the fact
that much of the data, while much of it is gathered by the U.S.
Geological Survey, much is also gathered by other agencies, and
we have inconsistencies in how that information is gathered and
reported, which does not support integration in a very
effective way into some of the models.
And in a modeling sense, it is particularly important that
emphasis be placed on watershed level monitoring, because it is
in the watersheds that the control strategies are going to be
developed in terms of the effects of nutrients on systems both
local and as they move down the Mississippi River into the Gulf
of Mexico. So we need research to improve the performance of
these models and their responsiveness to inputs for monitoring
and other factors.
Let me combine my answers to the second question, which
deals with short and long-term goals of the Mississippi River
Hypoxia Task Force, and the third question, which is as to what
extent federal research programs are focused on the appropriate
issues. I think the national needs, in a broad sense, have been
spelled out. A group consisting of NOAA, the National Science
Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Department
of Agriculture put together a report that is in press that
summarizes the scientific community's opinion on what the key
research needs are, and that report, entitled ``Nutrient
Pollution in Coastal Waters--Priority Topics for Integrated
National Research Program for the U.S.,'' is in press.
However, implementation is the key, and we have to do an
awful lot of work not only in defining needs, but also in
defining how we carry out meeting those needs. Within the
Monitoring Modeling and Research Workgroup of the Mississippi
River and Gulf of Mexico Task Force, those priorities are being
addressed and there is a workgroup. That workgroup is co-
chaired by the USGS and by NOAA. So here, not only are the
priorities being discussed, but this strategy will set the
priorities for implementation of the priority needs and making
sure we have the results that are needed in the Mississippi
River Basin area.
Let me close with a couple of comments about monitoring,
again. We understand the problem in the Mississippi River Basin
on the basis of a broad monitoring network that let us know
what water quantity and quality inflows were into the
Mississippi River system, and, as it moved down into the Gulf
of Mexico, what those flows were into the Gulf of Mexico. The
monitoring network that allowed that to happen has shrunk in
the past decade to a considerable extent. We had data from
approximately 125 sites during the early 1990's when this
framework was put together for understanding the situation.
Only about 20 percent of those are still active.
During the 1980's, we monitored nutrient loads at 42 of 133
watersheds in the basin. Right now, we are only working about
12 of those stations. The cost of inflation, the other stresses
and demands placed on our monitoring system has caused us to
apportion our resources throughout the country, and as a
result, we have fewer monitoring activities in the Gulf of
Mexico Basin than we would like to have. Now, I don't want to
leave you with the impression that we have pulled back. We have
really made very strategic decisions about where monitoring is
most important to support the needs of the research program and
we are maintaining those stations. But clearly, in the sense of
validating models, as I pointed out before, but perhaps even
more importantly, in implementing the management strategy,
monitoring is essential. We rely on adaptive management to deal
with problems of this kind. Adaptive management implies
adaptation. It implies that we have data and research upon
which to make those adaptations. Monitoring is the real core
for providing that information. So from a research point of
view and from a management point of view, we feel the
monitoring strategy has to be broadened to be implemented in a
very serious way.
In summary, the harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are
affected by human activities in broad areas that affect runoff
into coastal waters. Monitoring, modeling, and research
activities related to sources and causes of inland runoff in
recurring harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in coastal waters
are both key components of any solution. Therefore, we urge the
Subcommittee to acknowledge and support both coastal and inland
monitoring, modeling, and research. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Groat follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles G. Groat
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on assessing the detrimental effects of harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia on coastal communities, the federal agenda for
scientific research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and
reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act. This testimony discusses research and other activities
under the existing law and responds to the three questions provided by
the Subcommittee. A draft reauthorization bill has been received from
the Committee. The testimony does not address the bill, which is under
review, but we will be happy to work with the Committee on the bill,
and to provide formal comment when it has been introduced. I want to
thank the Subcommittee for inviting the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
to participate in this hearing on this important issue. Hypoxia and
harmful algal blooms are serious problems that adversely affect
important ecosystems in coastal and lake States by causing stress or
death to bottom dwelling organisms that cannot move out of the hypoxic
zone.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) supports the research and
assessment activities included in the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA). Harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia continue to be an important and growing issue in coastal waters
across the Nation. Also, the geographic scope of our concern has grown.
Thus, DOI would support continuation of the Inter-Agency Task Force on
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia, in which DOI is a member, if the
National Science Council decides to continue it. The Task Force
provides a key forum for exchange of information, joint planning, and
coordination of federal agencies that contribute to our understanding
of the causes and effects of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms. The Task
Force also considers the effect of policies and practices that can
mitigate those conditions.
In response to the call for action by HABHRCA, the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task Force guided publication
of the Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (referred
to as the Integrated Assessment) in May 2000, and the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico (referred to as the Action Plan), in January 2001. This Task
Force, in which the Department participates along with other federal
agencies and State and Tribal governments, continues to play an
important leadership role in implementation of its Action Plan, which
emphasizes incentive-based, voluntary efforts for reducing nonpoint
source contamination. This Task Force also encourages States, Tribes,
and Federal agencies that are establishing priorities for watershed
restoration to consider the potential benefits to the Gulf of Mexico,
benefits that otherwise might not have been considered. The Task Force
is essential to implementation of the management strategy to address
important water-quality issues in the Mississippi Watershed and the
northern Gulf of Mexico. It is an important management model for
addressing coastal water-quality issues influenced by large watersheds
that comprise multiple States and varied land use, climate and
geographic terrain.
An over abundance of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay, the Nation's
largest estuary, contributes to excessive algal blooms and poor
dissolved oxygen conditions. These conditions have adversely affected
the health of fisheries in the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program
partners, which includes the states in the Bay watershed and the
Federal Government, are enhancing nutrient-reduction efforts to improve
water quality conditions and thereby reduce the occurrence of algal
blooms in the Bay. The USGS is providing science and models of nutrient
sources and their delivery to the Bay. The DOI resource managers are
developing plans to accelerate and better target the nutrient-reduction
actions based on the USGS findings.
Research, monitoring, and modeling related to nutrient and water-
quality loads to coastal waters from the landscape are essential
elements of identifying current and potential problem areas,
understanding the linkages between human actions and the occurrence of
hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, and designing and evaluating the
performance of management strategies to mitigate those conditions.
The first question posed by the Committee is: ``What are the
challenges faced by researchers in developing useful monitoring and
modeling techniques of the Mississippi River Watershed and what can we
learn from these challenges for such efforts in other watersheds?''
Along with data and information from research and monitoring, models
and other analytical tools provide the scientific information needed
for sound resource management decisions. The major challenge faced by
researchers developing and implementing modeling tools is the lack of
suitable monitoring data that provide the basis for understanding the
natural and human-induced changes in flow and chemical loads to coastal
and receiving waters.
Models provide predictive understanding by interpolating and
extrapolating from existing measurements. Concepts and computer codes
for useful water-quality models exist, but such models require
monitoring data for calibration and validation. Moreover, long-term
monitoring data serve as the ultimate basis of model performance.
Models extrapolate data from sites representative of varying land use
and climatic conditions to provide a broader understanding of the
sources and causes of adverse water-quality conditions, such as excess
nutrient loads, which can cause hypoxia and harmful algal blooms.
Models also extrapolate information on the relative performance of
alternative management actions from representative sites enabling the
design of watershed-wide management strategies. However, these models
are limited by the availability of data from monitoring and research
studies that describe the recent and historical responses of receiving
waters to natural and human-induced changes in water-quality
conditions.
Data that are collected are not always available in a consistent
manner or with consistent framework. Water-quality monitoring data are
being collected by a wide range of Federal, State, Tribal and local
government agencies. Through USGS efforts to identify all water-quality
data useful for analyses in the Mississippi River Watershed, we found
that data often are collected through different programs that use a
variety of collection methodologies to support varying specific
objectives. Unfortunately, that same variety makes these data
inadequate for use in watershed-wide analyses of the effect of adverse
water-quality conditions on downstream waters. Simply put, they cannot
simply be ``rolled up'' to provide our answer. However, existing
monitoring efforts could be better coordinated to provide data that
have consistent data-collection frequency and protocols, quality
assurance, and data storage and reporting practices that will make them
suitable and available for use in large-watershed analyses.
Historical monitoring data provide the basis for understanding how
important water-quality parameters, for example, nutrients, metals or
organic contaminants, change over time. They improve our ability to
understand the response of our waterways to natural and human-induced
stresses. Furthermore, these data provide a baseline from which the
effectiveness of future management actions will be measured. Both
historical and baseline data are essential for development of sound
modeling and decision-support tools. Design and implementation of
monitoring networks should anticipate these data needs even in
locations that currently are not adversely affected.
The development of watershed level modeling and decision support
tools is still in its infancy. We need models with improved accuracy
and reliability, and better decision support tools to help decision
makers. Research is needed to improve the performance of models,
particularly on a watershed basis, and to document the causal
relationships between water quality in dynamic river and coastal
systems and biological productivity of plants and animals that live in
these waters.
The second question posed by the Committee is: ``What are the
short-term and long-term goals of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Task Force? Is it on-schedule for achieving these goals?'' The Action
Plan of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task
Force, titled Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, defines three long-term goals
and 11 short-term actions.
The three long-term goals are:
LCoastal Goal: By the year 2015, subject to the availability of
additional resources, reduce the five-year running average
extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone to less than 5,000
square kilometers through implementation of specific,
practical, and cost-effective voluntary actions by all States,
Tribes, and all categories of sources and removals within the
Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin to reduce the annual
discharge of nitrogen into the Gulf.
LWithin Basin Goal: To restore and protect the waters of the 31
States and Tribal lands within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya
River Basin through implementation of nutrient and sediment
reduction actions to protect public health and aquatic life as
well as reduce negative impacts of water pollution on the Gulf
of Mexico.
LQuality of Life Goal: To improve the communities and economic
conditions across the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, in
particular the agriculture, fisheries and recreation sectors,
through improved public and private land management and a
cooperative, incentive based approach.
L(The Action Plan, p. 3, is available on the Internet or in
hard copy upon request, http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/
planintro.htm.)
Publication of these goals was important progress for the Task
Force and demonstrated a consensus among the Federal, State and Tribal
members for moving forward together with common goals across a
watershed that spans a significant part of the Nation and the
associated spectrum of interests and priorities. The scientific
uncertainty related to the time lags in the response of the watershed
to management action makes it difficult to anticipate when improvements
will be realized. However, continued monitoring, research, modeling,
and adaptive management actions taken in response to the findings will
maximize chances for achieving these goals.
The 11 short-term actions and an associated timeline as defined by
the Action Plan are listed at the end of this statement and are
intended to guide progress toward achieving the long-term goals. The
short-term actions include advancing a sub-basin management
implementation strategy by formation of sub-basin committees and
development of nutrient reduction strategies; landowner assistance
plans for voluntary actions to restore, enhance or create wetlands and
vegetative or forested buffer strips; and assistance plans for
agricultural producers, landowners, and businesses for voluntary
implementation of best management practices. The short-term actions
include advancing monitoring and research strategies for both the
Mississippi River watershed and the Gulf of Mexico to support adaptive
management, as well as, reassessing progress toward reducing nutrient
loads and the size of the hypoxic zone every five years.
Progress has been made on a number of these actions. Although the
original timeline has not been rigidly maintained, the Task Force has
been actively pursuing its goals. Since publication of the Action Plan,
the Task Force has met twice, in February and December 2002. It has
formed workgroups to address management implementation, management
actions (nonpoint source, point source and restoration), finance/
budget, and monitoring modeling and research issues. The USGS and the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) co-chair the
monitoring, modeling and research workgroup, which is preparing a
Monitoring, Modeling and Research Strategy for the Task Force to
support management implementation. This document will establish a
framework for achieving the short-term actions related to providing the
scientific information needed to guide adaptive management in the
Mississippi River Watershed and northern Gulf of Mexico.
The third question posed by the Committee is: ``To what extent are
federal research programs focused on the appropriate issues to be most
effective in understanding hypoxia?'' Research issues related to
hypoxia cover a very wide range of scientific areas. USGS is involved
in only one subset. However, coordination of federal research on
hypoxia is a recognized priority by involved agencies. Recent
coordination was spurred by HABHRCA and the corresponding activities of
the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task Force.
Through these activities, federal scientists and other experts have
worked together to identify research priorities that resulted in the
Integrated Assessment and the associated six technical reports.
Satisfying one of the Action Plan's short-term actions, an
interagency plan was developed by NOAA, the National Science Foundation
(NSF), USGS, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that summarizes
the scientific community's views of key research needs for better
understanding and managing of coastal nutrient pollution. This
interagency plan is titled ``Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters--
Priority Topics for an Integrated National Research Program for the
United States'' (in press).
Currently, the monitoring modeling and research workgroup of the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Task Force is drafting a Monitoring
Modeling and Research Strategy, to include information gathered at a
workshop held in October 2002 and attended by over 100 expert
scientists and managers from government agencies, universities, and the
private sector. This strategy will identify priorities for monitoring,
modeling and research in the Mississippi watershed and the Gulf of
Mexico, as well as priorities for coordination, reporting, and resource
needs.
The National Research Council report, Clean Coastal Water:
Understanding and Addressing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution (2000),
identifies the need for federal leadership to support and coordinate
the research and development needed to reduce and reverse the effects
of nutrient over-enrichment. That report makes specific recommendations
for federal action: including, monitoring in coastal and inland areas;
improving models for understanding nutrient effects and forecasting
trends; and expanding and targeting research to improve understanding
of the causes and impacts of nutrient over-enrichment.
These efforts among others have helped identify monitoring,
modeling and research needs, as well as the associated needs to
coordinate ongoing activities related to hypoxia in coastal waters. The
current challenge is improving coordination among numerous involved
agencies and filling important needs and gaps in current activities
within limited resources.
In summary, harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are important problems
for the Nation. They occur where human activities from broad inland
areas reach and affect coastal receiving waters. As a result, a key
component of a successful solution is coordinated monitoring, modeling
and research activities. This will join our efforts to understand the
processes and factors that control the sources and causes of excess
nutrient and related chemical loads with the processes that cause
recurring harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in coastal waters.
Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to advance this joint progress and
coordination by acknowledgement and support of both coastal and inland
monitoring, modeling and research.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to answer any questions you and other
Members of the Subcommittee might have.
ADDENDUM: Short-term actions and time-frames proposed in the Action
Plan to achieve the long-term goals (The Action
Plan, p. 13):
#1 LBy December 2000, the Task Force with input from the States
and Tribes within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, will
develop and submit a budget request for new and additional
funds for voluntary technical and financial assistance,
education, environmental enhancement, research, and monitoring
programs to support the actions outlined in the Action Plan;
#2 LBy Summer 2001, States and Tribes in the Basin, in
consultation with the Task Force, will establish sub-basin
committees to coordinate implementation of the Action Plan by
major sub-basins, including coordination among smaller
watersheds, Tribes and States in each of those sub-basins;
#3 LBy Fall 2001, the Task Force will develop an integrated
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Research Strategy to coordinate and
promote necessary research and modeling efforts to reduce
uncertainties regarding the sources, effects (including
economic effects in the Gulf as well as the basin), and
geochemical processes for hypoxia in the Gulf;
#4 LBy Spring 2002, Coastal States, Tribes and relevant Federal
agencies will greatly expand the long-term monitoring program
for the hypoxic zone, including greater temporal and spatial
data collection, measurements of macro-nutrient and micro-
nutrient concentrations and hypoxia as well as measures of the
biochemical processes that regulate the inputs, fate, and
distribution of nutrients and organic material;
#5 LBy Spring 2002, States, Tribes and Federal agencies within
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin will expand the
existing monitoring efforts within the Basin to provide both a
coarse resolution assessment of the nutrient contribution of
various sub-basins and a high resolution modeling technique in
these smaller watersheds to identify additional management
actions to help mitigate nitrogen losses to the Gulf, and
nutrient loadings to local waters, based on the interim
guidance established by the National Water Quality Monitoring
Council;
#6 LBy Fall 2002, States, Tribes and Federal agencies within
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin, using available
data and tools, local partnerships, and coordination through
sub-basin committees, described in #2 above, will develop
strategies for nutrient reduction. These strategies will
include setting reduction targets for nitrogen losses to
surface waters, establishing a baseline of existing efforts for
nutrient management, identifying opportunities to restore flood
plain wetlands (including restoration of river inflows) along
and adjacent to the Mississippi River, detailing needs for
additional assistance to meet their goals, and promoting
additional funding;
#7 LBy December 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
in cooperation with States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies,
will, if authorized by the Congress and funded in the fall of
2001, complete a reconnaissance level study of potential
nutrient reduction actions that could be achieved by modifying
COE projects or project operations. Prior to completion of the
reconnaissance study, the COE will incorporate nitrogen
reduction considerations, not requiring major modification of
projects or project operations or significant new costs, into
all project implementation actions;
#8 LBy January 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-
basin committees, Clean Water Act permitting authorities within
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin will identify point
source dischargers with significant discharges of nutrients and
undertake steps to reduce those loadings, consistent with
action #6 above;
#9 LBy Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-
basin committees, States and Tribes within the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya River Basin with support from federal agencies,
will increase assistance to landowners for voluntary actions to
restore, enhance, or create wetlands and vegetative or forested
buffers along rivers and streams within priority watersheds
consistent with action #6 above;
#10 LBy Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-
basin committees, States and Tribes within the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya River Basin, with support from federal agencies,
will increase assistance to agricultural producers, other
landowners, and businesses for the voluntary implementation of
best management practices (BMPs), which are effective in
addressing loss of nitrogen to water bodies, consistent with
action #6 above; and
#11 LBy December 2005 and every five years thereafter, the Task
Force will assess the nutrient load reductions achieved and the
response of the hypoxic zone, water quality throughout the
Basin, and economic and social effects. Based on this
assessment, the Task Force will determine appropriate actions
to continue to implement this strategy or, if necessary, revise
the strategy.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you for your testimony. Dr.
Carmichael.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE W. CARMICHAEL, PROFESSOR, AQUATIC BIOLOGY
AND TOXICOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PH.D. PROGRAM, WRIGHT STATE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Carmichael. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the
Subcommittee. This is a new experience for me, and I certainly
appreciate it. Blooms of toxic or harmful microalgae are found
in marine, brackish, and freshwaters. In marine environments,
where they are commonly called the red tides, they represent a
hazard being addressed by several state and Federal Government
programs, including the current bill. In fresh and brackish
waters, the HABs are due to about 40 species within seven
genera of the algal division called the blue-green algae, or
more correctly, Cyanobacteria. Like marine HABs, they take many
forms, ranging from massive accumulations of cells to dilute,
inconspicuous, but highly toxic populations.
In contrast to marine HABs, the CyanoHABs are not commonly
referred to as red tides since instead they discolor the water
green, dark green, bluish green, to reddish brown. In some
instances they even produce a massive viscous paste, as
indicated in this slide from Lake Erie in the early 1970's when
Lake Erie was said to be dead. Of course, it wasn't dead, only
polluted. We don't expect a return to that past situation, but
as you can see in this slide, the viscous green material when
it decomposes goes to the viscous green-blue, therefore, the
common name blue-green algae.
These impacts from CyanoHABs include massive mortalities of
wild, including migratory birds, deer, wild sheep, and even
bears; domestic animals, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, ducks,
geese, and even family pets; and farmed fish and shellfish,
especially, salmon, trout, and shrimp; human intoxications and
death from exposure and consumption of contaminated drinking
water supplies; alterations of fresh and brackish food webs
through adverse effects on microbial, invertebrate, larvae, and
other life history stages of commercial and noncommercial fish
species. We now even have evidence that some of these toxins,
not in the same way that maybe the red tides do, produced by
CyanoHABs affect reproduction and survival through the food
web, and can move from level to level in a manner analogous to
marine HAB toxins and xenobiotics of the chemical pollutants.
The effects on reservoir, lake, pond, river, and stream systems
remain poorly understood but are clearly significant.
In some instances we have documented or are beginning to
document the possibility that cyanobacteria are invasive when
bringing up the earlier bill of invasive species. Some
cyanobacteria have those characteristics. In most cases, they
become dominant due to environmental changes. As an example,
this slide shows a species called Cylindrospermopsis, which
became dominant in Florida waters and now is moving to parts of
the Midwest.
Most of my testimony needs to address the Great Lakes, and
that concerns possible re-emergence in the Great Lakes of the
CyanoHABs. Even though we made significant progress in 1968
through 2000 from interagency and international efforts at
reduction of phosphorous, there are some indications that this
effort may be slipping, as shown near the end of this graph,
you see that there are some changes, there are some spikings,
and these spikings are corresponding with new blooms in the
late 1990's, especially, in 1995, 1996, 1998.
The increase in Lake Erie algae has also been documented.
These are seasonal averages of planktonic algae in the Western
basin, central basin, and eastern basins of Lake Erie. As you
can see, beginning in 1995, increases are taking place.
Satellite reflectance images document this in the next slide
from September 1995, the dark red areas represent reflectance
images indicating high populations of algae, including the
CyanoHABs.
In terms of food web changes, which is one of the key
things we are concerned with, is the zebra mussel. Recent
studies indicate that there are changes taking place that allow
the zebra mussel to select for the CyanoHABs, and especially,
the ones that produce the toxins, because zebra mussels are
particularly picky about their food source and reject toxic
cyanobacteria. Additional changes include the invasive round
gobi fish and the zooplankton Echinogammarus, which contribute
to the other invasive species, and as a consequence, this is
what we feel we are seeing in the way of the emergence of new
blooms.
With regards to hypoxia, the two are linked. The hypoxia
issue is one that is not as clear. The causes of the current
increase in CyanoHABs within the Great Lakes do not have a
scientific consensus at present, but the research done to date
does support the major reason as being the invasion of the
zebra mussel. In this next slide, the zebra mussel nutrients
plus the decomposition of algae allows for recycling of
phosphorous plus mixing of algal blooms which sink and die and
contribute to the decomposition process.
The USEPA, through the Safe Drinking Water Act, has placed
the cyanobacteria and their toxins on the candidate contaminant
list in 1998 for research priority, including health research,
treatment research, analytical methods research, and occurrence
priorities. Much of that work has been done and we are moving
on with that program.
The necessary next steps, shown in this final slide,
include CyanoHABs and the national HAB funding agenda;
identify, characterize, and prioritize the primary hazards and
risks from CyanoHABs; support a coordinated effort between
academia, Government, and private agencies to address CyanoHAB
rapid detection, management, and mitigation, much in the same
way as we are approaching the marine HAB's; include a rapid
response capability that allows for correct and balanced public
risk communication. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Carmichael follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne W. Carmichael
Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Wayne Carmichael,
Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Wright State
University, where I have been active in the study of toxic
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), fresh and brackish water harmful
algal blooms (HABs) for 27 years. My testimony is being provided to
support the issues and questions being raised as part of the ``Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendment Act of 2003.'' I am here to
provide the perspective of an experienced research scientist who has
investigated most of the Cyanobacteria HAB (CyanoHAB) phenomena that
affect fresh and estuarine waters of the United States and many of
those same phenomena that have affected some of the world's freshwater
supplies (China, Australia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico,
Great Britain, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway,
Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and South Africa).
Internationally I have served on the World Health Organization (WHO)
Technical Group that developed the guidelines for Cyanobacteria toxins
in drinking water supplies and with the Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO) and the Brazilian Ministry of Health to set
regulations for these same toxins in Brazil's public drinking water
supplies. Within the U.S. I have been actively involved in research on
the occurrence, distribution, toxicity and health impacts of toxic
cyanobacteria waterblooms and more recently in assisting with the
inclusion, by the USEPA, of toxic cyanobacteria on the Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) for the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996. In the
state, local government and private sector I have assisted with
scientific framework and agency partnerships needed to attack the HAB
problem in an efficient and productive manner. Thank you for the
opportunity to acquaint you with the national problem of Cyanobacteria
Harmful Algal Blooms (CyanoHABs) and the steps that the scientific,
government and private community might take or are taking to address
it.
