[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA:
FORMULATING AN ACTION PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-929 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
JANE WISE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
September 17, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 21
Written Statement............................................ 21
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 21
Written Statement............................................ 21