Background
Blooms of toxic or harmful micro algae, are found in both Marine,
Brackish and Freshwaters throughout the world. In Marine environments,
where they are commonly called ``red tides,'' they represent a hazard,
that is being addressed by several State and Federal Government
programs--including this House bill. In fresh and brackish waters HABs
are due to about 40 species within seven genera of the algal division
called Blue-green Algae, now more correctly called Cyanobacteria. Like
Marine HABs they take many forms, ranging from massive accumulations of
cells, to dilute, inconspicuous, but highly toxic populations. In
contrast to marine HABs the CyanoHABs are not referred to as ``Red
Tides'' since they discolor the water dark green to bluish green to
reddish brown (and can turn the waters consistency to a thick viscous
paste). The impacts include: mass mortalities of wild (migratory birds,
deer, wild sheep and even bears) and domestic animals (cows, horses,
sheep, pigs, ducks, geese and family pets) and farmed fish and
shellfish (salmon, trout, shrimp); human intoxications and death from
exposure and consumption of contaminated drinking water supplies;
alterations of fresh and brackish food webs through adverse effects on
microbial, invertebrate, larvae and other life history stages of
commercial and non-commercial fish species. We now have some evidence
that at least some of the toxins (Cyanotoxins) produced by CyanoHAB
species affect reproduction and survival throughout the food web, and
can move from level to level in a manner analogous to the Marine HAB
toxins and xenobiotic (produced by human activities) chemical
pollutants. The effects on reservoir, lake, pond, river and stream
ecosystems remain poorly understood, but are clearly significant.
Outbreaks, in 1996, of toxic Cyanobacteria in a Brazilian drinking
water supply led to the death of at least 52 persons exposed to a
treated public water supply used in kidney dialyses centers. While no
human deaths have been confirmed from CyanoHABs in U.S. waters,
beginning in the mid 1990's, an organism called Cylindrospermopsis
focused public and political attention on CyanoHAB episodes in Florida
that was alarming and disturbing to many, and that will impact how
Florida transitions from its dominant use of ground water to surface
waters for use as public drinking water supplies. In the Great Lakes
the invasion of the freshwater zebra mussel has contributed to
processes (now being studied) that helps select for the dominance of
toxic Cyanobacteria. These toxic Cyanobacteria blooms contribute (as
they did in the 1960's and 70's) to anoxia and hypoxia in certain areas
of the Great Lakes. These are but three examples to support the
argument that funding should be distributed so as to address all HAB
problems, not just the ones that impact our marine ecosystems.
In the United States, the Cyanotoxins responsible for economic and
public health problems are (also see Table 1):
LMicrocystins. Microcystins are a large group of
livertoxic peptides (small proteins) that are produced by a
range of Cyanobacteria. They are also liver tumor promoters.
This group of cyanotoxins includes more than 65 different
structural variants of cyclic heptapeptides (consisting of
seven amino acids in a ring structure), with molecular weights
in the range 800-1100. The best characterized and one of the
most toxic variants of microcystin is microcystin-LR. Most of
the structural variants of microcystin are highly toxic within
a narrow range, although some non-toxic variants have been
identified.
L Microcystins are most commonly produced by species of the
genus Microcystis, from which the toxins originally derived
their name. However, these toxins have now been shown to be
produced by species of the planktonic genera Anabaena,
Microcystis, Planktothrix (Oscillatoria), Nostoc, and
Anabaenopsis, and also by a terrestrial (soil) species
Haphalosiphon hibernicus, indicating the potential for
widespread occurrence in the environment. The majority of human
and animal microcystin-related poisonings worldwide are
nevertheless associated with the presence of Microcystis.
Microcystins are the most significant drinking water quality
issue, in relation to Cyanobacterial blooms, in the U.S.
including the Great Lakes. Microcystins are produced
predominantly by Microcystis aeruginosa. They can occasionally
be produced by Anabaena spp. and Planktothrix.
L A chemically and functionally related group of livertoxic
peptides called the Nodularins are found in some of the worlds'
brackish water supplies (Baltic Sea, Australian and New Zealand
brackish lakes and estuaries). To date they have not been
identified in U.S. brackish waters.
LSaxitoxins. There are three types of Cyanobacterial
neurotoxins, anatoxin a, anatoxin a-(s) and the saxitoxins. The
saxitoxins include saxitoxin, neosaxitoxin, C-toxins and
gonyautoxins. The anatoxins seem unique to Cyanobacteria, while
saxitoxins are also produced by various dinoflagellates under
the name of paralytic shellfish poisons (PSPs). This is an
example of a HAB toxin group which is common to both marine and
freshwater HABs. A number of Cyanobacterial genera can produce
saxitoxins, including Anabaena, Oscillatoria,
Cylindrospermopsis, Cylindrospermum, Lyngbya and Aphanizomenon.
L The saxitoxins are a group of alkaloids that are either
non-sulfated (saxitoxins), singly-sulfated (gonyautoxins), or
doubly-sulfated (C-toxins). The various types of toxins vary in
potency with saxitoxin having the highest toxicity. Saxitoxins
exert their effect as neurotoxins by blocking nerve conduction
and causing death by respiratory arrest. Saxitoxin is a member
of the CDC Select Agent List for its potential use as
bioweapon.
L Saxitoxins have been recorded in only a few locations
throughout the U.S. (New Hampshire, Alabama and New Mexico). No
occurrences have yet been reported in the Great lakes. A few
animal deaths have been linked to saxitoxins in U.S.
freshwaters but most poisonings are from exposures through
marine waters as the causative agent of PSPs. In temperate
parts of Australia, blooms of saxitoxin producing Cyanobacteria
are very prevalent. The first reported neurotoxic bloom of
Anabaena in Australia occurred in 1972. The most publicized
bloom occurred in late 1991 and extended over 1,000 km of the
Darling-Barwon River system in New South Wales. A state of
emergency was declared with a focus on providing safe drinking
water to towns, communities and landholders. Thousands of stock
deaths were associated with the occurrence of the bloom but
there was little evidence of human health impacts.
LAnatoxins. The other neurotoxic cyanotoxins are
anatoxin-a and anatoxin-a(s). Both are alkaloids which cause
death by respiratory paralysis. They are both chemically and
functionally different from saxitoxin. Anatoxin-a is a
secondary amine alkaloid, with one natural analog Homoanatoxin-
a. They are neurotoxic by depolarizing acetylcholine receptors,
leading to death by respiratory arrest. It is the second most
common cyanotoxin in U.S. waters and has been identified in a
few Great Lakes water samples. It has been responsible for
massive die-offs of migrating birds in the mid west and in
intermittent but repeated poisonings of wild and domestic
animals in several U.S. states especially the West. Anatoxin-
a(s) is an organophosphate with toxicities similar, but more
potent than, the known organophosphate pesticides. It is
neurotoxic by inhibiting breakdown of acetylcholine
(anticholinesterase). It is not as common as Anatoxin-a but has
been responsible for a few animal (especially domestic dogs)
and bird poisonings in the U.S.. It has not been identified to
date in the Great Lakes.
LCylindrospermopsin. Cylindrospermopsin is an alkaloid
toxin with a molecular weight of 415, produced by the
freshwater Cyanobacteria, Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii,
Aphanizomenon ovalisporum, Umezakia natans and Raphidiopsis. It
was first characterised and named from an Australian isolate of
C. raciborskii. In pure form cylindrospermopsin is
predominantly a liver toxin, although extracts of C.
raciborskii administered to mice induce toxicity in the
kidneys, spleen, thymus, heart and eye. Other chemical variants
of cylindrospermopsin have been isolated from C. raciborskii,
including a deoxycylindrospermopsin.
L Cylindrospermopsin is believed to have been the causative
agent in a drinking water poisoning incident in Queensland,
Australia in 1979, in which 148 people were hospitalized. C.
raciborskii has been found in many water supply reservoirs in
northern, central and southern Queensland. In the U.S. C.
raciborskii has become dominant in many water supplies in
Florida over the past 10 years. To date it has not been
identified in any of the Great Lakes. Even though it is
considered to be predominantly tropical/sub-tropical in terms
of habitat, it has begun to invade certain U.S. Midwest
drinking water supplies since about 2000. C. raciborskii is not
a scum-forming organism, but forms dense bands below the water
surface in stratified lakes. Its toxin is readily released into
the water making it present even when cells are not apparent.
LLyngbyatoxins. Lyngbyatoxins are produced by a few
genera of marine Cyanobacteria. As such they are not a hazard
for freshwater supplies. They are potent contact irritants and
skin tumor promoters and are mainly a problem as a cause of
swimmers itch from recreational waters. There is one reported
occurrence of this toxin in Florida coastal waters.
Testimony on specific questions provided by the House Subcommittee:
1) LProvide an overview of the most pressing water quality issues that
exist today in the Great Lakes regarding the increase in occurrences of
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
CyanoHABs have a wide array of economic impacts, including the
costs of conducting routine monitoring programs for public drinking and
recreational water supplies, short-term and long term losses from
aquacultured shrimp and fish stocks, reductions in seafood sales,
losses of submerged aquatic vegetation, bottom-up impacts on tourism
and tourism-related businesses, and medical treatment of exposed
populations. These economic losses are difficult to estimate, and
fluctuate dramatically from year to year since toxic waterblooms are an
intermittent occurrence as weather and water conditions change. An
estimate of CyanoHAB costs to the entire United States has not been
done, but as with Marine HAB events they can be significant.
The nature of the CyanoHAB problem has changed considerably over
the last three decades in the United States. In the 1970's the main
CyanoHAB threat was as an intermittent but repeated cause of wild and
domestic poisonings in lakes, ponds and reservoirs. Lake Erie was
experiencing massive blooms of Cyanobacteria which caused significant
economic problems but the presence of cyanotoxins was not known at the
time and therefore not considered a factor in the harmful effects from
these waterblooms. Improved control of point source nutrient inputs and
other sound water management problems led to a significant decrease in
Cyanobacterial nuisance water blooms in the western basin of Lake Erie.
Since this time more investigations (and improved detection methods)
into the toxicity of Cyanobacteria and the toxins they produce, made it
clear that poisonings of Cyanobacteria were more frequent and
widespread than previously thought. In addition the increased use and
manipulation of freshwater supplies led to more widespread nutient
enrichment and changes that selected for conditions in which
Cyanobacteria waterblooms can dominate. Virtually every state has now
documented recurrent harmful or toxic Cyanobacteria species, whereas 30
years ago, the problem was much more scattered and sporadic. Few would
argue that the number of toxic waterblooms, the economic losses from
them, the health impacts and the number of toxins and toxic
Cyanobacteria species have all increased dramatically in recent years
in the United States and around the world.
A common assumption, that is largely true, is that pollution or
other human activities are responsible for this expansion with
geographic factors such as length of season and seasonal variations in
weather being able to moderate or exacerbate this cause. Scientists are
also much better at detecting known toxins and finding new ones than
ever before, in part because analytical instruments and methods are
vastly improved and because there is rapid and efficient communication
throughout the world. The finding of Cylindrospermopsin in many of
Florida's lakes and rivers was made easier by its identification first
in Australia followed by good scientific communication and interaction
among scientists. The re-emergence of CyanoHABs in the Great Lakes may
have its root cause in the invasion by zebra mussels but the link to
toxins came about because of new methods of detection and good
communication among scientists working in diverse fields. As with
Marine HABs massive waterblooms of CyanoHABs are strongly linked to
pollution, as the input of sewage to inland waters will stimulate
``background'' populations of Cyanobacteria by supplying them with
nutrients, allowing the populations to grow faster and longer. Harmful
or toxic species will thus be more abundant and more noticeable. The
sudden appearance of CyanoHABs can be viewed as a visible and dramatic
warning of the dangers that arise from decades of abuse of our inland
waters--the canary in the coal mine analogy.
It is clear then that the expansion of the CyanoHAB problem is in
part a matter of perception or increased awareness, and in part a
matter of the actual growth of the problem. In other words, years ago
we were not aware of the size or complexity of the CyanoHAB problem,
but as we became better at detecting toxins and recognizing CyanoHAB
phenomena, we more clearly defined the extensive boundaries of the
problem. On top of this apparent increase there has been genuine growth
in the problem due to such factors as pollution, manipulation of water
systems for agricultural, residential and municipal water use and
aquaculture. The fact that some of the increase is simply a result of
better detection or more observers does not diminish the seriousness of
the CyanoHAB problem. It needs to be given attention and research in a
manner similar to that for the Marine HABs.
The causes of the current increase in CyanoHABs within the Great
Lakes do not have a scientific consensus. The research done to date
supports the major reason as being the invasion by zebra mussels. A
summary of how this may work is as follows:
LHigh phosphorus led to massive waterblooms in the
1960's and 70's
LControls on external P loading implemented by early
1980s (Water quality agreement between Canada and the USA Great
Lakes neighboring states)
LRecovery of Lake Erie by late 1980s
LInvasion by zebra mussels late 1980s
LRecurrence of nuisance blooms by late 1990s
The zebra mussel invasion continues to colonize hard and soft
substrates in the Great Lakes. It continues to change ecosystem
function and leads to higher Cyanobacteria populations through high
particle filtration rates along with selective rejection of colonial
cyanotoxin producing Cyanobacteria. These cyanotoxin producing
organisms lead to the problems of water quality being addressed by this
testimony.
The problem with hypoxia and even anoxia in the Great Lakes is not
new but the recent increase may be at least partly due to algae
populations changing to a dominance of Cyanobacteria. The recent
hypoxic areas are largely confined to Lake Erie. A summary of this
problem is given below (kindly provided by Prof. David Culver-Ohio
State University).
Anoxia in Central Lake Erie
The Problem: Lake Erie water quality affects drinking water, swimming,
and fish survival
High availability of phosphorus decreases Lake Erie water quality.
Low water quality increases the amounts of taste and odor causing
compounds and even toxic compounds from Cyanobacteria in drinking
water. Toxic Cyanobacteria tend to float to the surface in later summer
and can be blown to shore, increasing the likelihood they will be taken
in by potable water intakes and causing risks for swimmers, and for
wildlife, livestock, and pets that may drink from the shore of the
lake. Toxic Cyanobacteria have been shown to negatively affect the food
chain upon which fish depend. Bacterial contamination from combined
sewer overflows similarly affects these groups.
Causes: The thin Central Basin hypolimnion makes it susceptible to
anoxia
The cool layer at the bottom of the lake (the hypolimnion) receives
too little light for much photosynthesis, and is cut off from
atmospheric oxygen because it is denser than the warm layer
(epilimnion) floating on top. Because of the shape of Lake Erie, its
central basin hypolimnion is only 2 or 3 m deep, whereas its epilimnion
is 18 m deep. As the lake decreases to water levels closer to the long-
term average, the hypolimnion can become even thinner. Algae and
animals produced in the epilimnion die and release feces that settle
into the hypolimnion, where they decompose, consuming oxygen. The more
nutrients available in the epilimnion, the greater the algal growth
there. The more algae produced, the faster the rate of consumption of
oxygen in the hypolimnion. It is a race between the rate of consumption
of oxygen and the occurrence of the total circulation of the lake in
September, which is caused by cooling of the surface waters.
Effects: Low oxygen in the Central Basin bottom waters decreases fish
habitat
Most fish species cannot tolerate oxygen levels less than 3 ppm
(e.g., walleye, yellow perch), and some require 4 ppm or more. Because
the central basin is very flat, an increase in the area where
concentration at the bottom is less than 3 ppm will greatly decrease
the area useable by game fish and small fish upon which they depend for
food. Lower concentrations yet will kill the benthic insects (e.g.,
mayflies) and plankton that these fish eat.
Effects: Low oxygen in the Central Basin bottom waters recycles
phosphorus, producing more algae
Phosphate ions in the sediments are bound by iron and clays fairly
well under aerobic conditions. When sediments become anoxic, however,
the ferric iron is reduced to ferrous iron and the phosphate is then
much more soluble and diffuses out of the sediment. This phosphate can
be mixed up into the surface waters when the lake circulates in
September, causing additional algal growth.
Effects: Algae decreased in abundance from 1970 to 1997, but have
increased since then
Central Basin algae biomass declined from 3 to 0.6 g/m3
from 1970 to 1997, but 2001 abundances (2.0 g/m3 ) are now
as high as they were in the early 1980s, suggesting that water quality
improvements are being reversed. This is all reflected in the
planktonic animals in the lake. Algae increases are made up in part by
toxic strains of Cyanobacteria, which had become rare in the early
1990s. EPA phosphorus data also show this trend. There is no evidence
that increases in inputs from the watershed have occurred, although
accurate estimates of inputs are difficult to obtain.
Possible Causes: Zebra mussels have recycled phosphorus
Zebra mussels have recycled phosphorus and nitrogen in algae that
otherwise would have settled to the sediments and stayed there. They
consume algae all year round, providing continuous recycling of
nutrients that can encourage algal growth. Their effects will be
particularly felt in the western basin and near shore, but these waters
also flow into the central basin where the anoxic hypolimnion occurs.
Possible Causes: Quagga mussels are replacing zebra mussels
Quagga mussels (another introduced species) are replacing zebra
mussels in the whole lake. Our preliminary data suggest quagga mussels
excrete more phosphate and ammonia than do zebra mussels for
equivalent-sized individuals.
Possible Causes: Combined sewer overflows bypass nutrient removal at
sewage treatment plants
Phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to the lake are increased by storm-
induced overflows from combined storm water and sanitary sewers.
Solutions: zebra or quagga mussels cannot be removed
There is no way to remove zebra or quagga mussels from the lake.
Solutions: decrease human input of nutrients
If recycling by animals in the lake is increasing, our only
solution is to decrease inputs of nutrients, particularly phosphorus,
from point and non-point sources. As the human population increases in
the Lake Erie watershed, it will require even greater efforts to
decrease nutrient inputs.
Solutions: support better nutrient modeling of the lake
Scientific studies of the interactions among water circulation,
nutrient inputs, and the plants and animals in the lake are hampered by
incomplete information on the sources and amounts of nutrients coming
in from rivers and direct discharge into the lake. Increase efforts in
monitoring inputs of nutrients, especially phosphorus and nitrogen into
the lake.
2) LTo what extent is research on freshwater harmful algal blooms
funded by private entities and what benefit does it provide to them. To
what extent are federal research programs focused on the appropriate
issues in order to be most effective in understanding harmful algae
blooms.
The problems of CyanoHABs are addressed by several private and
public groups and agencies. Historically the lead public agency has
been the USEPA. They funded a conference on the topic in 1980 but no
programs or policies were produced and further funding was limited. In
the 1980's DOD through USAMRID funded research related to an
understanding of basic toxicology, detection and decontamination of
Cyanotoxins. The ECOHAB program formed in the 1990's was directed
almost solely toward Marine HABs and no significant funding was made to
the issue of CyanoHABs. During this time other countries did make
significant efforts toward funding of CyanoHAB research and toward a
national program of coordinated research. This was most notable in
Australia where a national algal task force was formed and still
operates. Their efforts are largely responsible for the information
available on public health consequences, monitoring, management and
mitigation of CyanoHABs published by WHO in 1999 (Chorus and Bartram
1999). In Europe the EU is currently funding several multinational
efforts at these same goals. The new research on Cyanobacteria and
Cyanotoxins in the U.S. is largely being funded by the USEPA (as needed
for the Candidate Contaminant List work through the Safe Drinking Water
Act) and some state Health Agencies (i.e., Florida through funding from
the State Harmful Algae Task Force). Other recent projects are funded
by MERHAB, the National Sea Grant Program and the Lake Erie Protection
Fund. Private funding has largely come through the American Water Works
Research Foundation (AwwaRF). This work is in direct support of
foundation member water utilities who need to be able to respond better
to taste and odor and toxin events of Cyanobacteria. In all of these
efforts there is little coordination of projects. This could be one of
the key ways that the current HAB legislation could be of assistance.
It is possible that the national plan formed for Marine HABs could be
model for this effort (National Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful
Algae--Anderson et al., 1993).
Another related need is for skilled research teams with the
equipment and facilities required to attack the complex scientific
issues involved in CyanoHAB phenomena. Like the Marine HAB funding
program, this argues for funding that does not ebb and flood with the
sporadic pattern of CyanoHAB outbreaks or that focuses resources in one
region while others go begging. There needs to be an equitable
distribution of resources that is consistent with the scale and extent
of the national problem, and that is sustained through time. This is
the only way to keep research teams intact, forming the core of
expertise and knowledge that leads to scientific progress. To achieve
this balance, we need a scientifically based allocation of resources,
not one based on political jurisdictions.
Another need is for targeted funding programs which recognize that
management of CyanoHAB phenomena requires expertise in many disciplines
ranging from toxicology and public health to freshwater ecology and
basic lake/reservoir management. This means that like the Marine HAB
effort, coordination from NOAA in partnership with the National Science
Foundation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the
Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Environmental
Health and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is needed.
The Centers for Disease Control and Human Studies Divison within
the USEPA are both pursuing a modest effort at epidemiology and public
health. Toxin production by several CyanoHAB species can seriously
impact wild and domestic and pose threats to human health, yet our
epidemiological and toxicokinetics knowledge of these toxins is
limited. There is however insufficient federal support to address all
toxins, toxic species, modes of action, detection methods, and impacts
on coastal resources, food webs and humans. Acute single-dose lethality
of toxins has been studied extensively, but chronic and/or repeated
exposure to Cyanotoxins, which is a more realistic phenomenon, has not
been adequately examined. There are also new toxins, such as those
associated with the recent Cylindrospermopsis outbreaks, whose toxins
may be genotoxic but whose health effects remain uncharacterized. These
knowledge gaps prevent researchers from devising antidotes or effective
treatments which may alleviate or lessen the symptoms.
A final program need reflects the fact that when unexpected
CyanoHAB outbreaks occur, the state and federal response has often been
confused, uncoordinated, slow, and contentious. Illnesses and deaths
from CyanoHABs have occurred in other countries and conditions are
becoming right for their occurrence in the U.S. A ``rapid response''
similar to what has been developed with Marine HABs, that will allow
scientists and regulators to investigate unexpected CyanoHAB outbreaks,
is needed. This requires both funding and leadership. A related need is
for a public risk communication strategy to provide up-to-date,
accurate information on CyanoHAB outbreaks for the public, journalists,
the medical community, and the fisheries industry.
3) LWhat technologies exist or could be developed in the near future to
monitor for and to control and mitigate harmful algal blooms in the
Great Lakes.
Since the 1980's good methods have been developed to detect
Cyanotoxins. The three major detection methodologies are biological,
physicochemical and biochemical. Biological methods include the use of
small animals (i.e., mouse, fish, invertebrates) and microbial (i.e.,
bacteria). These methods provide initial screening data on the presence
and sometimes type (i.e., signs of poisoning) of toxin but are
generally less sensitive and certainly less qualitative than the other
two methods. Now that chemical and toxicological information is
available for the cyanotoxins, physicochemical and biochemical methods
of detection are being used. The more common of these include
chromatographic (TLC, HPLC), mass spectral using FAB, ESI and SIM and
nuclear magnetic resonance. These physicochemical methods are sensitive
and are of high utility for qualitative analysis. The biochemical
methods are replacing the bioassays as a rapid screening procedure and
have an added advantage in that they are very sensitive. These methods
include immunoassays (especially ELISA) and enzyme assays. The
biochemical assays are less qualitative than the physicochemical assays
but are just as sensitive and more rapid making them particularly
useful to screen environmental samples. Newer methods for monitoring
and screening that could be developed are based upon genetic and
biosensor probes.
Although these methods are all good research tools none have been
developed for rapid monitoring applications. In a workshop sponsored by
the USEPA in May of 2001 this point was emphasized in the final report.
Other points mentioned were:
LAnalytical standards are needed for all algal toxins,
except Saxitoxins which are already available through FDA and
the NRC in Canada.
LSome Microcystins are commercially available but
there is need for the other toxins (Anatoxin-a,
Cylindrospermopsin) to become commercially available.
LELISA assays are needed for Cylindrospermopsin and
Anatoxin-a.
LMolecular and genetic based probes are needed.
LAnalytical methods need to be made into standard
methods.
LAcute and chronic effects of algal toxicity need to
be studied.
LSampling should take place in raw water, finished
water, and storage reservoirs.
LLow and high level chronic biotoxin studies need to
be performed.
4) LProvide written comments and suggestions on the draft
reauthorization bill.
The ``Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of
2003'' represents a significant effort to expand the ``Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998.'' This expansion is
an overdue acknowledgement that the fresh and brackish water HAB
organisms, represented primarily by the Cyanobacteria, represent a
significant hazard to the safety and quality of the nations freshwater
supplies. Specific points for the draft bill text are to be sure and
include a reference to all U.S. freshwaters (not just the Great Lakes)
in qualifying for inclusion in the acts revisions. For example page 3
line 24 onto page 4 line 1--ecosystems (including the Great Lakes and
other inland waters).
Overview
The diverse and sporadic nature of the CyanoHAB phenomena
throughout the U.S. pose an additional challenge to the development of
an expanded national HAB program. Nevertheless, the combination of
planning, coordination, and a highly compelling topic with great
societal importance have set the stage for cooperation between
officials, government scientists and academics in a sustained attack on
the CyanoHAB problem. The rate and extent of progress from here will
depend upon how well different federal agencies can work together, how
much funding support is provided, and on how effectively the skills and
expertise of government and academic scientists can be targeted on
priority topics. In this testimony, I have tried to provide an overview
of the status of the CyanoHAB problem, emphasizing the challenges as
well as the significant progress that has been made in understanding
the nature of the problem which can be used as the foundation toward
implementing a national program. The CyanoHAB community in the U.S. is
small compared with its counterpart in Europe, Australia and Japan.
However the existence of a strong U.S. Marine HAB effort and the
availability of well trained scientists and government officials well-
positioned to undertake the additional HAB challenges make this
expanded national program well worth the effort. It will however be
successful only if a coordinated, multi-faceted interagency effort can
be implemented to focus research personnel, facilities, and financial
resources on the diverse goals of this expanded comprehensive national
strategy.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or other Members may have.
Literature citations
Anderson, D.M., Galloway, S.B., and Joseph, J.D. 1993. Marine Biotoxins
and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Tech. Report, WHOI 93-02. Woods Hole, MA. 59pp.
Carmichael, W.W. 1997. The Cyanotoxins. In Advances in Botanical
Research (ed. Callow, J.) 27, 211-256 Academic Press, London.
Carmichael, W.W. 2001. Health Effects of Toxin Producing Cyanobacteria:
``The CyanoHABS,'' Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
7(5):1393-1407.
Carmichael, W.W., Azevedo, M.F.O., An, J.S., Molica, R.J.R., Jochimsen,
E.M., Lau, S., Rinehart, K.L., Shaw, G.R., Eagelsham, G.K.
2001. Human Fatalities from Cyanobacteria: Chemical and
Biological Evidence for Cyanotoxins. Environmental Health
Perspectives 109(7):663-668.
Carpenter, E.J., Carmichael, W.W. 1995. Taxonomy of Cyanobacteria. In
Hallegraeff, G.M. et al. (eds.) Manual on Harmful Marine
Microalgae pp. 373-80. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 33 UNESCO.
Chorus, I., Bartram, J. (eds.) 1999. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A
Guide to Their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring and
Management. World Health Organization, E&FN Spon, Routledge,
London.
Hallegraeff, G.M., Anderson, D.M., Cembella, A.D. (eds.) 1995. Manual
on Harmful Marine Microalgae 551 pp. IOC Manuals and Guides No.
33 UNESCO.
Jochimsen, E.M., Carmichael, W.W., An, J.S., Cardo, D.M., Cookson,
S.T., Holmes, C.E.M., Antines, M.b. de C., Filho, D.A. de Meb,
Lyra, T.M., Burreto, V.T.S. , Azevedo, S.M.F.O. and Jarvis,
W.R. 1998. Liver Failure and Death Following Exposure to
Microcystin Toxins at a Hemodialysis Center in Brazil. New Eng.
J. Medicine. March 26, 1998, V. 338(13):873-878.
Ressom R., Soong, F.S., Fitzgerald, J., Turczynowicz, L., Saadi, O.E.,
Roder, D., Maynard, T., Falconer, I. (eds.) 1994. Health
Effects of Toxic Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), National
Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Govt. Pub.
Service, Canberra.
Turgeon, D.D., Sellner, K.G, Scavia, D. and Anderson, D.M. 1998. Status
of U.S. Harmful Algal Blooms: Progress towards a National Plan.
NOAA.
Yoo, R.S., Carmichael, W.W., Hoehn, R.C., Hrudey, S.E. (eds.) 1995.
Cyanobacterial (Blue-green Algal) Toxins: A Resource Guide 229
pp. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works
Association, Denver.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you very much. Didn't that look like
a particularly tasty substance? Dr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF DONALD M. ANDERSON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, BIOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with a
very brief introduction to marine harmful algal blooms or HABs.
Among the thousands of species of microscopic algae at the base
of the marine food chain--these are the ``blades of grass'' of
the ocean--are a few dozens which produce potent toxins. These
species make their presence known in a variety of ways,
sometimes through massive blooms that discolor the water,
sometimes through mass mortalities of wild fish, like these in
Texas or these in Florida. We have human intoxications and even
death from contaminated shellfish or fish, death of seabirds,
whales, marine mammals, and marine animals of all kinds, and
even aerosolized toxins that drive tourists and coastal
residents from the beaches.
These problems affect every coastal state in the U.S., but
an important consideration is the trend through time, which is
very disturbing as seen in this image. The top panel shows the
situation 30 years ago and the problems we recognized with HABs
at that time. The bottom panel shows the situation now. We,
clearly, have many more areas affected by many more types of
toxins and HAB impacts. And to address this pressing national
problem, scientists and agency officials have worked together
to formulate and implement research programs.
I have been asked to comment, what have we learned, what
tools have we developed for managers, and what are the next
steps. First of all, with respect to what have we learned, an
example from the Gulf of Maine. We now have identified the
origins of the toxic cells that are responsible for the
paralytic shellfish poisoning episodes in that region by
mapping out the locations of dormant resting cysts in bottom
sediments. These are seed beds or accumulation zones, and we
have identified a number of them, and these are the locations
from which the cells germinate and populate the water column
with swimming toxic cells which then multiply and cause the
annual toxicity. We also know that the Bay of Fundy serves as
an incubator or source for the toxic cells that ultimately
escape and enter into the Gulf of Maine, as you see in this
image map of the toxic organisms.
You also see that we have an offshore accumulation of toxic
cells. Prior to these programs, we had no knowledge of offshore
origins for these blooms, and through these studies, the
recurrent, self-seeding, and propagating nature of this
regional paralytic shellfish poisoning problem has been
elucidated.
Now, if we look down to Florida, we find that similar
studies have revealed the locations of toxic cells offshore in
the Gulf of Mexico and the manner in which they are transported
onshore. Studies of nutrient uptake by the red tide organisms
in Florida suggest a fascinating link between Gulf of Mexico
red time blooms and, believe it or not, dust storms from the
Sahara. These are just a few of the many advances in our
understanding that have accrued from the past five years and
there are really many more.
What tools have we developed? Well, new technologies are
urgently needed to facilitate the detection and identification
of HAB cells and toxins, and one very useful technology is
shown in this image using ``probes'' that we use to label only
the HAB cells of interest so they can be detected visually,
electronically, or chemically. Progress has been rapid and
probes of several different types are available for many of the
harmful algae. These probes are now being incorporated into a
variety of different assay systems, including some that can be
mounted on buoys and left unattended while they robotically
sample the water and test for HAB cells. Information is now
being collected that can be used to make HAB forecasts.
Another type of bloom detection is possible using remote
sensing data from satellites. Satellite images are being used
to track toxic red tides in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of
Maine. In the Gulf of Mexico, bloom forecast bulletins like the
one you see here are now being provided to affected states.
Again, these are just a few examples of many.
Finally, what steps are needed from here. The support
provided to HAB research through HABHRCA has had a tremendous
impact on our knowledge of HAB phenomena and on the development
of tools. I believe federal funds are focused in the
appropriate way and on appropriate issues in this regard. I
would state first of all that ECOHAB support--this is one of
the major programs that has been supported through this
program--should be sustained and expanded, as should MERHAB and
another program that I will mention in a second, called Oceans
and Human Health. I should say, though, that support for
research on freshwater cyanobacteria should definitely be
supported, but with new and separate funds. These are separate
problems, marine and freshwater HABs.
One program that should be expanded is a partnership
between the National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences and NSF to create Centers for Oceans and Human Health.
This expansion is best accomplished through additional funds to
these agencies as well as through the involvement of other
agencies with interests in that topic. Finally, it is also
apparent that a program on prevention, control, and mitigation
of HABs is needed as proposed in your legislation, and I fully
support such a program.
To conclude, let me say that the legislation before you is
a critical part of a coordinated national program that has been
effective and productive, and I commend you for your support of
it and your efforts to change it. The HAB scientific community
is fully capable of undertaking the new challenges in that
legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald M. Anderson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Donald M.
Anderson, a Senior Scientist in the Biology Department of the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, where I have been active in the study
of red tides and harmful algal blooms (HABs) for 25 years. I am here to
provide the perspective of an experienced scientist who has
investigated many of the harmful algal bloom (HAB) phenomena that
affect coastal waters of the United States and the world. I am also
Director of the U.S. National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful
Algal Blooms, and have been actively involved in formulating the
scientific framework and agency partnerships that support and guide our
national program on HABs. Thank you for the opportunity to acquaint you
with the national problem of HABs, the present status of our research
progress, and the future actions that are needed to maintain and expand
this vibrant and important national program.
BACKGROUND
Among the thousands of species of microscopic algae at the base of
the marine food chain are a few dozen which produce potent toxins.
These species make their presence known in many ways, sometimes as a
massive ``bloom'' of cells that discolor the water, sometimes as
dilute, inconspicuous concentrations of cells noticed only because they
produce highly potent toxins which either kill marine organisms
directly, or transfer through the food chain, causing harm at multiple
levels. The impacts of these phenomena include mass mortalities of wild
and farmed fish and shellfish, human intoxications or even death from
contaminated shellfish or fish, alterations of marine trophic structure
through adverse effects on larvae and other life history stages of
commercial fisheries species, and death of marine mammals, seabirds,
and other animals.
Blooms of toxic algae are commonly called ``red tides,'' since the
tiny plants sometimes increase in abundance until they dominate the
planktonic community and tint the water with their pigments. The term
is misleading, however, since toxic blooms may be greenish or brownish;
non-toxic species can bloom and harmlessly discolor the water; and,
conversely, adverse effects can occur when some algal cell
concentrations are low and the water is clear. Given the confusion, the
scientific community now uses the term ``harmful algal bloom'' or HAB.
HAB phenomena take a variety of forms. With regard to human health,
the major category of impact occurs when toxic phytoplankton are
filtered from the water as food by shellfish which then accumulate the
algal toxins to levels that can be lethal to humans or other consumers.
These poisoning syndromes have been given the names paralytic,
diarrhetic, neurotoxic, azaspiracid, and amnesic shellfish poisoning
(PSP, DSP, NSP, AZP, and ASP). All have serious effects, and some can
be fatal. Except for ASP, all are caused by biotoxins synthesized by a
class of marine algae called dinoflagellates. ASP is produced by
diatoms that until recently were all thought to be free of toxins and
generally harmless. A sixth human illness, ciguatera fish poisoning
(CFP) is caused by biotoxins produced by dinoflagellates that grow on
seaweeds and other surfaces in coral reef communities. Ciguatera toxins
are transferred through the food chain from herbivorous reef fishes to
larger carnivorous, commercially valuable finfish. Another human
illness linked to toxic algae is called Possible Estuary-Associated
Syndrome (PEAS). This vague term reflects the poor state of knowledge
of the human health effects of the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida
and related organisms that have been linked to symptoms such as
deficiencies in learning and memory, skin lesions, and acute
respiratory and eye irritation--all after exposure to estuarine waters
where Pfiesteria-like organisms have been present (Burkholder and
Glasgow, 1997). Yet another human health impact from HABs occurs when a
class of algal toxins called the brevetoxins becomes airborne in sea
spray, causing respiratory irritation and asthma-like symptoms in
beachgoers and coastal residents, typically along the shores of the
Gulf of Mexico. The documented effects are acute in nature, but studies
are underway to determine if there are also long-term consequences of
toxin inhalation.
Distribution of HAB Phenomena in the United States. With the exception
of DSP and AZP, all of the poisoning syndromes described above are
known problems within the U.S. and its territories, affecting large
expanses of coastline (Fig. 1). PSP occurs in all coastal New England
states as well as New York, extending to offshore areas in the
northeast, and along much of the west coast from Alaska to northern
California. Overall, PSP affects more U.S. coastline than any other
algal bloom problem. NSP occurs annually along Gulf of Mexico coasts,
with the most frequent outbreaks along western Florida and Texas.
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Alabama have also been
affected intermittently, causing extensive losses to the oyster
industry and killing birds and marine mammals. ASP has been a problem
for all of the U.S. Pacific coast states. The ASP toxin has been
detected in shellfish on the east coast as well, and in plankton from
Gulf of Mexico waters. Human health problems from Pfiesteria species
(PEAS) are thus far poorly documented, but have affected laboratory
workers, fishermen, and others working in or exposed to estuarine
waters in several portions of the southeastern U.S. CFP is the most
frequently reported non-bacterial illness associated with eating fish
in the U.S. and its territories, but the number of cases is probably
far higher, because reporting to the U.S. Center for Disease Control is
voluntary and there is no confirmatory laboratory test. In the Virgin
Islands, nearly 50 percent of the adults are estimated to have been
poisoned at least once, and some estimate that 20,000-40,000
individuals are poisoned by ciguatera annually in Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands alone. CFP occurs in virtually all sub-tropical to
tropical U.S. waters (i.e., Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Virgin Islands,
Puerto Rico, and many Pacific Territories). As tropical fish are
increasingly exported to distant markets, ciguatera has become a
worldwide problem.
Economic and Societal Impacts. HABs have a wide array of economic
impacts, including the costs of conducting routine monitoring programs
for shellfish and other affected resources, short-term and permanent
closure of harvestable shellfish and fish stocks, reductions in seafood
sales (including the avoidance of ``safe'' seafoods as a result of
over-reaction to health advisories), mortalities of wild and farmed
fish, shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation and coral reefs, impacts
on tourism and tourism-related businesses, and medical treatment of
exposed populations. A conservative estimate of the average annual
economic impact resulting from HABs in the U.S. is approximately $50
million (Anderson et al., 2000; Hoagland et al., 2002). Cumulatively,
the costs of HABs exceed a billion dollars over the last several
decades. These estimates do not include the application of
``multipliers'' that are often used to account for the manner in which
money transfers through a local economy. With multipliers, the estimate
of HAB impacts in the United States easily exceeds $100 million per
year. Individual bloom events can equal or exceed the annual average,
as occurred for example in 1997 when fish kills associated with blooms
of Pfiesteria occurred on Maryland's eastern shore. Consumers avoided
all seafood from the region, despite assurances that no toxins had been
detected in any seafood products. The aggregate impact from this single
event (including lost seafood sales and revenues for recreational boat
charters) was $50 million.
Recent Trends. The nature of the HAB problem has changed considerably
over the last three decades in the U.S. Virtually every coastal state
is now threatened by harmful or toxic algal species, whereas 30 years
ago, the problem was much more scattered and sporadic (Fig. 2.). The
number of toxic blooms, the economic losses from them, the types of
resources affected, and the number of toxins and toxic species have all
increased dramatically in recent years in the U.S. and around the world
(Anderson, 1989; Hallegraeff, 1993).
The first thought of many is that pollution or other human
activities are the main reason for this expansion, yet in the U.S. at
least, many of the ``new'' or expanded HAB problems have occurred in
waters where pollution is not an obvious factor. Some new bloom events
likely reflect indigenous populations that have been discovered because
of better detection methods and more observers rather than new species
introductions or dispersal events (Anderson, 1989).
Other ``spreading events'' are most easily attributed to dispersal
via natural currents, while it is also clear that man may have
contributed to the global HAB expansion by transporting toxic species
in ship ballast water (Hallegraeff and Bolch, 1992). The U.S. Coast
Guard, EPA, and the International Maritime Organization are all working
toward ballast water control and treatment regulations that will
attempt to reduce the threat of species introductions worldwide.
Another factor underlying the global expansion of HABs is the
dramatic increase in aquaculture activities. This leads to increased
monitoring of product quality and safety, revealing indigenous toxic
algae that were probably always present (Anderson, 1989). The
construction of aquaculture facilities also places fish or shellfish
resources in areas where toxic algal species occur but were previously
unknown, leading to mortality events or toxicity outbreaks that would
not have been noticed had the aquaculture facility not been placed
there.
Of considerable concern, particularly for coastal resource
managers, is the potential relationship between the apparent increase
in HABs and the accelerated eutrophication of coastal waters due to
human activities (Anderson et al., 2002). As mentioned above, some HAB
outbreaks occur in pristine waters with no influence from pollution or
other anthropogenic effects, but linkages between HABs and
eutrophication have been frequently noted within the past several
decades (e.g., Smayda, 1990). Coastal waters are receiving massive and
increasing quantities of industrial, agricultural and sewage effluents
through a variety of pathways. In many urbanized coastal regions, these
anthropogenic inputs have altered the size and composition of the
nutrient pool which may, in turn, create a more favorable nutrient
environment for certain HAB species. Just as the application of
fertilizer to lawns can enhance grass growth, marine algae can grow in
response to various types of nutrient inputs. Shallow and restricted
coastal waters that are poorly flushed appear to be most susceptible to
nutrient-related algal problems (Fig. 3). Nutrient enrichment of such
systems often leads to eutrophication and increased frequencies and
magnitudes of phytoplankton blooms, including HABs. There is no doubt
that this is true in certain areas of the world where pollution has
increased dramatically. It is perhaps real, but less evident in areas
where coastal pollution is more gradual and unobtrusive.
It is now clear that the worldwide expansion of HAB phenomena is in
part a reflection of our ability to better define the boundaries of an
existing problem. Those boundaries are also expanding, however, due to
natural species dispersal via storms or currents, as well as to
humanassisted species dispersal, and enhanced HAB population growth as
a result of pollution or other anthropogenic influences. The fact that
part of the expansion is a result of increased awareness should not
temper our concern. The HAB problem in the U.S. is serious, large, and
growing. It is a much larger problem than we thought it was a decade or
more ago.
PROGRESS AND STATUS OF OUR NATIONAL PROGRAM ON HABS
For many years, U.S. researcher and coastal managers recognized,
but struggled through piecemeal and fragmented efforts, to address the
problems of HABs. Now, however, elements of a national program on HABs
have been formulated and implemented at a scale that has clearly had a
significant impact on our understanding of these phenomena and our
ability to manage their impacts. A pivotal planning document entitled
Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan (Anderson et al.,
1993) identified numerous impediments to progress in the HAB field and
made specific recommendations to address those impediments. These
impediments have been addressed to varying degrees with funding
programs targeting specific topic areas within the broad field of HABs
and their impacts. In 1994, NSF, together with NOAA, co-sponsored a
workshop on the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algae. The
participants, a group of 40 academic and government scientists, and
program officers from numerous federal agencies attended and developed
a coordinated research strategy. The resulting plan, ECOHAB: The
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms: A National Research
Agenda (Anderson, 1995) provided the framework needed to increase our
understanding of the fundamental processes underlying the impacts and
population dynamics of HABs. This involved a recognition of the many
factors at the organismal level that determine how HAB species respond
to, and potentially alter their environment, the manner in which HAB
species affect or are affected by food-web interactions, and how the
distribution, abundance, and impact of HAB species are regulated by the
environment.
The ECOHAB Program identified major research themes that encompass
national priorities on HAB phenomena. It was subsequently established
as a competitive, peer-reviewed research program supported by an
interagency partnership involving NOAA, NSF, EPA, ONR, and NASA.
Research results have been applied through another program, Monitoring
and Event Response (MERHAB) to foster innovative monitoring programs
and rapid response by public agencies and health department to
safeguard public health, local economies, and fisheries.
Projects funded through ECOHAB include regional studies on the
biogeochemical, ecological, and physical processes that contribute to
bloom formation and maintenance, and individual targeted studies that
examine specific biological and physical processes that regulate the
occurrence of specific HABs. Large, multi-investigator regional ECOHAB
studies have been undertaken in the Gulf of Maine for paralytic
shellfish poisoning, the Gulf of Mexico for fish kills, aerosolized
toxins and neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, the shallow bays and lagoons
of eastern Long Island for destructive brown tides, the mid-Atlantic
states for Pfiesteria and related organisms, and, more recently, the
U.S. west coast for Pseudo-nitzschia and domoic acid poisoning and
Hawaii for macroalgal (seaweed) overgrowth. In addition, several dozen
smaller research projects have been initiated in many states and
regions, covering a wide array of HAB organisms and topics.
RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRESS
With the advent of ECOHAB, MERHAB, and other national HAB programs,
resources have been directed towards the goal of scientifically based
management of coastal waters and fisheries that are potentially
impacted by HABs. These programs are little more than five years old,
but they have already made a significant contribution to HAB management
capabilities in the U.S. Here I will highlight advances in our
understanding of HAB phenomena, as well as some of the program-derived
technological developments that are providing new tools to coastal
resource managers in regions impacted by HABs.
Enhanced understanding of HAB dynamics
In areas studied by the multi-investigator ECOHAB-funded regional
research projects, HAB phenomena are now far better understood than was
the case just five years ago when the program began. Knowledge is also
increasing for HABs in other areas through smaller, targeted research
projects, but at a slower pace because of the lower investment of
resources. In the Gulf of Maine, the focus of the ECOHAB-GOM program,
the probable origins of toxic Alexandrium cells responsible for PSP
outbreaks have been identified by mapping the locations of dormant
resting cysts in bottom sediments. Cysts in several accumulation zones
or ``seedbeds'' germinate in the spring and re-populate the water
column with swimming Alexandrium cells, which then multiply and cause
the annual PSP outbreaks. A large cyst accumulation zone in the Bay of
Fundy, in conjunction with a hydrographic feature called an ``eddy''
that retains bloom cells near the mouth of the Bay are now known to be
critical in the Alexandrium dynamics for the entire Gulf of Maine
region. This is because the retained bloom can serve as the
``incubator'' or source for cells that ultimately escape the Bay and
enter the coastal waters of Maine, where they proliferate as they are
transported along the coast. Those cells that do remain in the Bay form
the new cysts that fall to bottom sediments and are then available to
start new blooms in subsequent years. In this manner, the recurrent,
self-seeding and ``propagating'' nature of the regional PSP blooms has
been elucidated. ECOHAB-GOM researchers also discovered large
concentrations of toxic Alexandrium cells in deeper, offshore waters,
and demonstrated the mechanisms by which these blooms form and are
intermittently delivered to shore and the intertidal shellfish. Before
the program began, these offshore populations were unknown, and
researchers had assumed that Alexandrium populations in shallow waters
were largely responsible for the observed shellfish toxicity.
In the Gulf of Mexico, the ECOHAB-Florida program identified
similar transport and delivery mechanisms for the toxic Karenia cells
that kill fish and cause many other problems in the coastal zone. In
particular, the Karenia cells are now thought to be transported onshore
in deeper waters through wind events that cause ``upwelling.'' Special
bathymetric features of the ocean bottom can facilitate this transport
and focus cell delivery to areas known to be the sites of recurrent
blooms. Studies of nutrient uptake by Karenia suggest a fascinating
link between red tide blooms and dust storms from the Sahara. These
dust clouds travel across the Atlantic and deposit dust into Gulf of
Mexico waters, stimulating the growth of a different kind of algae
called Trichodesmium that then releases nutrients in a form that
Karenia can utilize. This is a complex, multi-step and multi-organism
interaction leading to Karenia blooms, but there are a number of
supporting datasets that support the hypothesized linkages. Related
studies are suggesting that the ultimate demise of the Florida Karenia
blooms is a lack of phosphorus. This has obvious implications to policy
decisions concerning pollution and water quality in the region.
Consistent with the identification of ``source regions'' for Gulf
of Maine and Gulf of Mexico HABs, researchers in the Pacific Northwest
have identified an area west of Puget Sound (another eddy) that appears
to accumulate toxic diatoms responsible for outbreaks of amnesic
shellfish poisoning (ASP), a debilitating illness that includes
permanent loss of short-term memory in some victims. Other programs
have been equally productive in identifying underlying driving
mechanisms for HAB blooms, such as the Brown Tide Research Initiative
that focused resources on brown tide blooms in New York and New Jersey.
These dense accumulations of tiny Aureococcus anophagefferens cells
turn the water a deep brown, blocking sunlight to submerged vegetation,
and altering the feeding behavior of shellfish. These blooms have been
linked to certain types of nutrients that seem to favor the causative
organism--in particular ``organic'' forms of nitrogen that are
preferred by the brown tide cells, and give it a competitive advantage
in certain locations.
Research has also revealed a great deal about the Pfiesteria blooms
that periodically affect the southeast states. Here again, certain
nutrient conditions seem to favor Pfiesteria blooms, especially those
associated with chicken and hog farming operations. Identification of
the Pfiesteria toxin(s) continues to be elusive, but serious health
effects have been documented among humans and laboratory animals
exposed to bloom waters, and the list of species linked to fish kills
and possible human health effects has grown considerably through the
regional research efforts.
These are but a few of the advances in understanding that have
accrued from the past five years of funding support at the national
level. Equally important are the discoveries that provide management
tools to reduce the impacts of HABs on coastal resources. Management
options for dealing with the impacts of HABs include reducing their
incidence and extent (prevention), stopping or containing blooms
(control), and minimizing impacts (mitigation). Where possible, it is
preferable to prevent HABs rather than to treat their symptoms. Since
increased pollution and nutrient loading may enhance the growth of some
HAB species, these events may be prevented by reducing pollution inputs
to coastal waters, particularly industrial, agricultural, and domestic
effluents high in plant nutrients. This is especially important in
shallow, poorly flushed coastal waters that are most susceptible to
nutrient-related algal problems (Fig. 3). As mentioned above, research
on the links between certain HABs and nutrients has highlighted the
importance of nonpoint sources of nutrients (e.g., from agricultural
activities, fossil-fuel combustion, and animal feeding operations).
Outbreaks of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay and the Neuse-Pamlico
estuary in North Carolina have been linked to wastes from chicken and
hog farming operations. This in turn has led to policy changes that
have been enacted in these watersheds to control these non-point
sources. In these instances, agency officials faced with these
controversial policy decisions were provided with scientific
justification for nutrient reductions that derived from research
through ECOHAB and other programs.
The most effective HAB management tools are monitoring programs
that involve sampling and testing of wild or cultured seafood products
directly from the natural environment, as this allows unequivocal
tracking of toxins to their site of origin and targeted regulatory
action. Numerous monitoring programs of this type have been established
in U.S. coastal waters, typically by state agencies. This monitoring
has become quite expensive, however, due to the proliferation of toxins
and potentially affected resources. States are heavily struggling with
flat or declining budgets versus the need to monitor for a growing list
of HAB toxins and potentially affected fisheries resources.
Technologies are thus urgently needed to facilitate the detection and
characterization of HAB cells and blooms.
One very useful technology that has been developed through recent
HAB research relies on species- or strain-specific ``probes'' that can
be used to label only the HAB cells of interest so they can then be
detected visually, electronically, or chemically. These probes can be
in the form of antibodies that bind to specific proteins on the cell
surface of the targeted HAB species, or they can be short segments of
synthetic DNA that bind to particular genes or gene transcripts inside
the HAB cells. Progress has been rapid and probes of several different
types are now available for many of the harmful algae, along with
techniques for their application in the rapid and accurate
identification, enumeration, and isolation of individual species. One
example of the direct application of this technology in operational HAB
monitoring is for the New York and New Jersey brown tide organism,
Aureococcus anophagefferens. The causative organism is so small and
non-descript that it is virtually impossible to identify and count
cells using traditional microscopic techniques. Antibody probes were
developed that bind only to A. anophagefferens cells, and these are now
used routinely in monitoring programs run by state and local
authorities, greatly improving counting time and accuracy.
Through ECOHAB, MERHAB, and other programs, probes are being
incorporated into a variety of different assay systems, including some
that can be mounted on buoys and left unattended while they robotically
sample the water and test for HAB cells. Clustered with other
instruments that measure the physical, chemical, and optical
characteristics of the water column, information can be collected and
used to make ``algal forecasts'' of impending toxicity. These
instruments are taking advantage of advances in ocean optics, as well
as the new molecular and analytical methodologies that allow the toxic
cells or chemicals (such as HAB toxins) to be detected with great
sensitivity and specificity. A clear need has been identified for
improved instrumentation for HAB cell and toxin detection, and
additional resources are needed in this regard. This can be
accomplished during development of an integrated Ocean Observing System
for U.S. coastal waters, and through a targeted research program on HAB
prevention, control, and mitigation. These are needed if we are to
achieve our vision of future HAB monitoring and management programs--an
integrated system that includes arrays of moored instruments as
sentinels along the U.S. coastline, detecting HABs as they develop and
radioing the information to resource managers.
Another type of cell or bloom detection is possible using remote
sensing data from satellites. This has great potential in monitoring
the development and movement of blooms over larger spatial and shorter
time scales than those accessible through shipor land-based sampling.
There is great promise in the use of both ocean color and sea surface
temperature sensors in this regard, but considerable work is needed to
bring this potential to fruition in the coastal waters where HABs
occur. As demonstrated in the ECOHAB-Gulf of Maine research program,
satellite images based on sea surface temperature are proving useful in
tracking water masses that impinge on coastal shellfish beds, carrying
toxic algae that can quickly render those shellfish dangerous to human
consumers (Fig. 4). Likewise, satellite images of ocean color are now
used in the Gulf of Mexico to detect and track toxic red tides of
Karenia brevis. Based on research results from the ECOHAB-Florida
program, bloom forecast bulletins are now being provided to affected
states in the Gulf of Mexico by the NOAA National Ocean Service Center
for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. The bulletins (see http://
coastwatch.noaa.gov/hab) are based on the integration of several data
sources: satellite ocean color imagery; wind data from coastal
meteorological stations; field observations of bloom location and
intensity provided by the states of Florida and Texas; and weather
forecasts from the National Weather Service. The combination of warning
and rapid detection is a significant aid to the Gulf states in
responding to these blooms.
A long-term goal of HAB monitoring programs is to develop the
ability to forecast or predict bloom development and movement.
Prediction of HAB outbreaks requires physical/biological coupled
numerical models which account for both the growth and behavior of the
toxic algal species, as well as the movement and dynamics of the
surrounding water. Numerical models of coastal circulation are
advancing rapidly in the U.S., and a number of these are beginning to
incorporate HAB dynamics as well. A model developed to simulate the
dynamics of the organism responsible for paralytic shellfish poisoning
(PSP) outbreaks in the Gulf of Maine is relatively far advanced in this
regard, and is now being transitioned from academic use towards an
operational mode. A similar model is under development for Gulf of
Mexico HABs. Considerable work remains before PSP or Florida red tide
forecasts are truly operational for coastal resource management
purposes, but progress has been rapid as a result of ECOHAB support,
and prospects are bright.
Other practical strategies to mitigate the impacts of HAB events
include: regulating the siting of aquaculture facilities to avoid areas
where HAB species are present, modifying water circulation for those
locations where restricted water exchange is a factor in bloom
development, and restricting species introductions (e.g., through
regulations on ballast water discharges or shellfish and finfish
transfers for aquaculture). Each of these strategies requires
fundamental research such as that being conducted in our national HAB
program. Potential approaches to directly control or suppress HABs are
under development as well--similar to methods used to control pests on
land--e.g., biological, physical, or chemical treatments that directly
target the bloom cells. One example is work conducted in my own
laboratory, again through ECOHAB support, using ordinary clay to
control HABs. When certain clays are dispersed on the water surface,
the tiny clay particles aggregate with each other and with other
particles, including HAB cells. The aggregates then settle to the ocean
bottom, carrying the unwanted HAB cells from the surface waters where
they would otherwise grow and cause harm. As with many other new
technologies for HABs, initial results are quite promising and small-
scale field trials are underway, but continued support is needed to
fully evaluate benefits, costs, and environmental impacts.
Another intriguing bloom control strategy is being evaluated for
the brown tide problem. It has been suggested that one reason the brown
tides appeared about 15-20 years ago was that hard clams and other
shellfish stocks have been depleted by overfishing in certain areas.
Removal of these resources altered the manner in which those waters
were ``grazed''--i.e., shellfish filter large quantities of water
during feeding, and that removes many microscopic organisms from the
water, including natural predators of the brown tide cells. If this
hypothesis is valid, a logical bloom control strategy would be to re-
seed shellfish in the affected areas, and to restrict harvesting. Pilot
projects are now underway to explore this control strategy in Long
Island.
In general, bloom control is an area where very little research
effort has been directed in the U.S. (Anderson, 1997), and considerable
research is needed before these means are used to control HABs in
natural waters given the high sensitivity for possible damage to
coastal ecosystem and water quality by the treatments. As discussed
below, this could be accomplished as part of a national program on HAB
prevention, control, and mitigation.
PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS
The support provided to HAB research through ECOHAB, MERHAB, Sea
Grant, and other national programs has had a tremendous impact on our
understanding of HAB phenomena, and on the development of management
tools and strategies. Funding for ECOHAB is modest, but it is
administered in a scientifically rigorous manner that maximizes
research progress. Several five-year ECOHAB regional research projects
are winding down, and new ones are beginning in other regions. This is
an equitable way to share resources nationally, but it assumes that
five years of funding is all that is needed to understand and mitigate
the regional HAB problems, and this is certainly not the case. HAB
phenomena are complex oceanographic phenomena, and a decade or more of
targeted research are needed for each of the major poisoning syndromes
or regions. ECOHAB support for regional studies must be sustained and
expanded, and this will require a commitment of resources well in
excess of those currently available. Underlying this recommendation is
the recognition that we need to form multiple skilled research teams
with the equipment and facilities required to attack the complex
scientific issues involved in HAB phenomena. Since HAB problems facing
the U.S. are diverse with respect to the causative species, the
affected resources, the toxins involved, and the oceanographic systems
and habitats in which the blooms occur, we need multiple teams of
skilled researchers and managers distributed throughout the country.
This argues against funding that ebbs and floods with the sporadic
pattern of HAB outbreaks or that focuses resources in one region while
others go begging. I cannot emphasize too strongly the need for an
equitable distribution of resources that is consistent with the scale
and extent of the national problem, and that is sustained through time.
This is the only way to keep research teams intact, forming the core of
expertise and knowledge that leads to scientific progress. To achieve
this balance, we need a scientifically based allocation of resources,
not one based on political jurisdictions. This is possible if we work
within the guidelines of the National Plan and with the interagency
effort that has been guiding its implementation.
ECOHAB cannot address all of the HAB research needs, so we also
envision a parallel series of programs which focus on other aspects of
the national problem. The following HAB programs are either ongoing, or
planned at the national level.
Oceans and Human Health. One that is currently being implemented
recognizes the important links between oceans and human health, and in
particular, the emergence of HABs as recurrent and serious threats in
this regard. This focus is entirely complementary to the ecology and
oceanography focus of ECOHAB. The first step towards a comprehensive
program in this area is a partnership between the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and NSF's Ocean Sciences Division
called Centers for Oceans and Human Health (COHH) (NIEHS and NSF,
2002). In general terms, this program is intended to provide linkages
between members of the ocean sciences and biomedical communities
through support of interdisciplinary research in areas where improved
understanding of marine processes and systems has potential to reduce
public health risks and enhance existing biomedical capabilities. HABs
are one of the three research areas receiving special emphasis in this
program, and research needs have been identified in such areas as toxin
genetics, biosynthesis and function, and human exposure and effect
assessment, among many others. In its initial phase, four OHH centers
will be created, but this is far from the number that would ultimately
be needed for an efficient national network. Sustained and increased
support for the COHH program will be of great value to the HAB National
Plan. The partnership between NIEHS and NSF clearly needs to be
expanded in order to provide support to a network of sufficient size to
address the significant problems under the COHH umbrella. This is best
accomplished through additional funds to these agencies, as well as
through the involvement of other agencies with interests in oceans and
human health, including, for example, NOAA, EPA, NASA, and CDC. In this
context, it is of note that NOAA's FY03 appropriation includes an item
for Oceans and Human Health under NOAA's Ocean Health Initiative. Since
this is in the Ocean and Coastal Partnership Programs section of the
budget, it represents a wonderful opportunity for interagency
cooperation on a very important program. I would emphasize the need to
allocate these NOAA funds through a peer-reviewed, competitive,
extramural effort coordinated with other national HAB programs,
including ECOHAB, MERHAB, and especially the NIEHS/NSF COHH initiative.
These latter two agencies have taken the lead in this topic area, and
their commitment to high-quality science and willingness to cooperate
speak strongly for the important role they could play in coordinating
such an interagency partnership. Another OHH need is for
interdisciplinary training of the scientists working on oceans and
human health issues, since an educational element is not addressed in
the NIEHS/NSF COHH program at present. We also need targeted funds for
research on OHH themes, separate from the funds supporting the Centers,
as well as for Study Sections or review panels that are appropriately
constituted to review NSF and NIEHS applications in the OHH field. At
present, the existing Study Sections and panels do not have the
requisite expertise and mandate to address funding priorities for OHH
topics.
Prevention, Control and Mitigation. Looking again to the National Plan,
it is apparent that other funding initiatives are needed to address
program elements that are not covered by the ECOHAB, MERHAB and OHH
programs. It will thus be necessary to convene focused workshops to
refine and develop key issues to the levels needed by program managers
to define specific programs--an approach analogous to that used to
produce the ECOHAB science agenda (Anderson, 1995). One such workshop
has already been held, and a science plan for a program on Prevention,
Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms published by Sea Grant
(Cammen et al., 2001). The rationale for this program is that much of
the focus of past HAB research has been on fundamental aspects of
organism physiology, ecology, and toxicology, so little effort has been
made to address more practical issues such as bloom prediction,
resource management strategies, or even direct bloom control (Anderson,
1997). A funding program focusing on these practical aspects of HAB
management is thus needed, as recommended by experts and resource
managers in a report by Boesch et al. (1997). Funds intended for
ecological, toxicological, epidemiological, or oceanographic studies
(e.g., ECOHAB, COHH) should not be diverted to a new initiative on
prevention, control and mitigation, as many mechanisms and processes
remain poorly understood. New, targeted funds are necessary.
A U.S.-European Union program on HABs. For decades, HABs have been
studied on both sides of the Atlantic, but largely in separate,
isolated research programs. For the first time, joint research in
Europe and the U.S. is being considered to address these problems of
mutual concern, through financial support from the European Commission
(E.C.) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). It is now well
recognized and accepted that our understanding of the population
dynamics of organisms, their impacts, and the potential management
implications, is dependent on working within a global arena. Although
HAB impacts may be local, solutions may be found in distant locales. In
recognition of the importance of scientific collaboration among
nations, the European Commission and the U.S. National Science
Foundation signed an agreement in October 2001 to foster such
collaboration, and HABs were highlighted as one of the scientific areas
of collaboration under this agreement. A workshop was recently convened
to bring together scientists from both sides of the Atlantic to
collectively assess the state of the science, to identify gaps in our
knowledge, and to develop an international plan for cooperative,
comparative studies. A plan has been formulated and is currently being
finalized and evaluated by agency officials and scientists in the E.U.
and the U.S. Support in this type of bilateral program should be a high
priority in the future, and multi-national efforts such as the Global
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (GEOHAB) program
should be supported as well.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The diverse nature of HAB phenomena and the hydrodynamic and
geographic variability associated with different outbreaks throughout
the U.S. pose a significant constraint to the development of a
coordinated national HAB program. Nevertheless, the combination of
planning, coordination, and a highly compelling topic with great
societal importance has initiated close cooperation between officials,
government scientists and academics in a sustained attack on the HAB
problem. The rate and extent of progress from here will depend upon how
well the different federal agencies continue to work together, and on
how effectively the skills and expertise of government and academic
scientists can be targeted on priority topics that have not been well
represented in the national HAB program. The opportunity for
cooperation is clear, since as stated in the ECOHAB report (Anderson,
1995), ``Nowhere else do the missions and goals of so many government
agencies intersect and interact as in the coastal zone where HAB
phenomena are prominent.'' The HAB community in the U.S. has matured
scientifically and politically, and is fully capable of undertaking the
new challenges inherent in an expanded national program. This will be
successful only if a coordinated interagency effort can be implemented
to focus research personnel, facilities, and financial resources to the
common goals of a comprehensive national strategy.
In summary:
LHABs are a serious and growing problem in the U.S., affecting
every coastal state. HABs impact public health, fisheries,
aquaculture, tourism, and coastal aesthetics. HAB problems will
not go away and will likely increase in severity.
LA coordinated National HAB Program has been formulated and
partially implemented, but additional program elements need to
be implemented, especially those directly addressing public
health and prevention, control, and mitigation issues.
LState agencies are doing an excellent job protecting public
health and fisheries, but those monitoring programs are facing
growing challenges. Needs for the future include new
technologies for HAB monitoring and forecasting and
incorporation of these tools into regional Ocean Observing
Systems.
LHABs are just one of many problems in the coastal zone that
are affected by nutrient inputs and over-enrichment from land.
They represent a highly visible indicator of the health of our
coastal ocean. More subtle impacts to fisheries and ecosystems
are likely occurring that are far more difficult to discern.
Recommendations:
LSustain and enhance support for the national HAB program
-- LSustain and enhance support for the ECOHAB, MERHAB
and OHH programs, and implement new programs, such as
Prevention, Control and Mitigation of HABs and the
E.U.-U.S. Program on HABs
-- LEncourage interagency partnerships, as the HAB
problem transcends the resources or mandate of any
single agency
LSupport methods and instrument development for land- and
mooring-based cell and toxin detection, and for bloom
forecasting (e.g., through a program on HAB Prevention, Control
and Mitigation and through instrument development support for
the Ocean Observing System).
LIncorporate HAB monitoring into an integrated U.S. Ocean
Observing System
LSupport long-term water quality and HAB monitoring programs in
coastal waters
LImplement agriculture and land-use policies that reduce point
and non-point source pollution loadings to coastal waters.
PENDING LEGISLATION
I would like to conclude with comments on the Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of 2003.
My first comment is that I am fully supportive of the effort to
expand the national HAB program to include a focus on freshwater HABs.
I share the concerns of Dr. Carmichael and many others that freshwater
lakes, ponds, and streams are increasingly impacted by blooms of toxic
algae, and that these blooms are associated with a significant threat
to public health. I need to stress, however, that marine HAB problems
are far from resolved, are different in many ways from freshwater
systems, and therefore that separate funding programs are needed. We
must add freshwater HAB research to the national agenda, not replace
marine programs with new initiatives focused on freshwater. I realize
this is not the intention of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research Amendments Act of 2003, but difficult choices will likely
arise if new funding resources are not appropriated for freshwater HAB
research.
Second, I support the need for scientific assessments on freshwater
HABs, on a research plan to reduce impacts from HABs, and on hypoxia.
The freshwater assessment is new and necessary for program development
and implementation, an update on the hypoxia issue is timely, and a new
report that drives the implementation of a prevention, control and
mitigation program for HABs is needed as well. My only comment here is
that the Task Force specified in the legislation is composed entirely
of federal agency representatives. There is considerable expertise and
perspective to be gained by formally including some academic partners
in the assessment effort.
I concur with the need for regional scientific assessments of
hypoxia and HABs, but am not convinced that local assessments are
needed. The HAB problem is quite diverse, with many different toxic
organisms, affected resources, and affected regions. Many of these
blooms transcend jurisdictional boundaries separating states or other
entities. If assessments are requested at a scale below the regional
level, inefficiencies and redundancies will result, and resources and
personnel to conduct those assessments may be stretched too thin.
Finally, I want to re-emphasize the need for appropriations that
are commensurate with the scale of this reauthorization. The national
HAB program is well-established and productive, but it needs additional
resources if new topics, responsibilities and tasks are added through
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer information that is based on my own research and
policy activities, as well as on the collective wisdom and creativity
of numerous colleagues in the HAB field. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other Members may have.
Literature citations:
Anderson, D.M. 1997. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388:513-
514.
Anderson, D.M. (Ed.). 1995. ECOHAB: The ecology and oceanography of
harmful algal blooms--A research agenda. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. 66 pp.
Anderson, D.M. 1989. Toxic algal blooms and red tides: a global
perspective. pp. 11-16, in: T. Okaichi, D. M. Anderson, and T.
Nemoto (eds.), Red Tides: Biology, Environmental Science and
Toxicology, Elsevier: New York, Amsterdam, London.
Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. 1993. Marine Biotoxins
and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Tech. Report, WHOI 93-02. Woods Hole, MA. 59 pp.
Anderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Karou, and A.W. White. 2000. Estimated
annual economic impacts resulting from harmful algal blooms
(HABs) in the United States. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Technical Report, WHOI 2000-11. 99 pp.
Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester,
T.E. Whitledge. 1997. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters:
Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation. Science for
Solutions. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series
No. 10, Special Joint Report with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation.
Burkholder, J.M. and H.B. Glasgow, Jr. 1997. The ichthyotoxic
dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida: Behavior, impacts and
environmental controls. Limnology and Oceanography 42:1052-
1075.
Cammen, L., D.M. Anderson, and Q. Dortch. 2001. Prevention, Control and
Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research Plan. Report for
Congress, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 24 pp.
Hallegraeff, G.M. 1993. A review of harmful algal blooms and their
apparent global increase. Phycologia 32:79-99.
Hallegraeff, G.M. and C.J. Bolch. 1992. Transport of diatom and
dinoflagellate resting spores via ship's ballast water:
implications for plankton biogeography and aquaculture. Journal
of Plankton Research 14:1067-1084.
Hoagland, P., D.M. Anderson, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. 2002. Average
annual economic impacts of harmful algal blooms in the United
States: some preliminary estimates. Estuaries 25(4b):677-695.
Smayda, T. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea:
Evidence for a global epidemic. In: Graneli, E., B. Sundstrom,
L. Edler, and D.M. Anderson (eds.), Toxic Marine Phytoplankton,
Elsevier, New York. pp. 29-40.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Mr. Ayres.
STATEMENT OF DAN L. AYRES, FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST,
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mr. Ayres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak today. I confess I
am a little out of uniform without my hip boots and my
raincoat, but I am glad to be here.
I would like to share with you how harmful algal bloom or
HAB, events affect us on the Pacific coast and how federal
involvement has made a difference. Along the coast of
Washington State, the razor clam and Dungeness crab fisheries
are the most affected as a result of HAB events that produce
the toxin domoic acid. As the shellfish feed on the toxic
algae, they are not affected, but they do concentrate the
toxins in their tissues. When human consumers eat these
shellfish, they then ingest the toxins, and that can cause
severe illness and/or death. This hearing is an especially
timely issue for us because our razor clam fisheries have been
closed since October due to high levels of domoic acid.
This closure represents an estimated $10 million loss to
the already depressed economies of our small coastal
communities. This is the third extended closure of this key
fishery because of domoic acid since 1991. In addition, our
coastal Dungeness crab fisheries, with an expected value to the
fishermen of nearly $60 million this season, have been closed
in one area with the possibility of additional closures in the
near future.
In Washington State, two agencies work closely to monitor
HAB events, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Department of Health. At Fish and Wildlife, we regularly
collect samples of shellfish and transport them to the
Department of Health laboratory. They analyze the toxin levels
in these shellfish tissues and report back to us. When those
levels require action, staff from both agencies work quickly to
notify affected stakeholders. For a razor clam closure, this
can include State employees staffing roadblocks to turn back
harvesters headed to our 60 miles of razor clam beaches.
Since 2000, Washington State has been the recipient of
grant monies from NOAA's MERHAB Program. I should note that
Congressman Baird was instrumental in helping us secure these
funds. This funding has allowed us to set up a plankton
monitoring program to augment our current testing of shellfish
tissue. Our technicians collect plankton samples from waters
surrounding and adjacent to razor clam beaches and Dungeness
crab grounds. They then analyze these collected samples and
determine the presence of plankton species and toxic cells.
This monitoring gives State and Tribal fishery managers
advanced notice of pending problems with HAB events and allows
us to provide stakeholders time to adjust their activities to
avoid serious disruptions.
Washington's MERHAB grant has also allowed us to be part of
a larger collaborative effort of State, Tribal, Federal, and
private partners under the umbrella of the Olympic Region
Harmful Algal Bloom project or ORHAB. The ORHAB project has
allowed both State and Tribal technicians to receive training
in the complicated field of plankton identification from more
renowned scientists. The ORHAB partners are working to develop
the implementation--develop and implement rapid detection
technologies and are currently field testing MIST kits. This
technology allows the promise of allowing field staff to
determine the presence of toxins in shellfish tissue without
having to wait for time consuming laboratory analysis.
ORHAB partners are also working to develop the use of
satellite imagery together with instruments on a series of
moored buoys to track the movement of plankton cells from
offshore to near shore waters. Recently, several of
Washington's ORHAB partners successfully secured a separate 5-
year multi-million dollar grant from NOAA's ECOHAB program.
This work will provide even better tools to predict HAB events.
While State agencies are not directly involved in this extended
study, we will directly benefit.
How then will these new technologies help State fishery
managers like me? The answer is that the sooner we know of an
impending problem with a HAB event, the sooner we can react.
Currently, the plankton monitoring we provide, or we collect,
provides us with about a 2-week heads-up, giving us time to
notify harvesters and coastal business owners of a pending
problem. However, the promise of larger scale technologies,
like offshore instrument buoys and satellite telemetry, is
truly exciting. If as a fishery manager I had two months
notice, I could adjust season openings to take advantage of at
least some harvest opportunities before the shellfish ingest
the toxins and fisheries must close. That would greatly lessen
the blow to the various stakeholders who depend on these
fisheries.
The State of Washington is grateful for the attention paid
by the Federal Government to assist us with these HABs,
especially the NOAA fishery scientists who have worked closely
with our fishery managers since 1991. This close collaboration
between researchers and managers has been very effective.
Luckily, though the highest level of domoic acid ever found
in razor clams was reported in Washington in 1998, to date,
there have been no deaths or serious illnesses attributed to a
HAB event along our outer coast. Yet, the economic impacts of
the fishery closures necessary to protect public health have
been significant. While we would like nothing better than to
have the threat presented by HABs disappear, we know that is
unlikely. Therefore, it remains our goal to provide safe and
productive shellfish harvest opportunities for the citizens of
our State while maximizing economic benefits created by that
harvest as we continue to learn to manage our shellfish
fisheries around the very real threat of harmful algal blooms.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ayres follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan L. Ayres
I am pleased to submit this prepared testimony to Members of the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards of the United
States House of Representatives. This testimony will provide the
Subcommittee's Members details on the problems that various Washington
State stakeholders have with the continued presence of harmful algal
bloom (HAB) events that occur along the Pacific Coast of the state.
These stakeholders include: the thousands of recreational fishers
who participate in the extremely popular razor clam fishery; the
hundreds of business owners who greatly benefit from the money spent by
clam diggers that stay overnight or pass through Washington's small
coastal communities; the many tribal fishers who harvest razor clams
for both commercial and subsistence purposes; the 200 licensed
Dungeness crab fisherman whose livelihood depends on this highly valued
commercial product; the owners of the crab processing and distributing
facilities and their hundreds of employees; and lastly, the state
agency fisheries biologists charged with managing these important
activities around the constant threat posed by HAB events.
The coastal razor clam and Dungeness crab fisheries are the most
affected as a result of HAB events that produce the toxin, domoic
acid.\1\ Razor clams that feed on the harmful algae are not themselves
affected, but concentrate the toxins in their meat tissue. When human
consumers eat this meat, they also ingest the toxins that can then
cause severe illness or death. Because Dungeness crab often feed on
razor clams, they also ingest and concentrate the toxin in their
viscera.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eating of fish, shellfish containing domoic acid causes the
human illness known as amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP). Symptoms
include vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and abdominal cramps within 24 hours
of ingestion. In more severe cases, neurological symptoms develop
within 48 hours and include headache, dizziness, confusion,
disorientation, loss of short-term memory, motor weakness, seizures,
profuse respiratory secretions, cardiac arrhythmia, coma. People
poisoned with very high doses of the toxin can die. There is no
antidote for domoic acid. Research has shown that razor clams
accumulate domoic acid in edible tissue (foot, siphon and mantle) and
are slow to depurate (purify) the toxin. Research has also proven that
cooking or freezing affected fish or shellfish tissue does not lessen
the toxicity.
\2\ The consumption of crab viscera is a common practice of some
consumers putting them at risk of severe illness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I write this, the entire razor clam fishery in Washington State
is closed, as it has been since October 2002, due to high levels of
domoic acid. This represents an estimated $10 million loss to the
already depressed economies of these small coastal communities. This is
the third year-long closure of this key fishery due to elevated domoic
acid levels since 1991. In addition, the coastal Dungeness crab
fishery--with an expected ex-vessel value (price paid to the fisherman)
of nearly $60 million dollars this season (December 10, 2002 through
September 15, 2003)--has been closed in one area, with the possibility
of additional closures in the near future.
Two Washington State agencies work closely to monitor for HAB
events. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) manages
the fisheries while the Washington Department of Health (WDOH) biotoxin
program is charged with protecting public health by monitoring marine
toxins found in the tissue of shellfish harvested in these fisheries.
WDFW collects regular samples of both razor clams and Dungeness crab
and transports them to the WDOH Public Health Laboratory in Seattle.
WDOH then analyzes the toxin levels in the shellfish tissues and
reports back to WDFW. When those levels require action, staffs from
both agencies work to quickly notify affected stakeholders as soon as
possible. For a razor clam closure, this can include WDFW enforcement
and biological staff physically staffing roadblocks to turn back
harvesters headed to the 60 miles of razor clam beaches found along the
Washington coast.
Since the summer of 2000, Washington State has been the recipient
of a grant from NOAA Centers for Coastal Ocean Science MERHAB
(Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms) Program. This
additional funding has allowed WDFW shellfish managers to set up a
plankton-monitoring program to augment clam testing on the beach. A
federally funded state-employed technician makes regular collections of
plankton samples from waters adjacent to productive razor clam beaches
and Dungeness crab grounds. This technician then analyzes the collected
samples to determine the presence of plankton species and toxic cells,
which in sufficient numbers, could lead to a HAB event. The data
received from this monitoring program has allowed managers to have
advance notice of pending problems with HAB events allowing WDFW to
provide all affected stakeholders time to adjust their activities and
make business plans to avoid the serious disruptions that have occurred
in past years.
Washington State's MERHAB grant has also allowed WDFW to be a part
of the larger collaborative effort of several State, Tribal, Federal
and private partners under the umbrella of the Olympic Region Harmful
Algal Bloom (ORHAB) Project. Other ORHAB participants\3\ are funded\4\
either directly by MERHAB or by a MERHAB grant funneled through NOAA-
Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) in Seattle. The
ORHAB project has allowed state and tribal technicians to receive high-
quality training from world-renowned scientists at both NWFSC and the
University of Washington. Besides providing local (State and Tribal)
technicians with instruction in the complicated field of plankton
identification, ORHAB has also brought the advanced expertise of other
partners to the table to look at additional ways of monitoring for HAB
events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ORHAB partners include: National Marine Fisheries Service/
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), Makah
Tribe, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Washington Department
of Health (WDOH), Washington Department of Ecology, University of
Washington's Olympic Coast Natural Resources Center and School of
Oceanography, Pacific Shellfish Institute, Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory, and the Saigene Corporation.
\4\ The first three years of ORHAB Project work has received a
total of $1.45 million in support from MERHAB, with the hope of an
additional $1.2 million in support over the next two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One major goal of the ORHAB project has been to develop and
implement rapid detection technologies to complement current monitoring
strategies to offer the best protection from human exposure to toxins.
Currently WDFW and other ORHAB partners are field-testing ``MIST''
kits. This technology offers the promise of allowing field staff to
determine the presence of toxins in shellfish tissue without having to
wait for the current time-consuming transport of samples to a distant
laboratory and the subsequent testing that occurs on their arrival.
A satellite remote sensing component of the ORHAB project has
facilitated the development of satellite/GIS tools to enhance the
monitoring of HAB events along the outer Washington coast. Satellite
imagery has already been successful in delineating and tracking water
masses associated with toxin-producing organisms off of our shoreline.
This technology holds great promise in determining whether a toxic
bloom will move into the near shore environment and increase toxin
levels in shellfish.
ORHAB partners are working closely with federal scientists from the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to develop a series of moored
buoys along the Washington coast. These buoys will carry equipment to
measure seawater temperatures and salinity levels at various depths and
some will carry current meters and instruments to measure chlorophyll
levels. These parameters will help track the movement of harmful algal
blooms from offshore to near shore waters. A variety of funding sources
have been used to develop and maintain these buoys. This work also
holds the promise of providing managers advance notice of pending HAB
events.
In August of 2002, several of our ORHAB partners successfully
secured a five-year, multi-million dollar grant from ECOHAB program.\5\
This work will dovetail with the work begun by ORHAB, providing even
better tools to predict HAB events. While neither the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife nor the Washington Department of Health
are directly involved in this ECOHAB Pacific Northwest study, we will
be direct beneficiaries of the science that is generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Several federal agencies currently collaborate to sponsor the
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB), a national
research program studying HABs in the coastal waters of the U.S. This
five-year ECOHAB Northwest project totals $8.7 million and is
specifically sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Science Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How will these new technologies help state fishery managers on a
day-to-day basis as we decide whether to open or close fisheries based
on the presence or absence of marine toxins? The answer is that the
sooner we know of an impending problem with a HAB event, the sooner we
can react. The plankton monitoring data we currently collect provides
us about a two week ``heads-up'' so we can notify clam harvesters and
coastal business owners that the season may not open on time, or there
may be an early closure. The information also gives us an idea of the
geographical scope of a pending problem, helping us understand whether
it is a coast-wide event or more localized. All of this enhances our
current ability to manage these fisheries. However, the promise of
larger scale technologies like offshore moorings equipped to provide
real-time monitoring of key HAB predictors and satellite telemetry that
could monitor oceanographic conditions that may lead to HAB events is
truly exciting. If, as a fishery manager, I had two-months notice of a
pending problem, it could then be possible to re-adjust season openings
to take advantage of at least some harvest opportunities before the
toxin is ingested by the shellfish and the fisheries must close. These
harvest opportunities would lessen the blow to the various stakeholders
who depend on these fisheries.
The State of Washington is grateful for the attention paid by the
federal government to assist us with these harmful algal blooms. NOAA-
Fisheries scientists from the NWFSC have worked closely with WDFW
fisheries managers since the closure faced in 1991 when domoic acid was
first found in razor clam tissue. With no funding assistance from the
State, these experts came alongside us to help us understand the scope
and nature of the HAB event we were experiencing. These same federal
scientists have played a key role in forming the ORHAB collaboration
and assisting us in securing the MERHAB funding. The MERHAB staff has
been outstanding in monitoring our activities including highlighting
our current work on their web site.
Even though the highest level of domoic acid ever found in razor
clams was reported in Washington State in 1998, to date there have been
no deaths or serious illnesses attributed to a HAB event along our
outer coast.\6\ However, the economic impacts of the closures necessary
to protect human health have been significant. There is nothing we
would like better than to have the threat presented by harmful algal
blooms disappear; however, that is unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, it
remains the goal of WDFW to continue to provide safe and productive
shellfish harvest opportunities for the citizens of our state and to
maximize the economic benefits of those harvest opportunities, as we
continue to learn to manage our shellfish fisheries around the very
real threat of harmful algal blooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ HAB events also impact the inland marine waters of Washington's
Puget Sound, where in 1942 three deaths were attributed to paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP). Since then, PSP closures have been an annual
event in Puget Sound, with sporadic PSP illnesses being reported. In
1978, a PSP bloom in the Whidbey Island area of Puget Sound set a world
record for PSP toxin in shellfish, registering over 30,000 micrograms
in mussels.
Discussion
Input on the Proposed Bill
Chairman Ehlers. I thank you and the other witnesses for
the testimony; it is very helpful. At this point, we will open
the questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes.
First, a general question to every member of the panel
about the draft bill which you have seen. And I would like you
to very briefly answer the following questions. Do you believe
the funding levels in the draft bill will be adequate? And
secondly, should other agency activities be specified, and if
so, which ones? And finally, does the bill overlook anything
important? We will go down the line again; we will start with
Dr. Scavia.
Dr. Scavia. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at the bill right
now and haven't had a chance to really dig into the funding
question, but we will get back to you on that. I do want to
comment, though, on other agencies. One of the things that has
been very successful in our ECOHAB program was the partnership
with EPA, NSF, ONR, and NASA. That partnership program has been
very, very helpful. And I think at least recognizing other
agencies involved in this is probably a good thing to do.
As far as anything that is overlooked, not really, but
there is one thing that I think might be worth putting a little
more attention to, and that is the hypoxia side of this Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act. A lot of the
focus has been on harmful algal blooms and we have made a lot
of progress here. Most of the focus on hypoxia has been in the
Gulf of Mexico, and I think we really do need to look at a
national perspective and a national program in that area.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Groat.
Dr. Groat. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the Department of the
Interior is reviewing the bill, but from a science monitoring
research modeling point of view, I think it would be helpful to
the community if the bill had some citation, if not by agency
responsibility, necessarily, but to the importance of those
activities in supporting, understanding, and management of the
problem. I don't see language of that type in there now, and
would just suggest as an emphasis on the science role that that
might be placed there.
Other than that, I support what Don Scavia said. I think
the hypoxia issue is one that requires the broadest amount of
understanding of both the inputs and the effects, and in that
sense, in the monitoring emphasis I made before, points out the
value of the monitoring system. And if we are going to
understand hypoxia and raise the concern about it to the
appropriate level, then we will have to improve the monitoring
capabilities to do that.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Carmichael.
Dr. Carmichael. Mr. Chairman, since the CyanoHABs or the
freshwater HABs are a new addition to the bill, I guess my
emphasis would be to concur with Dr. Anderson, that it would be
most appropriate to have additional funding simply because
these are additional problems that are now being integrated and
asked of the general HAB question. So that would be my primary
comment there.
Secondly, with regards to agencies, since the current HAB
project is a NOAA project, that we need to be sure that other
agencies that can integrate and move into this, who can cover
the freshwater situation appropriately, like the U.S. EPA
through the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other agencies, too.
In terms of projects that might be overlooked, no, I
concur. I think the general topics are appropriate and I hope
that they will be supported. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Anderson.
Dr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate again what Dr.
Carmichael just said, that in terms of the funding, I do
believe that we need to make sure that the freshwater program
is supported, but also, that it is not supported at the expense
of the marine HAB program. These are very different phenomena.
There certainly are similarities in approaches and technologies
that are in common, but the phenomena are different and need to
be recognized that way.
I would also say that we have in the ECOHAB program a very
productive program that I think needs to be not only sustained,
but even enhanced. There are many proposals for excellent
science every year that are turned down and there is just much
more to be done than is presently fundable with the program. So
I would even vote for some enhancement. On the other agency
activities, I would mention again that there is a program on
Oceans and Human Health that I think should be considered. We
have planned in the United States a coherent program that
started with ecology and oceanography of these blooms. That is
the ECOHAB program. Then we moved to what is in your
legislation as prevention, control, and mitigation. Another
element, though, that is missing is, the human health and
epidemiology side of HABs. NIEHS and NSF have started down that
path and I think some good work could be done to forage
partnerships to extend that activity.
So that is the only part of what has been overlooked, we
should work towards an epidemiology or a human health emphasis
to complement the other ecology, and oceanography, and
prevention, control, and mitigation programs. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. Yes. Mr. Ayres.
Mr. Ayres. Thank you. I don't really feel qualified to
answer your first two questions, but I can make a comment on
what I think might be overlooked, perhaps, with all due respect
to the very qualified scientists here with me at the panel. As
a local manager, what I would like to see is the bill be
strengthened, its language be strengthened so that the research
that is done is providing tools and understanding to the local
level, and some of that was discussed earlier, so that managers
like myself around the Nation have those tools to better
understand, predict, and maybe even some day down the road,
control these harmful algal blooms. As we are faced with
closing fisheries and having to affect the economies of these
local communities to such a great extent, it would be nice to
be able to come back and say, we have tools, we are doing a
better job of this, this is helping us.
And the ORHAB project that we have been working with in
Washington State, with that close collaboration between federal
scientists, university scientists, and managers like myself,
and managers from Tribal governments, working together not only
to perform the research, but in the design phase of that
research, so that research is directed in a manner that tools
are provided in the end that help actually the people on the
ground and the people in those communities that are so close or
so desperately affected.
We have been looking in Washington State at some local
funding, State funding, trying to continue the ORHAB work that
we have started. There has been a bill before our State
legislature to add a surcharge to a shellfish license that
would help to continue the plankton monitoring work we have
done. Like most states, Washington is in dire budget straits
right now, and so I am not sure of the status of that bill. I
think it did not pass out of the State Senate, and whether it
will be revived at a later date, I don't know, but it has
brought the attention of our State Government fully to it, and
they are looking at ways to continue that work as well.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. And let me just say, if any of
you wish to amplify your remarks on that or have other
suggestions on the bill, feel free to correspond with us at any
time.
I will now recognize Congressman Baird for his five
minutes.
Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms
Mr. Baird. I thank the Chairman. My good friend, Mr.
Gutknecht, and I were at the budget hearing until 2 a.m. last
night, and so one of the things I am quite cognizant of is that
the federal budget is going to be about $482 billion in deficit
next year. And hence, if we are going to fund programs, we need
to know that the public is getting their return on investment.
Do we have any estimates of the cost--and maybe you did it
earlier and I just missed it--but the cost of harmful algal
blooms to the economy nationwide?
Dr. Anderson. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I would choose
to answer that one, in part, because I am one of the authors of
the study that the Chairman mentioned earlier about the
economic impacts being on the order of $50 million a year. I
want to emphasize that that is an extraordinarily conservative
estimate. Some of you may have worked with economists, for me,
it was an eye opener about how conservative they can be. In
this particular case, the estimate doesn't include the
multipliers, for example, that are often used to track the way
money moves through an economy. And in any case, the estimate
there, though, is if we stretch it out over time, as much as $1
billion over a decade or so.
What is more important, though, is that individual events
can dwarf that annual average. There was a Pfiesteria outbreak
right here in this region that had an order of $40 to $50
million economic impact from that single outbreak alone. We
have heard some numbers this morning from the west coast about
the Dungeness crab and the razor clams that are, again, going
to clearly push that annual estimate up for these years. So
yes, we have numbers, but are being very, very prudent, I
think, and cautious about how high we drive them, but they are
significant.
Research and Possible Treatments for HABs
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Ayres' slides, I think,
illustrated that point I made about the number of folks coming
to the coast. Mr. Ayres also made, I think, a very legitimate
point about the need to coordinate our research with
management. As a scientist myself, I understand the need for
basic research, but as a Representative, people want to say,
what comes out of it? What are we learning to do? In other
words, if you are the manager, it is not enough to just say we
are going to close the beach until nature takes its course.
What are we learning about how we can control these blooms? And
I will open that up to whomever.
Dr. Scavia. I will respond to part of that. When we began
the overall program, we started with ECOHAB, which focused on
understanding the ecology and oceanography and developing some
probes and tools that people might use. A couple of years into
that, we added the MERHAB program, which is our way of tying
that long-range research into applications, into the State
managers on the ground. We are applying those tools, whether it
is a satellite image that helps track where the bloom is going
to landfall, or if it is new tools to actually try to monitor
and get early warnings to the State managers. We have moved in
that direction.
Most of the MERHAB projects that are funded are actually
funding of joint activities between scientists and managers,
like Mr. Ayres was talking about, so that we actually bring
those people together. So we have been moving in that
direction. I think Dr. Anderson's summary gives some more
examples of the kinds of tools that we have been able to
develop to have those early warnings. But most of our effort to
date has been focused on the ability to detect the blooms
earlier and perhaps help mitigate the impacts. We have not been
able to invest very much in the control part of this. Dr.
Anderson and others have been developing programs and
developing--suggesting projects that we might actually be able
to move into that direction to try to control them. Ultimately,
we want to----
Mr. Baird. Is there anything promising at all, herbicides,
pesticides, natural----
Dr. Scavia. I will defer that to Dr. Anderson.
Dr. Anderson. Yes. Thank you. The topic of control of
blooms is a very, very controversial one as you can imagine,
because people are very concerned about whether the treatment
might be worse than what is being treated. I will say, though,
that I am very hopeful that with the bill the Chairman was
mentioning before that you were marking up on invasive species,
that I hope that we actually can force, in a sense, a change in
the mindset of not only scientists, but managers and others,
that we actually do need to take a proactive attack on many of
these organisms in our coastal waters, not just HAB species,
but these invasive species. That truly will require a mindset
change. We do not have any national program or national mandate
for this type of control of aquatic organisms. The Agricultural
Research Service has that responsibility on land, but we do not
have that in the ocean.
So to go back to your question about promising
technologies, in my own laboratory, I have put my laboratory
where my mouth is with respect to bloom control. We are looking
into strategies using something as simple as clay, which we
disperse on the surface of the water, and it flocculates and
removes red tide cells and carries them to the bottom. It is a
promising approach that is used in other countries. We are much
more cautious here about when we can use it, where we can use
it, but that is just one example of several that I think could
be developed if the prevention, control, and mitigation part of
your legislation goes forward.
Mr. Baird. I concur with that. Could I ask Mr. Ayres if he
wants to make a brief comment on that, Mr. Chairman, just very
briefly? Mr. Ayres, anything to add to that?
Potential Environmental Affects of Treatment Technologies
Mr. Ayres. Well, I am certainly not the expert that Dr.
Anderson is, and I guess I share that concern that he expressed
at the beginning of his statement just now, that we do have
concerns about the whole ecology, and anything that is going to
affect plankton also affects--potentially, could affect the
good plankton. And clearly, the razor clams and the Dungeness
crabs that we are so concerned about depend on those plankton
for their very livelihood. So you know, at the State of
Washington, and I am sure most any other local government, take
really close looks at any kind of control efforts to make sure
that there be no--as he said earlier, no worse effect of the
cure than the cause.
Mr. Baird. I thank the panel and I thank the Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Gutknecht from Minnesota.
Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up
with Dr. Anderson and any of the other panel members who want
to respond to this. You mentioned about using the clay as a
potential treatment. How much do we know about what the effects
may be of the algae sinking down to the bottom, perhaps making
matters worse at the bottom?
And then secondly, what are the other technologies that you
are looking at that may be successful? Because I do agree we
have to become much more aggressive. Just containing these
things, in my opinion, is not really an answer.
Dr. Anderson. Yes. Thank you. First of all, you have
highlighted exactly why it takes time to go through these types
of strategies for controlling blooms. The public is out there
saying give us a method. First, we have to answer exactly your
question, what are the impacts of the sedimented cells and
toxins? Thus far, at least, with the clays that we are using,
we are finding that the effects are no different than they
might be from the actual red tide or bloom itself. We have a
difficult situation of what are we really trying to compare our
impacts to? Do you compare it to a pristine situation where
nothing is happening or do you compare it to what the real
impacts of the red tide are? And that is one of the ongoing
arguments that we are struggling with. But we are aware of
those kinds of issues, and thus far at least, the way I put it,
with the work we are doing, we have not found a ``show
stopper'' yet that has made us say this research should be
abandoned. We think it still has promise.
With respect to other technologies that might be out there,
that is one of the reasons we need a program like prevention,
control, and mitigation--to get people to begin to be creative
in thinking about these issues. If we think about biological
control, there are possibilities with viruses, that are very
specific for certain organisms that are naturally occurring in
the environment. There are bacteria that are also destructive,
that can destroy some of these HAB species. There are
parasites. These are all naturally occurring organisms; you
don't need to engineer them, but you might need to manipulate
them the same way one does bioremediation for oil pollution,
for example.
And I could go on and on. There are strategies that one
could use that are simply pragmatic. Sometimes on the west
coast, they move fish cages out of the way of a bloom. If you
could provide advance warning with certain moored devices and
instruments that detect what is in the water and then tell the
fishermen that they need to do something to move their cages,
you don't actually have to destroy the bloom, but you can
mitigate the impacts from it.
So I believe that if we put the intellectual capacity that
exists in this country to work on this problem, we can come up
with mitigation and control strategies.
Mr. Gutknecht. Are you working with any of the big chemical
companies, because I am aware, for example, in my home State of
Minnesota, the wild rice people have developed a fairly
interesting herbicide that seems to work pretty well and does
not affect the environment. Are you familiar with that?
Dr. Anderson. I am familiar with those kinds of approaches.
In truth, there is no effort that I know of in the U.S. right
now that is looking at chemicals to control HAB species. Again,
the bias is that it seems so difficult to find the magic bullet
that will only hit the species you are interested in. It is one
thing if you have a field of broccoli where you have one type
of plant that you can protect and everything else is invasive,
you don't want it there. In the ocean, there are hundreds of
species of algae that are there that are co-occurring with the
one you want and many other organisms as well, and it is very
hard to think of a chemical that can go and attack that one
species. But it is possible to think of organisms--as I
mentioned, viruses, bacteria, and so forth, which have that
specificity. So I think there is promise there.
Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you. Yes, Dr. Groat.
Dr. Groat. The parallel with invasive species here is so
striking, how once they are upon us, how harmful algal blooms
invasive species, how challenging the control process is, how
complicated the systems are, and how difficult it is to invoke
the P-word, the prevention-word. Whereas, in hypoxia, the
fundamental driving forces behind it are better understood, and
we understand that we can control by preventing, and we can put
the scientific understandings of those processes into a
management strategy. It would be fortunate and happy if we
could do the same thing for invasives or for harmful algal
blooms, but I would hope that in answer to Mr. Baird's question
about supporting management, that where we do understand
mechanisms, particularly, where it leads to prevention, that
management strategies would rely heavily on the science that
supports that and do as much in the prevention area as we can
because the control is so difficult and so expensive.
Dr. Carmichael. Yes. Let me offer an interesting
perspective with regard to the freshwater HABs. Freshwater
HABs, of course, as you have seen in these photos, can be quite
extensive. And in terms of treating those, water utilities can
handle those, but at great expense, tens of thousands of
dollars a day to handle one of those kinds of blooms. So in
terms of treatment, there may be processes already in place;
they just are quite expensive. So that with the freshwater
HABs, the emphasis, I believe, is on watershed management
prevention, and control, and monitoring at this point,
nutrients. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. I am sorry. One quick comment. For the
specificity that you are looking for, you may eventually need
some genetic engineering here to find precisely which gene is
causing the problem and seeing if you can't address that
particular issue. Barring that, I think you have an impossible
problem of trying to kill off the harmful algae without killing
all the rest. And so it is going to take a very specific type
of approach.
The Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
One more question. What has been your experience with the
effectiveness of the interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal
Blooms and Hypoxia? Do you think it should be continued, and if
so, do you think there should be any changes to its charter? I
will leave that open to anyone who wishes to comment. Dr.
Scavia.
Dr. Scavia. I guess I will start with that. I think the
Task Force that was created in this Act was effective in
putting together and delivering the three scientific
assessments that have been delivered and are coming. I think
the Task Force has done a good job in helping to coordinate the
science programs, and I think that should be continued.
I do want to point out that early on, those of us on the
science side of the government recognized that the Task Force
created under NSTC was probably not the appropriate group to
actually develop an action plan for the management strategies
dealing with the Gulf of Mexico. And the President's science
advisor and head of EPA at that point in time agreed that EPA
would lead and create another Task Force to deliver that action
plan, and that is what happened.
So one of the things that might be worth considering is
establishing or creating a Task Force that could deal with
receiving the scientific input and developing implementation
and action plans in response to that.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. That is helpful. Would a cross
cutting budget approach be helpful, too, in this issue?
Dr. Scavia. I think so. There is a lot--there is a fair
amount being done that you heard about here. There is more that
is being done that we haven't heard about, and I think that
sort of look would be useful.
Chairman Ehlers. Dr. Anderson, you had a question, too?
Dr. Anderson. Just a quick comment. In my written
testimony, I mentioned something that concurs with what Dr.
Scavia just said, which is that on the science side, my
recommendation about the Task Force would be to include more
academic input. I found that with the last one that all the
agency representatives worked hard, but there is a great deal
of perspective and experience in the academic community that I
think could have been tapped a little better.
Chairman Ehlers. Dr. Groat.
Dr. Groat. Going along with what Dr. Scavia said, I think
one of the strengths of the Task Force as it was implemented
between EPA and the NSTC was the fact that it did bring both
the people who use the information to manage, as well as the
scientists, together. The State interest and the tribes were
involved in that, and I think if we are sincerely interested in
facilitating that transfer of knowledge to management, then
that kind of a task force is an important one that is more
broadly representative. I would concur with scientists, but
also with local managers and state managers being involved to a
large degree.
Chairman Ehlers. Any other comments? If not, you have heard
the bells, and you are probably aware that the Members of
Congress are very Pavlovian. The bells ring and we run to the
Floor and vote. And so we have two votes occurring on the Floor
very shortly.
I believe you covered the topic very well. We may send you
additional follow-up questions and ask you to respond in
writing for the record, and we hope we will be able to
introduce this bill soon and get it passed into law and do an
even better job of attacking the problem that you have devoted
a good share of your lives to. So thank you very, very much.
Your testimony has been extremely helpful and I really
appreciate you coming here for this Hearing. Thank you again.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing
Questions
Biography for Donald Scavia
As Chief Scientist of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Dr. Scavia is
responsible for the quality, integrity, and responsiveness of NOS's
science programs, and for ensuring that NOS's operations and resource
management are based on solid science and technology. He also
represents NOS and NOAA on several interagency and intergovernmental
committees addressing a range of environmental issues. He is Associate
Editor for journals of the Ecological Society of America and the
Estuarine Research Federation, and has served on the Boards of
Directors for the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography and
the International Association for Great Lakes Research.
Before becoming the NOS Chief Scientist, Dr. Scavia had been
Director of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and Director
of NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program. In those positions, he managed a wide
range of coastal and Great Lakes programs in NOS research laboratories
and monitoring and assessment offices, as well as its primary extra
mural research program.
Between 1975 and 1990, Dr. Scavia was with NOAA's Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where his
research focused on ecosystem modeling and field and laboratory studies
on nutrient cycling, bacteria and phytoplankton production, food-web
dynamics, and biological-physical coupling at all scales.
Dr. Scavia holds Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate degrees in
Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the
University of Michigan. He has published over 60 articles in the
primary literature and led development of dozens of interagency
scientific assessments and program development plans.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Questions submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. LHow do resource managers gain access to satellite data used to
predict and model harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? Is there a charge
to obtain this information and for the data interpretation? Should we
expand our use of satellites for this purpose, and if so, how?
A1. Satellite imagery, combined with other data sets, is an inexpensive
and effective tool for use in monitoring and predicting Harmful Algal
Blooms (HABs). Gulf of Mexico HAB bulletins produced by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) are provided to managers in the Gulf of
Mexico region. These bulletins include satellite images, wind data,
available cell counts (provided by the states), and analysis. NOAA
strives to produce data in common forms that address the needs and
limited resources of the managers. State managers from all five Gulf
States, in turn, regularly provide data and information that are used
to improve the accuracy and timeliness of the bulletins. NOAA has made
these Gulf of Mexico HAB bulletins operational, and believes these
bulletins should be expanded nationwide.
The Gulf of Mexico effort is an effective model. At the onset, NOAA
worked with state managers to assure that our products would make their
jobs easier. To be successful in tracking and forecasting bloom
conditions, it became clear that in addition to satellite imagery,
meteorological data, National Weather Service 3-5 day marine forecasts,
state monitoring data, and numerical models were needed. HAB analysis
and forecasting can become as sophisticated as forecasting hurricanes.
In conjunction with Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal (ECOHAB)
and Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB)
research efforts, NOAA has begun to assess how HAB bulletins can be
expanded to the West Coast. We will continue to work with local and
regional managers to blend relevant data, models, and analyses to
address each HAB problem. More research is necessary before satellite
data can be successfully incorporated into predictions and models of
hypoxia.
There is no cost to users for the NOAA HAB bulletins. Managers in
the Gulf of Mexico region gain access to current bulletins through e-
mail and to previous bulletins and related data sets at several NOAA
websites. However, NOAA annually spends $200K purchasing imagery needed
for HAB-related issues and spends about $50K to produce the bulletins
for the Gulf of Mexico. The satellite imagery from the SeaWiFS ocean
color satellite is purchased through a license from OrbImage, Inc.
NOAA's license allows use of the data for all civilian Federal, State,
and local government needs and operations. NOAA spends $200K for east
and west coast imagery; over 50 percent of it will be used for HABs.
NOAA's CoastWatch program spends about $15K to produce the HAB
satellite products. The National Ocean Service (NOS) spends about $35K
to create the bulletin: $28K for analysis, which includes communication
with State managers, and $7K for production of the bulletin. These
bulletins are routinely improved by adding information developed
through MERHAB and ECOHAB. These efforts to better address the needs of
State managers, to improve the quality and accuracy of the bulletins,
and to address new HAB events costs about $150K per year.
Questions submitted by Democratic Members
Q1. LThe National Assessment of Coastal HABs includes the finding that
natural events such as storms and ocean currents have contributed to
the increase in HAB events. What changes in storm frequency and
patterns and what changes in ocean currents have occurred that have
promoted the increase in HAB events?
A1. Research into the relationships among HAB events and changes in
regional circulation and weather patterns is still in progress, and the
needed long-term data sets to address these questions comprehensively
are not yet available. It is also important to note that in many cases,
blooms initiated or transported onshore by currents or weather events
may then be enhanced by the presence of increased nutrient levels
(usually anthropogenic) in coastal waters. We do have some examples of
suspected interactions between HAB formation and major weather events.
For example, a single hurricane in 1972 ``inoculated'' the waters
of southern New England with cysts of the paralytic shellfish poisoning
(PSP) organism, Alexandrium. Since that event, the patterns of the now
resident populations of Alexandrium are linked to large- and small-
scale circulation patterns in the Gulf of Maine. Coupled numerical-
biological models, simulating the circulation in the Gulf of Maine and
the growth characteristics of Alexandrium have been used to simulate
some of these interactions. For the next three years, ECOHAB will
support the refinement and testing of these models to more accurately
simulate and forecast bloom patterns. Those models, along with
monitoring data, are necessary to understanding how the patterns in
Gulf of Maine circulation and weather will influence the frequency and
location of PSP events.
On the west coast, blooms of the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia can cause
amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), resulting in economic impacts to
coastal economies and public health concerns. The circulation of the
West Coast is dominated by upwelling and storm tracks. The frequency
and intensity of El Nino Southern Oscillations (i.e., ENSO events)
influence the patterns of upwelling and the frequency and intensity of
storms. Upwelling events bring nutrient-rich, deeper water near the
coast and move surface waters offshore; storms tend to move surface
water onshore. In the Pacific Northwest, inter-decadal patterns of ENSO
events are related (via atmospheric forcing) to shifts in the dominance
of either the Alaska Current or California Current. The dominance of
these currents influences near-shore circulation, storm patterns, and
ultimately the biological processes in coastal waters.
A 5-year ECOHAB study initiated in 2002 is examining the dynamics
of ASP bloom formation, including how variability in upwelling and
storm frequency influence the formation and location of the persistent
Juan de Fuca eddy. This eddy, located off northwest Washington State,
is an upwelling feature favorable for phytoplankton growth, including
species that can produce ASP toxin. This study is testing the
hypothesis that ASP events in northern Washington are largely caused by
Pseudo-nitzschia growing in the Juan de Fuca eddy and subsequently
transported to near-shore waters by storms. Investigators are looking
at the variability in this eddy (size, location, intensity) and at the
timing and frequency of storms with respect to presence of the ASP
organism and toxin.
Since 1991, observations of the extent and frequency of Pfiesteria-
related fish kills has been documented in the Neuse Estuary, North
Carolina. In 1996, this region was hit with two hurricanes. For that
year, and two years following, Pfiesteria fish kills dropped
significantly. Three hurricanes passed through this area in 1999 along
with a 500-year flood; this region has not experienced a Pfiesteria-
related fish kill since. These preliminary observations suggest that
variability in hurricane activity and rainfall in the mid-Atlantic may
be a major influence on the occurrence of Pfiesteria blooms and that
understanding that variability may allow for some forecasting
capability.
Several lines of research and field observation have shown that
under conditions of regional warming (and global warming), the growth
rates of cyanobacteria increase. Toxin-producing species of
cyanobacteria have caused problems in some lakes (including the Great
Lakes) and estuaries. This and other factors related to weather trends
(e.g., rainfall and nutrient loads) will be important to understanding
and forecasting cyanobacteria bloom events in lakes, estuaries, and
reservoirs.
Q2. LYour written testimony states that it may be possible to control
HAB blooms with bio-control agents or other biocidal methods. We have
had mixed results controlling pests in terrestrial systems and there
have often been unforeseen ecological and human health problems
associated with this type of management approach. What has been the
reaction of fisheries communities and resource managers to dealing with
HAB events in this way?
A2. Resource managers and fisheries communities are concerned about the
unintended consequences of manipulating the environment. They are
concerned that anything released or sprayed into the marine environment
might negatively impact their target species or region's habitat, or
open them to liability issues.
Biological control agents for HABs are still very much in the
research stage. Several general approaches are being explored, but all
require careful examination of not only efficacy, but environmental
impact, including impacts to valued resources. At this time, there is
no generally applied treatment for controlling HABs, other than
reducing anthropogenic nutrient loading. Other methods being explored
include the use of specific bacterial or viral agents, removal of HABs
by grazing organisms such as zooplankton, shellfish or other benthic
organisms (e.g., sessile ascidians), application of herbicides, and
physical removal methods such as flocculation of harmful algae by
application of clay minerals to surface waters or vacuuming techniques
to remove macroalgae. The viral method is promising as it can be made
species-specific, however there are both biological and policy risks to
this approach. The flocculation method, using clay, has been applied in
Asia with some success but more research into types of clays, amounts,
and effects on benthic organisms must be done. There is a current
ECOHAB project investigating clays as removal agents. These approaches
may have promise in practical application, but clearly a great deal of
research, testing, and public education must precede any application to
a field situation. The ECOHAB program continues to solicit proposals
related to the prevention, control, and mitigation of HABs.
Q3. LYour written testimony states in the summary of findings for the
Assessment of Coastal Harmful Algal Blooms that ``management options
are limited at this time.'' What is limiting the management options?
How can this research program be focused to expand our management
options?
A3. HAB Management options fall into three categories: prevention,
control, and mitigation. These options are currently limited by a
series of scientific uncertainties and policy hurdles. Each is outlined
below.
Prevention. Prevention requires a solid understanding of the causes of
HABs and, while a cause-and-effect relationship exists between
increased pollution and nutrient loading and an incidence of some HAB
species, it may not apply to all. In the case of HABs that are fueled
by elevated nutrient loads, reducing those inputs may reduce the
frequency and/or severity of bloom events. However, additional research
is needed to determine the extent of nutrient reduction needed to
accomplish functional results. In most other cases, prevention is
largely unattainable at this time for a variety of reasons, including
the fact that bloom initiation of many species occurs offshore and that
we still do not understand many of the factors leading to bloom
initiation. The ECOHAB research has increased the understanding of the
dynamics of, and our ability to model, some HABs; however research is
still needed on many of the existing and newly emerging problem
species. Increased emphasis is needed on developing these models and
improved monitoring techniques to support HAB forecasting.
Control. Impediments for control options (e.g., methods to manipulate
or terminate blooms once they occur) are outlined in response to the
above question. Attempts to use chemicals to directly control HAB cells
encounter many logistical problems and environmental objections.
Chemicals are likely to be nonspecific, indiscriminately targeting all
co-occurring algae and other organisms along with the target algal
species. Chemical application and other options, such as flocculent or
biological controls need additional research to determine their wider
impacts to the coastal ecosystem.
Mitigation. Mitigation includes efforts to avoid or reduce the impacts
of a bloom by modifying human behavior (e.g., recreation, harvest)
during a bloom event. These options are currently the most effective
ways to reduce human health risks, ecosystem damage, fisheries losses,
and declines in tourism due to algal blooms. Mitigation options include
forecasting bloom development and movement, monitoring HAB cells and
toxins, and responding rapidly to HAB events. ECOHAB research on better
models and detection techniques for organisms and toxins have been
incorporated into some State and local monitoring programs to improve
mitigation. It is also important to provide resources, in addition to
those research results, to State or local agencies to support their
incorporation into the monitoring programs. The MERHAB program provides
that support. MERHAB also supports event-response capabilities within
affected regions to ensure trained and equipped personnel are able to
mobilize quickly, conduct appropriate sampling and testing, and
communicate effectively during HAB events. With faster, less expensive,
and more reliable detection methods for HAB cells and toxins, and
stronger mechanisms in place to respond to outbreaks, programs will be
better able to mitigate the impact of HABs on vital resources and will
protect public health.
Biography for Charles G. Groat
On November 3, 1998, Dr. Charles G. Groat became the 13th Director
of the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Dr. Charles G. (Chip) Groat is a distinguished professional in the
earth science community with over 25 years of direct involvement in
geological studies, energy and minerals resource assessment, ground-
water occurrence and protection, geomorphic processes and landform
evolution in desert areas, and coastal studies.
Dr. Groat received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology (1962) from
the University of Rochester, a Master of Science in Geology (1967) from
the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. in Geology (1970) from the
University of Texas at Austin.
Among his many professional affiliations, Groat is a member of the
Geological Society of America, American Association for the Advancement
of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists. He has also served on over a dozen earth science
boards and committees and has authored and contributed to numerous
publications and articles on major issues involving earth resources and
the environment.
Dr. Charles G. Groat was born in Westfield, New York, March 25,
1940. He currently resides in Reston, Virginia, with his wife, Barbara.
He has two grown children.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
Q1. LHow do resource managers gain access to satellite data used to
predict and model harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? Is there a charge
to obtain this information and for the data interpretation? Should we
expand our use of satellites for this purpose, and if so, how?
A1. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does not currently have a project
involving the systematic use of satellite data to model and predict
harmful algal blooms (HAB) and hypoxia in coastal waters. The potential
use of satellite imagery as a modeling and research tool is high, and
routine use of satellite imagery offers the potential for daily spatial
mapping as a monitoring tool for the coastal zone.
There are at least three avenues for resource managers to get
satellite data to monitor HAB. First, Government owned systems such as
the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) weather
satellites, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
experimental Terra, Aqua and EO-1 and the USGS Landsat 5 and Landsat 7
(although the Landsats may not be in currently accessible). Second,
``restricted distribution'' systems such as NASA's SeaWiFS (Sea-viewing
Wide Field-of-view Sensor) that provide data to approved researchers.
Third, commercial systems include Digital Globe, Space Imaging's Ikonos
and international sources. Each of these broad categories has its own
pricing policy. In general, Government systems feature open
distribution and have low fees for the data, usually based on the cost
that the agency incurs in producing a product. The ``restricted
distribution'' category is typified by ``free'' data that only a small
number of pre-approved users can obtain. Commercial operators will
usually sell data to any customer, although the ability to share the
data with a wide community typically comes at an additional price.
Government and ``restricted distribution'' for the most part distribute
calibrated, validated, and specially registered imagery to the broad
user community leaving the interpretive work to the end user based on
their specific application or research objective (e.g., HAB modeling or
monitoring). Some agencies produce higher-level applied products as a
part of their core mission. For example, NOAA provides an online
bulletin on HAB conditions, which includes interpreted remote sensing
imagery, in the Gulf of Mexico to the management community. Numerous
commercial firms offer satellite data processing and analysis services
including the companies that operate commercial satellites. Both NOAA
and NASA may be able to provide additional information.
Research has shown that satellites can provide essential
information on these phenomena. The cost of data and satellites has
been a barrier to expanded use of the current systems. And, limited use
of the data slows the progress of the science required to more
effectively monitor, model and predict harmful algal blooms. Every
harmful algal bloom that occurs does not lead to hypoxia. Hypoxia can
occur following a non-harmful algal bloom. The critical research
questions that the federal government agencies are addressing include
what organism is blooming, is it harmful, what caused the bloom, and
how can we distinguish harmful versus non-harmful algal blooms via
satellites while monitoring and modeling the conditions that lead to
their development and demise. Applications include support for
decisions regarding at what level of blooming organism should shellfish
beds be closed, and what are the implications of harmful algal species
for commercial fisheries.
EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program is facilitating a Hazardous Algal
Bloom Observing System (HABSOS) collaborative case study and
feasibility pilot with EPA, NASA, NOAA, NAVY, and the Gulf State Health
Agencies. The study is nearing completion and early successes indicate
that it is technically feasible and practical to expect to more
effectively predict, detect, and forecast the movement of specific
hazardous algal blooms such as Red Tides through an integration of the
physical and biological science monitoring programs of the Federal and
State agencies. Additionally, the Gulf of Mexico Program is working to
link the current Red Tide Monitoring and Reporting systems of the six
Mexican States bordering the Gulf of Mexico into HABSOS to extend its
capability. Implementation of an operational Gulf HABSOS framework will
require strategic investments in State and Federal near and offshore
monitoring infrastructure.
In an upcoming annual issue of the `Pulse of the Estuary,' a report
of the regional monitoring program for San Francisco Bay, USGS
scientists utilize a satellite image from the NASA's SeaWiFS Project
showing a coastal algal bloom occurring at the same time a red tide
occurred inside San Francisco Bay. The authors suggest that events
offshore can propagate into the Bay. The article demonstrates the value
of routine use of satellite imagery for biological process studies and
water-quality monitoring.
Q2. LThe addendum to your testimony provided a list of short-term
actions the Gulf of Mexico Task Force had developed to meet its long-
term goal of reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Each action has a
proposed time frame for completion. Please provide a list of the status
of these actions and, if applicable, an explanation of why they are not
on schedule.
A2. Significant progress has been made on the short-term actions
identified in the Action Plan of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrients Task Force. Although the original timeline has not
been rigidly maintained, the Task Force has been actively pursuing
these short-term actions and its long-term goals. Since publication of
the Action Plan in January 2001, the Task Force did not meet in 2001,
but met twice in 2002, in February and December. It has formed separate
workgroups to address specific issues, including: management
implementation and coordination, three areas of management action
(nonpoint source, point source and restoration), finance and budget,
and monitoring, modeling and research. These workgroups currently are
active. The Task Force's Coordinating Committee, which staffs the Task
Force and fulfills the role of the management implementation and
coordination workgroup is scheduling monthly conference calls to ensure
continued progress, and the next Task Force meeting is being planned.
Short-term actions and time-frames proposed in the Action Plan (The
Action Plan, p. 13) are listed with a description of the status of each
as follows:
#1 LBy December 2000, the Task Force with input from the States
and Tribes within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, will
develop and submit a budget request for new and additional
funds for voluntary technical and financial assistance,
education, environmental enhancement, research, and monitoring
programs to support the actions outlined in the Action Plan;
Status: A budget plan has not been placed into official interagency
review through the National Science and Technology Council mechanism
which would be necessary prior to any action being taken. The
President's budget funds actions within the Action Plan, as described
below.
#2 LBy Summer 2001, States and Tribes in the Basin, in
consultation with the Task Force, will establish sub-basin
committees to coordinate implementation of the Action Plan by
major sub-basins, including coordination among smaller
watersheds, Tribes and States in each of those sub-basins;
Status: Sub-Basin Committees have formed in the Lower Mississippi River
Sub-Basin, the Upper Mississippi River Sub-Basin, and Arkansas Red-
White Sub-Basin. Groups have stepped forward as leaders in the Ohio
River Sub-Basin and the Missouri River Sub-Basin. The Lower Mississippi
Sub-Basin Committee had its first meeting in late 2002, and the other
Committees are planning meetings in 2003. Discussions are ongoing among
States, Tribes and other watershed-based organizations regarding
establishment of other sub-basin committees. Developing an additional
level of coordination among States and Tribes associated with large
sub-basins within the Mississippi River Basin that cross numerous State
and other jurisdictional boundaries presents new challenges. States can
be included in several sub-basins, requiring their participation in
multiple new committees. Other organizational entities exist, and there
is a need to complement and take advantage of all existing
organizational structures and not duplicate efforts.
#3 LBy Fall 2001, the Task Force will develop an integrated
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Research Strategy to coordinate and
promote necessary research and modeling efforts to reduce
uncertainties regarding the sources, effects (including
economic effects in the Gulf as well as the basin), and
geochemical processes for hypoxia in the Gulf;
Status: The Task Force's Monitoring, Modeling and Research Workgroup
co-chaired by the USGS and NOAA organized a workshop held in St. Louis
on October 16-18, 2002. The workshop brought together over 100
technical and management specialists from State and Federal
governments, universities and other organizations, to gather
information for development of a Monitoring, Modeling, and Research
Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy is to describe a framework for
science activities that will support management decision-making related
to achieving the three major goals of the Action Plan--improving water-
quality conditions in the Mississippi River Basin, reducing hypoxia in
the northern Gulf of Mexico, and protecting the social and economic
fabric of the communities that depend on the goods and services
provided by the Basin and the Gulf. A draft Monitoring, Modeling and
Research Strategy was submitted by the Workgroup to the Task Force
Coordinating Committee on April 15, 2003.
#4 LBy Spring 2002, Coastal States, Tribes and relevant Federal
Agencies will greatly expand the long-term monitoring program
for the hypoxic zone, including greater temporal and spatial
data collection, measurements of macro-nutrient and micro-
nutrient concentrations and hypoxia as well as measures of the
biochemical processes that regulate the inputs, fate, and
distribution of nutrients and organic material;
Status: NOAA has expanded its support for monitoring of the extent of
the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico, as well as increased
activities to disseminate that information in a timely manner. In
addition to continuing the monitoring efforts supported since 1985,
NOAA support to the academic community includes higher-frequency
observations and biogeochemical and ecological process studies to
relate the results of the monitoring program to impacts on the coastal
ecosystem. The framework described in the Monitoring, Modeling and
Research Strategy will guide future improvements in long-term
monitoring of the hypoxic zone.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is planning
surveys to obtain seasonal data to address the priority monitoring
needs identified in the Hypoxia Action Plan and the National Hypoxia
Assessment report. These surveys will be completed during April 2003,
July-August 2003, and October-November 2003. The objectives of these
monitoring surveys are to fill important data gaps, particularly in
relation to boundary conditions between near shore and offshore zones,
as well as first-order ecosystem process uncertainties, such as
phytoplankton/carbon relationships with dissolved oxygen, light
interaction and attenuation, water column and sediment oxygen demand,
and sediment/nutrient fluxes.
#5 LBy Spring 2002, States, Tribes and Federal Agencies within
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin will expand the
existing monitoring efforts within the Basin to provide both a
coarse resolution assessment of the nutrient contribution of
various sub-basins and a high resolution modeling technique in
these smaller watersheds to identify additional management
actions to help mitigate nitrogen losses to the Gulf, and
nutrient loadings to local waters, based on the interim
guidance established by the National Water Quality Monitoring
Council;
Status: The USGS has focused water-quality monitoring in the
Mississippi River Basin conducted by the USGS National Stream Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) on addressing monitoring needs identified
in the Monitoring, Modeling and Research Strategy. NASQAN collects
water-quality data at a sufficient frequency and with suitable
protocols for calculation of nutrient loads, information essential for
understanding how nutrient sources affect receiving waters including
the Gulf of Mexico. NASQAN monitoring will focus on the level 1 and
level 2 (of 4 levels) monitoring requirements identified in the
Monitoring, Modeling and Research Strategy. (Level 1 monitoring
estimates loads near the downstream ends of the entire Mississippi and
Atchafalaya River Basin, and level 2 monitoring estimates loads at the
downstream end of the major Sub-Basins.) The USGS has tested
alternative monitoring approaches to provide improved resolution of
temporal changes in nutrient loads entering the Gulf of Mexico-
information essential to models that relate hypoxic zone size to
nutrient inputs.
The USGS also has undertaken pilot surveys with selected States to
evaluate potential synergies from augmenting existing State water-
quality monitoring stations to help satisfy the requirements for
monitoring loads at representative watersheds (monitoring-level 3
watersheds, within Sub-Basins). USGS also has developed a system for
serving nutrient load data on the Internet, and is modifying our normal
water-year based schedule for releasing results so that information on
nutrient loads entering the Gulf during the spring can be released
before the summer hypoxic zone measurements, providing that information
in a more timely manner to a range of researchers who are developing
models to predict the size of the hypoxic zone.
The USGS has developed and improved the SPARROW model for the
Mississippi River Basin, which provides a means of extrapolating
information from smaller watersheds to all watersheds of similar size
throughout the Basin. This modeling approach used data from the 1980s
and early 1990s to provide information on sources and distribution of
loads throughout the Mississippi Basin and locations where loads from
smaller upstream watersheds are most likely to reach the Gulf of
Mexico. Currently, there are not sufficient nutrient-load monitoring
stations on smaller watersheds to update this modeling approach to
allow development of a high resolution modeling technique to guide
management actions at that scale.
#6 LBy Fall 2002, States, Tribes and Federal Agencies within
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin, using available
data and tools, local partnerships, and coordination through
sub-basin committees, described in #2 above, will develop
strategies for nutrient reduction. These strategies will
include setting reduction targets for nitrogen losses to
surface waters, establishing a baseline of existing efforts for
nutrient management, identifying opportunities to restore flood
plain wetlands (including restoration of river inflows) along
and adjacent to the Mississippi River, detailing needs for
additional assistance to meet their goals, and promoting
additional funding;
Status: Development of sub-basin nutrient reduction strategies is a
principle goal of the Sub-Basin Committees. Several actions are being
taken to make available the information that is most useful to sub-
basin committees for developing nutrient reduction strategies.
The USEPA is working with the Sub-Basin Committees to develop
Geographical Information System (GIS) tools to combine available
information in map form to facilitate targeting management actions in
areas where they will do the most good. The type of information that
will be depicted includes nutrient loads for smaller watersheds (within
each sub-basin), the location of possible wetland restoration sites,
Clean Water Act Section 319 existing and proposed projects, and
projects receiving Farm Bill funding. The GIS tool will be available
for use by the Sub-Basins Committees for future planning.
The USGS is monitoring at the mouth of each Sub-Basin, calculating
annual loads and serving that data on the Internet in a timely manner.
This information will provide a baseline of current nutrient loads and
a means for each Sub-Basin Committee to evaluate temporal changes and
the performance of their nutrient reduction strategies.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) jointly are leading the Task Force's
Restoration Management Actions Workgroup; this workgroup will support
development of nutrient reduction strategies through identification of
opportunities to restore floodplains and wetlands.
#7 LBy December 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
in cooperation with States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies,
will, if authorized by the Congress and funded in the fall of
2001, complete a reconnaissance level study of potential
nutrient reduction actions that could be achieved by modifying
COE projects or project operations. Prior to completion of the
reconnaissance study, the COE will incorporate nitrogen
reduction considerations, not requiring major modification of
projects or project operations or significant new costs, into
all project implementation actions;
Status: The reconnaissance level study identified in this action item
was neither authorized nor funded by Congress and did not take place.
However, the COE Mississippi Valley Division is taking steps to
incorporate nitrogen reduction considerations into a number of project
planning and implementation actions. Of major importance in this regard
is the ongoing work, being done in partnership with the State of
Louisiana, to develop a large-scale project for restoration of
Louisiana Coastal wetlands. Nutrient reduction will be a factor
considered in planning for this work.
#8 LBy January 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-
basin committees, Clean Water Act permitting authorities within
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin will identify point
source dischargers with significant discharges of nutrients and
undertake steps to reduce those loadings, consistent with
action #6 above;
Status: The Task Force's Point Source Management Actions Workgroup,
lead by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and USEPA,
has begun to identify significant point sources discharging into the
Mississippi River and to develop alternatives for reducing their
nutrient loads. This Workgroup currently is focusing on two major
opportunities. The first opportunity is to promote expanded use of a
technique developed and tested by the chemical company, BASF, in
Louisiana, that resulted in significant reductions in their nitrogen
discharge through an inexpensive modification of their wastewater
treatment system. Other possible facilities with different waste
streams are being identified for pilot testing. The second opportunity
is to promote a system of nutrient trading within the Basin that
facilitates achieving the most economical nutrient load reductions.
#9 LBy Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-
basin committees, States and Tribes within the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya River Basin with support from Federal agencies,
will increase assistance to landowners for voluntary actions to
restore, enhance, or create wetlands and vegetative or forested
buffers along rivers and streams within priority watersheds
consistent with action #6 above.
Status: The USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is providing
cost share assistance to private landowners in a variety of projects
designed to restore, create or enhance wetland and riparian habitats to
benefit a variety of wildlife species and providing ancillary benefits
in reducing nutrient content of runoff from these areas. In the USFWS
Southeast and Northeast regions, at least 10,000 acres of wetlands and
over 60 miles of riparian habitat have been restored, created or
enhanced in the Mississippi River Basin since completion of the Action
Plan in 2001.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is providing assistance
to benefit water-quality improvements in the Gulf of Mexico. Some
recent efforts occurring in Texas and Louisiana include the following:
LLittle Cedar Bayou (Texas) Restoration--Restoration
of areas suffering from marshland subsidence and erosion has
occurred through trapping of sediment and vegetating barren
areas using adaptive wetland species.
LCarbon Sequestration--Work in cooperation with
several industry groups involves the planning for the
sequestration of large quantities of carbon using Tall Grass
Prairie species.
LGalveston Bay Estuary Program--Several projects to
help mitigate nutrient enrichment and eutrophication of the
Estuary through wetlands construction for nonpoint source
pollution control.
LHabitat Restoration--Exploring ways to restore large
areas of coastal emergent marsh wetlands for the Gulf Coast.
Additionally, through the 2002 Farm Bill, conservation programs
have received increased funding which will be employed to accelerate
the voluntary participation of private landowners in implementing
resource conservation activities. Many of these activities include
wetland restoration, enhancement and creation, and address nutrient
runoff from agricultural nonpoint source areas by developing buffers
along rivers and streams. Efforts also continue to identify the most
effective and feasible conservation practices to reduce nitrogen
loadings from nonpoint sources and to help landowners implement
solutions derived from locally led efforts throughout the Mississippi
River Basin.
#10 LBy Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-
basin committees, States and Tribes within the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya River Basin, with support from Federal agencies,
will increase assistance to agricultural producers, other
landowners, and businesses for the voluntary implementation of
best management practices (BMPs), which are effective in
addressing loss of nitrogen to water bodies, consistent with
action #6 above; and
Status: The USDA supports many efforts throughout the Mississippi River
Basin to assist private landowners to address water-quality concerns.
In cooperation with its State and local conservation partners, USDA has
for many decades used a multi-program, locally led approach in helping
landowners to address agricultural and silvicultural resource concerns
in the Basin. Each day, USDA's local and State staffs are working with
farmers, ranchers, and other landowners in planning and implementing
conservation practices and systems that reduce the flow of nutrients
and sediment to streams and rivers in the Basin. Recent data indicates
over 70 percent of the total funds of the most widely used USDA
conservation programs authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill were expended in
the 31 Mississippi River Basin States for conservation activities.
In addition to the technical and financial assistance through
conservation programs, USDA is involved in other conservation
initiatives that address nutrient enrichment concerns in the Gulf of
Mexico. Two examples include:
LThe Lower Mississippi Valley Initiative (LMVI) was
developed by the conservation districts of Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee in consultation
with State and local partners. The LMVI's objectives are to
increase public awareness of the importance of agriculture,
produce strategies to reduce agricultural runoff, and assess
the effects of implemented conservation practices.
LThe Mississippi River Stewardship Initiative (MRSI)
is a public-private partnership to reduce sediment and nutrient
loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Its objectives are
to identify major sources of sediments and nutrients, increase
and target financial and technical assistance, develop new
solutions, create a basin-wide monitoring network, and provide
outreach and coordination.
The USDA can provide additional information on these activities.
The 2002 Farm Bill conservation provisions are the foundation for
USDA's continuing efforts on nutrient management in the Mississippi
River Basin.
#11 LBy December 2005 and every five years thereafter, the Task
Force will assess the nutrient load reductions achieved and the
response of the hypoxic zone, water quality throughout the
Basin, and economic and social effects. Based on this
assessment, the Task Force will determine appropriate actions
to continue to implement this strategy or, if necessary, revise
the strategy.
Status: This action is pending. The USGS plans to conduct a re-
evaluation of the sources and loads of nutrients within the watersheds
of the Mississippi River Basin. This analysis, however, will not have
the same resolution as the baseline (1980-1996) analysis conducted
during 1998-99 as part of the science assessment mandated by the
Harmful Algal Bloom Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA) of 1998.
Fewer monitoring stations currently are being operated within the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Basin than during the baseline period.
Biography for Donald M. Anderson
Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1970
M.S., Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976
Ph.D., Aquatic Sciences, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1977
Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1991-present
Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1983-1991;
tenure 1987
Assistant Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1979-1983
Postdoctoral Investigator, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1978-
1979
Instructor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil
Engineering, 1978
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
Phycological Society of America
International Society for the Study of Harmful Algae
SELECTED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES, WORKSHOPS, AND
DISTINCTIONS:
Recipient, Stanley W. Watson Chair for Excellence in Oceanography, 1993
Recipient, NOAA Environmental Hero Award (1999)
Director, NATO Advanced Study Institute on the Physiological Ecology of
Harmful Algal Blooms, Bermuda, 1996
Chairman, SCOR Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms (1992-1996)
Director, U.S. National Office on Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal
Blooms (1993-present)
Scientific Advisor, U.S. Delegation to the IOC/FAO Intergovernmental
Panel on Harmful Algal Blooms (1992-present)
Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR), a
Joint Institute of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1999-
present)
Member, Scientific Steering Committee, GEOHAB (The Global Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms) (1998-present)
Member, NRC Committee on the Causes and Management of Coastal
Eutrophication
International Organizing Committee, Toxic Marine Phytoplankton
Conferences (1989-present)
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United
States Senate 105th Congress, Second Session, May 20, 1998
Testimony for U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2002; prepared White
Paper on Harmful Algal Blooms for inclusion in the Commission's
report ``Oceans and Human Health''
Chairman, Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Harmful Algal Blooms,
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (1989)
U.S. Representative, Working Group on Phytoplankton and Management of
their Impacts, International Council for Exploration of the
Seas (ICES) (1989-present)
U.S. Representative, WESTPAC Task Team on Red Tides, Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (1985-present)
Mission Leader, United Nations Development Program, ``Regional
Collaborative Scientific Programme on Marine Resource
Development and Management in Southeast Asia,'' (April 1990)
Instructor, Red tide training program, Brazil. April 1979. World Health
Organization
Member, PICES Working Group #15, Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms (1999-
present)
Editorial Board: Protist (1999-present)
Advisory Committee Member, Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, School of Science (2002-2003)
Academic Consultant for the Key Laboratory of Marine Ecology and
Environmental Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences (2002-2007).
PATENTS:
Genetic markers and methods of identifying Alexandrium (Dinophyceae)
species. U.S. Patent No. 5,582,983. 12/10/96
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS:
1993 LAnderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. Marine Biotoxins
and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
Tech. Rept. WHOI-93-02. Report of the ICES/IOC Study Group on the
Dynamics of Harmful Algal Blooms.
1994 LAnderson, D.M. Red tides. Scientific American 271:52-58.
1995 LAnderson, D.M. Toxic red tides and harmful algal blooms: A
practical challenge in coastal oceanography. U.S. National Report to
the ILJGG American Geophysical Union, pp. 1189-1200.
1995 LAnderson, D.M. ECOHAB--The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful
Algal Blooms: A National Research Agenda. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Woods Hole, MA. 66 pp.
1995 LAnderson, D.M. Identification of harmful algal species using
molecular probes: an emerging perspective. In: Harmful Marine Algal
Blooms, Lassus, P., G. Arzul, E. Erard, P. Gentien, C. Marcaillou
(eds.), Technique et Documentation--Lavoisier, Intercept Ltd., pp. 3-
13.
1997 LAnderson, D.M. Bloom dynamics of toxic Alexandrium species in the
northeastern United States. Limnol. & Oceanogr. 42:1009-1022.
1997 LAnderson, D.M. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388:513-
514.
1997 LBoesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Homer, S.E. Shumway, P.A.
Tester, T.E. Whitledge. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options
for Prevention, Control and Mitigation. Science for Solutions. NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 10, Special Joint
Report with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
1998 LLuttenberg, D., D. Anderson, K. Sellner, and D. Turgeon. National
Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters. National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 38
pp.
1998 LTurgeon, D.D., K.G. Sellner, D. Scavia, and D.M. Anderson. Status
of U.S. Harmful Algal Blooms: Progress Towards a National Program.
NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 22+ pages.
1998 LAnderson, D.M. Physiology and bloom dynamics of toxic Alexandrium
species, with emphasis on life cycle transitions. pp. 29-48, in: The
Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms, Anderson, D.M., A.D.
Cembella and G.M. Hallegraeff [Eds.], Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
1999 LAnderson, D.M., Kulis, D.M., Keafer, B.A., and Berdalet, E.
Detection of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium fundyense
(Dinophyceae) with oligonucleotide and antibody probes: variability in
labeling intensity with physiological condition. J. Phycol. 35: 870-
883.
2000 LTurner, J.T., G.J. Doucette, C.L. Powell, D.M. Kulis, B.A.
Keafer, and D.M. Anderson. Accumulation of red tide toxins in larger
size fractions of zooplankton assemblages from Massachusetts Bay, USA.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 203:95-107.
2000 LAnderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. Estimated
Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United
States. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Tech. Rept., WHOI 2000-11. (99
pp)
2001 LAnderson, D.M. Phytoplankton blooms. pp. 2179-2192, in: Steele,
J. S. Thorpe, and K. Turekia (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences.
Academic Press, Ltd., London, U.K.
2001 LCammen, L., D.M. Anderson, and Q. Dortch. Prevention, Control and
Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research Plan. Report for
Congress, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 24 pp.
2002 LAnderson, D.M., P.M. Glibert, and J.M. Burkholder. Harmful algal
blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and
consequences. Estuaries 25(4b): 562-584.
2002 LHoagland, P., D.M. Anderson, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. Average
annual economic impacts of harmful algal blooms in the United States:
some preliminary estimates. Estuaries 25(4b):677-695.
In addition to the above list, Dr. Anderson is author or co-author
of over 150 other publications and 7 books.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Department of
Biology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Following my testimony before your subcommittee at the hearing on
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Strengthening the Science, I was
asked to respond to several questions. Those questions and my written
responses are given below. First, however, I would like to offer one
comment on the legislation you are seeking to reauthorize. One concern
I have about the present state of NOAA funding for HABs is that NOAA
has repeatedly taken funds intended for competitive, peer reviewed
extra mural programs and used those funds to address internal needs. In
fact, this is happening again in the FY03 appropriations related to
harmful algal blooms, in that NOS is seeking to use over 1/3 of this
year's ECOHAB new start funds to support a NOAA laboratory in Beaufort,
NC. This not only diminishes NOAA's ability to access the expertise and
experience of the academic community in addressing specific issues like
HABs and hypoxia, but makes the partnership between NOAA and the
external community unstable and unpredictable. Efforts to expand the
marine HAB program to include freshwater cyanobacterial blooms in the
Great Lakes will obviously be much more difficult with the small pool
of funds remaining this year. If there are ways in this bill or
otherwise to prevent NOAA from reallocating targeted funds to meet
internal needs, it would serve the broader community well.
Now, the questions I was asked, and my responses follow. I want to
acknowledge assistance from Drs. Patricia Glibert, Wayne Carmichael,
and John Heisler in these responses.
Q1. LFor many years NSF has funded work on nutrient cycling,
biogeochemistry and eutrophication in freshwater systems. Through past
NSF research and the work at the Northern Temperate Lakes Long-Term
Ecological Research site, don't we actually know quite a bit about the
relationship between nutrient inputs and algal blooms in freshwater
systems?
A1. Yes, we have learned a great deal about the linkages between
nutrients and algal blooms, but that does not mean we fully understand
the role nutrients play in toxic blooms, or the bloom dynamics that
might occur in massive systems such as the Great Lakes. The only LTER
in the Great Lakes region is in Wisconsin, studying Lakes Mendota,
Monona, etc. near Madison, and some small lakes in northern Wisconsin.
The largest lake under study is Lake Mendota, (39.2 km22
surface area) compared to Lake Erie at 25,820 and Lake Michigan at
57,850 km22. One could therefore argue that the physical and
biological processes involved in the Great Lakes are not adequately
sampled by LTER work in Lake Mendota, as it is 1000 times smaller.
In addition, NSF Ecology/Ecosystems has, traditionally, funded
freshwater limnological work that has included HABs. However few if any
projects have been exclusively on HABs. As is true for marine HABs,
most would argue that it is very difficult (and potentially misleading)
to draw generalizations about toxic blooms from observations made on
other species. In the marine realm, we know that coastal eutrophication
leads to increased algal biomass, but that increased biomass does not
necessarily lead to a harmful algal bloom in the sense of a toxin
producing species. For example, the brown tides that devastated the
scallop fisheries on Long Island seemed to start when the nutrient
inputs to LI bays were reduced. Similarly, in freshwater systems, we
know there is a link between nutrient input and cyanobacterial blooms,
but nutrient increases do not necessarily result in toxic blooms. Lake
Erie was heavily ``polluted'' with nutrients in the 1960s and 1970s,
but those years were not associated with massive toxic blooms. Lake
Onondaga in Syracuse receives discharge form the metro sewage treatment
plant and is hypereutrophic, yet microcystin (a cyanobacterial toxin)
levels are very low. In contrast, nearby Oneida Lake has lower nutrient
inputs but much higher microcystin levels. Obviously, cyanobacterial
HABs are not simply due to high nutrient levels and other factors are
needed to explain a species' dominance, including its toxicity.
This is perhaps a situation where we should be careful not to
blindly accept past findings or broad generalizations as dogma. The
limitation of primary production in lakes by phosphorus availability is
a central tenet of modern day Great Lakes limnology, yet, exceptions to
this are common. Likewise, we should not be too quick to assume that
all algae and cyanobacteria respond similarly to nutrient enrichments.
Q2. LHow should an expansion of the HAB and hypoxia research programs
at NOAA to freshwater systems be designed to complement on-going
research on freshwater systems through NSF's program?
A2. The ideal approach here would be to establish a program analogous
to the ECOHAB program, or to proceed directly through the ECOHAB
program, which is already a partnership between NOAA and NSF, though it
presently focuses predominantly (but not exclusively) on marine HABs. A
framework for cooperation thus exists between NSF and NOAA on HAB
issues, and only needs to be expanded to facilitate the transfer of
information on the types of projects that are or have been funded by
each agency, and to coordinate future funding decisions. In this
instance, a different NSF division might need to become involved, as
the present partnership is with the NSF Biological Oceanography
program, given the marine HAB focus of ECOHAB.
Another consideration is the type of research grant that is
awarded. I believe it would be a mistake to tie freshwater HAB funding
to LTER programs, and foresee more productivity from individual
investigator or team grants lasting 3-5 years each, and focusing
exclusively on HABs and the factors that regulate their occurrence.
There is much to be gained from multi-investigator, multi-disciplinary
projects similar to the regional research programs funded by ECOHAB.
Freshwater HABs, like marine HABs, require research teams with
expertise in organismal biology, physiology, ecology, grazing dynamics,
hydrodynamics, water chemistry, and numerical modeling, to name just a
few. Other than for LTERs, which address far broader issues than just
HABs, this multidisciplinary approach has not been attempted on the
smaller scale freshwater issues studied to date.
Q3. LWhat more do we need to know about the causes of HABs in
freshwater to begin addressing the problem in these systems?
A3. A number of issues still must be resolved before effective
management of freshwater systems impacted by HABs can be achieved. Here
I highlight a few key questions for further study, but a more
comprehensive list of priority topics should be generated through
community workshops such as the one convened to develop the science
plan for ECOHAB.
1. LWhy do specific strains of phytoplankton bloom in some
situations and not in others? What determines the community
composition or structure among different cyanobacterial
species?
LThere is no doubt an influence of nutrients on
cyanobacterial bloom dynamics, but there is no clear
answer in the literature as to whether it is total P,
Total N:P, or molar N:P that are the major factors.
Moreover, new work is suggesting that bioavailability
and chemical speciation, not simply concentration, are
the important parameters regulating bloom dynamics.
More work is clearly needed in this area.
2. LHow do factors such as UV, viruses, trace elements, etc.
influence the onset of HAB events and their subsequent demise?
LWhile some literature exists in these areas, there is
by no means sufficient understanding of these issues to
allow effective bloom management. In order to
understand the dynamics of a bloom event, information
on the mortality of the cells (grazing, viral lysis, UV
effects, etc.) is as critical as information on the
factors regulating bloom formation.
3. LWhich cyanobacterial species produce toxins, what are the
chemical and pharmacological properties of those toxins, and
how do they affect freshwater ecosystems and threaten human
health?
LCyanobacteria are prolific producers of secondary
metabolites of various types, and many of these are
toxic. Novel toxins undoubtedly remain undiscovered,
and others still need to be explored to understand the
environmental conditions that enhance or reduce
toxicity, as well as their ecosystem and human health
effects.
4. LWhat parameters must be quantified to allow predictive
modeling of cyanobacterial blooms?
LThere is at present minimal predictive capability for
cyanobacterial blooms using numerical models, yet there
is great management value in such models should they be
developed. Efforts are therefore needed to identify the
key biological, chemical, and physical variables that
must be parameterized and modeled for effective
predictive models of freshwater HABs.
As I mentioned above, this is just a short list out of many
research questions that remain unanswered for freshwater HABs.
Q4. LHow do the levels of funding available for freshwater systems
through NSF's program compare to the levels of funding currently
available for the HAB and hypoxia programs?
A4. This is not a question I can answer, as it would require knowledge
of the many different types of NSF-sponsored freshwater research
programs across several divisions (Ecology, Systematics, etc.). All I
would point out is that virtually none of ongoing freshwater research
at NSF focuses directly on HAB species.
Q5. LThe final recommendation in your written testimony is that we:
``implement agriculture and land-use policies that reduce point and non
point source pollution loadings to coastal waters.'' To what extent has
the research done through the HAB program defined the reductions in
loading that will be necessary to reduce the frequency and severity of
these blooms in coastal regions?
A5. This question asks for a degree of quantitation that cannot yet be
provided and which may never be possible in general terms. Many coastal
managers would like to have HAB scientists define specific nutrient
loading thresholds above which HABs may become significant concerns,
and below which their watershed could function without harmful
outbreaks. It is clear, however, that different HAB species respond
differently to the same nutrient inputs, that the hydrodynamics of
watersheds will alter dilution rates and thus the net effect of
pollution loads, and that the complex interactions among co-occurring
organisms in the water and sediments can have profound effects on the
bloom dynamics of a particular species. Nutrient loadings that reduce
the probability of a bloom of one HAB species in one location might
still be high enough to support a different species in a different
location. The best that we can provide at this stage are statements
that highlight important concepts or linkages that are emerging, and
that guide scientists and managers to the proper types of site-specific
studies, which can then begin to provide specific nutrient loading
recommendations. I'm sorry I cannot be more specific here, but such is
the state of our knowledge after essentially only five years of study
into the problem.
During those five years, new insights have been gained into the
relationships between nutrient loadings and a number of important U.S.
HAB species. Much--if not all--of this research has been conducted
under the auspices of the ECOHAB program. The following highlights some
of the understanding that has been achieved:
1. LFor some HAB species, new data has been obtained supporting
the relationship between nutrient loading and their outbreaks.
For example, in Chesapeake Bay, Pfiesteria spp. can be
correlated with specific sites receiving heavy agricultural
runoff. We cannot as yet specify the actual loadings that lead
to outbreaks, but the nutrient differences between sites where
outbreaks are frequent versus those where blooms seldom occur
will provide guidance in this regard. These types of
comparative analyses are ongoing in several locations, though
they are constrained by the lack of Pfiesteria blooms in recent
years. This underscores an important point--that even when
nutrients exceed a particular species' threshold, a bloom may
not occur.
2. LNew data have been obtained demonstrating that the form of
nutrient supplied may impact the extent to which HAB species
may proliferate. Thus in addition to total nutrient load, the
chemical composition of that nutrient must be understood.
Accordingly, reductions in nutrient loading must take into
account how the reductions may impact the relative composition
of the nutrient pool, as the potential exists to worsen the
problem by altering nutrient ratios. One also needs to assess
the ability of the local HAB species to utilize different
nutrient sources. This requires site-specific studies.
3. LSignificant understanding has been gained with regard to
the biology of specific HAB species, and how they respond to
nutrients under different environmental conditions. For
example, a species may have one response in cool water, and
another when the water is significantly warmer. Again,
knowledge of total nutrient load is not sufficient; rather, the
timing or seasonality of that load is also critical.
4. LKnowledge has been obtained regarding the relative response
of specific HAB species to nutrients when other competing non-
HAB species are present. Numerical models are under development
to further explore these dynamics. These models are being
developed for certain HAB species, and can be eventually
applied to other species, but only after they have been studied
to provide the quantitative data on which to base the model
(i.e., to parameterize them).
5. LWe now have much better knowledge of the sediment as a
reservoir for HAB species that can respond to nutrient pulses
or other conditions.
The above statements are largely based on experimental laboratory
studies, and these are difficult to extrapolate to the conditions
prevailing in coastal waters. In the U.S., there have been few
opportunities to study and quantify the effects of specific nutrient
(pollution) reductions on HAB proliferations in natural waters, as
there are few U.S. cases in which such nutrient reductions have
occurred. Such information would begin to provide the type of
quantitative information on loading reductions requested by this
question. There are, however, examples from elsewhere in the world
(e.g., Black Sea, Seto Inland Sea, etc.) where such efforts have led to
significant reductions in algal bloom incidence. The significant
lessons from those studies are that:
1. LAgricultural runoff can directly affect bloom magnitude and
frequency in coastal waters located far from the site where
fertilizers were applied. The trend is very worrisome, given
the projections for increased fertilizer usage for U.S.
agriculture in the immediate future.
2. LReductions in both point- and non-point-source pollution
have resulted in decreases in HAB incidence. In the Seto Inland
Sea of Japan, for example, pollution reductions to 1/3 of 1974
levels eventually resulted in reductions in bloom frequency to
about 1/3 of the 1974 levels.
3. LNutrient reductions may not lead to immediate reductions in
HABs, as ecosystems may be permanently altered and it is not
always possible to return to the biological communities that
prevailed when waters were cleaner.
4. LDifferent degrees of success are likely with different HAB
species and with different environments, depending on the
degree of nutrient loading, the individual biology of the HAB
species, and other factors.
5. LSediments may retain nutrients for long periods of time.
Therefore, long time scales may be involved to remove all the
nutrients from particular ecosystems.
The HAB community recognizes the need to offer more specifics to
those desiring to define acceptable nutrient loading thresholds, but
also recognizes that this will require focused research that builds
from the base established by ECOHAB. This would logically fall under a
program on HAB Prevention, Control, and Mitigation, as proposed in your
legislation. A recent scientific conference sponsored by the EPA began
the process of examining HAB events throughout the U.S. to identify the
linkages between HABs and nutrients, and to identify the key issues
that need to be addressed to provide useful information to managers. As
one participant put it, ``Most of the pieces of the puzzle are there--
now it's just a matter of putting them together.'' The EPA workshop was
the first step in what is hoped will be a national effort to attack
this question on both regional and site-specific bases. For the moment,
HAB scientists and managers of impacted waters unanimously agreed to
the following statements as the foundation for a new, coordinated
effort on HABs and nutrients:
LDegraded water quality from increased nutrient pollution
promotes the development and persistence of many HABs and is
one reason for their expansion in the U.S. and the world.
LManagement of nutrient inputs to the water shed can lead to
significant reductions in HABs.
These are admittedly general statements, but they represent a
consensus, and will be used to drive science forward to provide the
information the managers need.
I hope these responses adequately address your concerns.
Biography for Dan L. Ayres
Dan L. Ayres is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist who leads the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) coastal shellfish
unit based in Montesano and Willapa Bay. He manages Washington's razor
clam fishery and oversees the unit's work managing the coastal
Dungeness crab, pink shrimp and spot prawn fisheries, the Willapa Bay
oyster reserves and research projects in Willapa Bay.
Dan is a life-long resident of the coastal Washington area and
began his career with WDFW in 1980. A University of Washington
graduate, he belongs to the National Shellfisheries Association and the
American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Coastal
Shellfish Lead, Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Question submitted by Democratic Members
Q1. LThe current HAB and hypoxia program was supposed to do research on
assessment, prevention, and control of HABs. Much of the work to date
has focused on assessment. In the reauthorization how would you rank
these broad areas of research in order of priority from the coastal
community's perspective: continuing assessment work, developing and
testing control methods, and developing and testing prevention
strategies? What concerns do the fishing and recreational communities
have regarding the development and implementation of control strategies
for HABs?
A1. From the perspective of Washington State's coastal communities the
most important areas of research, ranked in order of priority, are
developing and testing control methods, followed by developing and
testing prevention strategies, and finally, continuing assessment work.
In our federally funded work\1\ here along the Washington coast our
current strategy has focused on technologies that will provide an early
warning of pending harmful algal bloom (HAB) events. This work has been
successful in providing fishery managers, shellfish harvesters and
communities that depend on that harvest, time to prepare for the
fishery closures that result from HAB events. However, this strategy
has not eliminated the economic disruption experienced by small coastal
communities as a result of these fishery closures. The promise that
comes with the notion of possible control and prevention strategies and
the hope of ending the fishery closures associated with HAB events is
very appealing to fishery users, community members and fishery managers
alike. That said, it is also important to point out the concerns
associated with such strategies. Everyone involved wants to be sure
that as we move down the road toward possible control and prevention
strategies that we don't ``cut off our nose to spite our face.'' Many
of the same conditions that promote the growth of harmful algal blooms
also promote the growth of beneficial algal blooms. These beneficial
algae are critical to the very survival of the shellfish species that
are so important to these coastal communities. Razor clams are filter
feeders; and their primary food source is the community of surf zone
algae.\2\ Any control or prevention measure that negatively affects the
health of this algal community would be devastating to the large
populations of razor clams on the Washington coast. In addition, the
multi-million dollar commercial aquaculture industries found in the
coastal estuaries of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor could also be heavily
impacted by anything that negatively effects the beneficial algal
blooms the shellfish (oysters and hardshell clams) they raise depend
on. Any future research into control and prevention strategies of
harmful algal blooms must be designed to carefully assess any
unintended secondary impacts before such strategies are implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since the summer of 2000, Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife has been the recipient of a grant from NOAA Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science MERHAB (Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful
Algal Blooms) Program.
\2\ The primary component of the razor clam diet is the surf zone
diatom Asterionellopsis socialis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions submitted by Representative Brian Baird
Q1. LMr. Ayres, in your experience, is there a need for interaction
between the research community and local and state managers? Could you
provide some examples of what has worked in Washington State and what
problems you have encountered?
A1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) coastal shellfish
managers have long enjoyed excellent interaction with federal and
university HAB researchers. This has allowed us to work together
throughout a research project, from the design phase to completion. A
good example of this was a project we worked on in 1999 with NOAA-
Fisheries researchers from the Northwest Fishery Science Center (NWFSC)
in Seattle, Washington. As the fishery managers, we had questions about
the variance in biotoxin levels in razor clams found at different tidal
heights along the Washington coast; and what was the best razor clam
sample size when trying to monitor biotoxin levels. Together we
designed a study to try to answer these questions. WDFW staff was
responsible for the field collection of specimens and NWFSC researchers
analyzed those specimens. We collaborated on the documentation of the
results of this research and jointly produced an article published in
the refereed journal, Harmful Algae.\3\ Also, as a direct result of
this collaborative research, WDFW has increased the minimum sample size
for razor clam samples collected to monitor biotoxin levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Wekell, J.C., Trainer, V.L., D. Ayres, D. Simons 2002. A study
of spatial variability of domoic acid in razor clams: recommendations
for resource management on the Washington Coast. Harmful Algae 1, 35-
43.
Q2. LMr. Ayres, Washington State has done an excellent job in
monitoring harmful algal blooms and managing fisheries when they are
impacted. What can we do proactively to reduce the number and intensity
of harmful algal blooms? What can we do to increase the relevance of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
research on harmful algal blooms?
A2. To actually reduce the number and intensity of harmful algal blooms
will require much more research into the environmental forces that are
driving these events. Some of these forces are totally out of the
control of human intervention. Others, with enough understanding, may
have some promise of being altered. For example, researchers have
learned that a ``initiation site'' (along the coast of Washington
State) for domoic acid-producing algae (the diatom species
Pseudonitzschia) may exist in an oceanographic feature termed the
``Juan de Fuca Eddy'' \4\ (also know as the ``Tully Eddy'') that forms
each summer at the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. With additional
research,\5\ it may be possible to link to the growth of these Pseudo-
nitzschia blooms with the levels of nutrients coming out of the heavily
populated areas of Puget Sound and Georgia Basin. (Recent research by
NOAA-Fisheries scientists has drawn a correlation between Puget Sound
region human population growth and increases in HAB events.\6\ )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Trainer, V.L., R. Homer and B.M. Hickey (2002) Biological and
physical dynamics of domoic acid production off the Washington USA
coast, Journal of Phycology, in press.
\5\ Links to news reports: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/
84936-toxics30.shtml; also http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/
r137-toxins.htm
\6\ Link to news report: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/
117413-redtide14.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the best way to increase the relevance of research on
harmful algal blooms (HAB) is to tie that research as closely as
possible to the management of the resources affected by HAB events.
This can be accomplished by having representative state; tribal and
local fishery and health managers sit (and speak with an equal voice)
on the Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and other similar
bodies that are making decisions on when and how research funds are
spent.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Dr. Robert E. Magnien
Director, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division, Maryland Department
of Natural Resources
On behalf of the State of Maryland, I would like to thank Chairman
Ehlers and the Members of the Subcommittee for requesting this written
testimony for the hearing entitled ``Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia:
Strengthening the Science.'' I have responded to each of the questions
asked and concluded with comments on the draft bill ``Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of 2003.''
1. LWhat kind of activities does the state of Maryland undertake to
monitor for HABs? How does the state respond when it detects an HAB
event?
Over the past several years, Maryland has had to contend with
several different types of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in diverse
locations and throughout much of the year. We have built much of our
HAB monitoring upon existing comprehensive monitoring programs and
extended them in various ways depending upon the nature of the HAB
threat. Some of the additional HAB-related monitoring has become a
regular feature of our ongoing monitoring programs. By coordinating the
HAB monitoring with existing monitoring programs such as those for
water quality, not only are efficiencies gained but the combined, more
comprehensive, information is often very useful for determining likely
causes and consequences of the bloom events. When an event occurs,
however, additional resources must be brought to bear and the response
tailored to the particular HAB threat. Because of the unique nature of
many bloom events and the needed response, several representative HAB
events are reviewed below to provide a more detailed understanding of
how Maryland is monitoring and responding to HAB events.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) screens 41
stations in the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their tidal
tributaries on a monthly to twice-monthly basis for the presence of
potentially harmful algal species using standard microscopic
techniques. If harmful algal species are detected in high numbers,
additional samples may be taken to determine the extent of the
potentially harmful bloom and samples may be sent to research
laboratories for specialized analyses of toxins. An example of such an
event occurred in the late winter--early spring of 2002. A rare, but
potentially toxic species (Dinophysis accuminata), was detected through
the screening-level monitoring at high densities in the lower Potomac
River, an area of shellfish harvesting at the time. Crews were sent out
to secure additional samples to determine the extent of the bloom and
some of these samples were also sent to the Food and Drug
Administration for toxin testing. The shellfish harvesting was
suspended by Maryland as a precaution until the toxin testing could be
completed. Toxin was found in the algae but shellfish were determined
to be safe for consumption and the waters were re-opened for
harvesting. This response is a good example of the interagency
cooperation that needs to occur during many HAB events. The DNR first
detected the bloom and assisted the Departments of Environment and
Health in their determination of shellfish safety while also working
with federal and academic laboratories to understand this unique
occurrence. Virginia officials were also notified and they also found
high densities of the HAB species in their tributaries to the lower
Potomac River. This event is also a good example of the speed with
which an investigation must be carried out because of human health
concerns and the ephemeral nature of many bloom events.
During the summers of 2000 and 2001, we experienced high density
cyanobacterial (blue-green algae) blooms in the freshwater upper
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. These are very visible as bright
green scums on the water surface and were reported to the DNR by
citizens as well as our monitoring crews. Involved state and local
government agencies were notified by DNR and additional sampling was
conducted and samples were sent to a research laboratory for toxin
testing. These tests revealed the presence of toxins and the local
health department closed swimming beaches in the affected areas. HABs
in these freshwater areas will receive increased attention in the
amended Act.
In Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays there are two types of harmful
algae which have caused concern for their potential to cause serious
ecological damage. A brown tide bloom organism which has devastated the
scallop fishery and bay grasses on Long Island has reached harmful
bloom levels almost every year since monitoring started in Maryland
four years ago. Macroalgae, algae that form seaweed-like aggregates
have also reached bloom levels in this region and threaten to smother
bay grass beds and other habitats. For both of these blooms, Maryland
has instituted special monitoring efforts in conjunction with
researchers along the East Coast to better understand causes and
impacts.
In Maryland's work on the many HAB species in the Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays, it has become clear that additional monitoring
and research is needed for states to adequately detect, understand
impacts, and take appropriate measures to protect human health and
environmental damage.
2. LWhat new technologies would improve your ability to predict and
respond to HABs? How would you utilize such technologies on a day-to-
day basis?
Largely through assistance that NOAA has provided under the
existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of
1998, Maryland has already been able to employ new technologies in its
HAB monitoring programs. The Act has supported research to produce
genetic probes that can quickly identify HAB species that may not be
amenable to traditional techniques. This is the case for Pfiesteria
which can take two weeks or more to identify with conventional labor
intensive techniques. Genetic probes can accomplish this task at a
small fraction of the cost in a matter of hours. Since 1999, Maryland
has employed the genetic probe for Pfiesteria for routine screening of
waterbodies and in response to potential outbreaks.
It would be particularly helpful to Maryland if probes could be
developed for additional HAB species that are difficult to identify
through traditional techniques. Another critical need is the ability to
rapidly identify the presence of algal toxins in environmental samples.
At this time, it takes days to weeks in order to obtain results from
specialized laboratories and, in some cases, no analytical techniques
exist to determine whether or not a toxin is present. In situations
where potentially toxic species are present, Maryland would certainly
utilize these tests in order to determine whether any threat to public
safety existed. Ideally these tests would be relatively inexpensive and
provide results in the field within a matter of minutes.
Another technology that Maryland DNR has started to use in
predicting and responding to HABs is that of remotely-deployed,
continuously-sampling instruments that transmit data in real-time to
our offices. The implementation of these technologies was supported by
NOAA funds granted under the original Act. These instruments
continuously monitor conditions that either directly or indirectly
indicate that an HAB event is imminent or actually underway. This
knowledge, obtained in real-time through wireless data transmission has
been invaluable in responding proactively to HAB events and offers even
greater promise in the future if linked to a real-time modeling and
prediction system which should now be feasible with recently developed
modeling and data assimilation techniques; this would be a system
analogous to current weather models that assimilate data from
continuously-sampling weather instruments. These new technologies have
also been extremely valuable in revealing previously unknown
environmental impacts from HABs in many areas such as transient severe
low dissolved oxygen events that cause fish and shellfish kills. An
expansion of this network to the many tributaries of the Chesapeake and
Coastal Bays would be invaluable to our ability to more cost-
effectively manage HABs. With the new technology, we are also able to
make this information available over the Internet so that all affected
and interested parties can have access to these data. We have started
this access through a DNR web site accessible at www.eyesonthebay.net.
3. LTo what extent have federal programs assisted you in monitoring for
and responding to HABs?
The primary source of federal funding to Maryland for HAB-related
monitoring has been from NOAA. This funding first became available to
assist the state during the HAB outbreak experienced in the Chesapeake
Bay in 1997 and has assisted in monitoring for this organism until
recently. NOAA has also supported monitoring by state agencies and
researchers in Maryland utilizing new technologies that are allowing us
to better understand the factors contributing to blooms and also their
impacts. This monitoring has revealed that there are widespread non-
toxic harmful algal blooms in the shallow waters of Chesapeake Bay
tidal tributaries. These blooms are producing daily excursions of
dissolved oxygen that often drop to lethal levels, causing fish kills.
Prior to monitoring with these new technologies, this phenomenon was
poorly understood and greatly underestimated in Chesapeake Bay.
As described in the answer to the previous question, NOAA HAB
funding for research throughout the mid-Atlantic region has also
benefited Maryland through the development of tools and techniques that
are critical to our ability to effectively monitor certain HAB species.
Comments on the draft bill ``Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
Amendments Act of 2003''
Overall, the draft reauthorization bill effectively brings the
original Act up to date by examining issues not specifically addressed
in the first Act (freshwater HABs), examining prevention, control and
mitigation methods, updating the examination of hypoxia in U.S. coastal
waters, and providing for local and regional assessments. It also
provides modest, but critically needed, additional funding for a
growing problem that impacts almost all of U.S. coastal waters to some
degree. The State of Maryland is fully supportive of these changes and
believes that they will strengthen the protection of coastal waters
nationwide.
A few minor comments that we would like to see addressed include:
Line 17: following ``Great Lakes'' insert ``and upper reaches of
estuaries''
Line 22: following ``ecological'' insert ``, public health and
recreational''
Line 19: shouldn't ``603(f)'' actually be ``603(e)''?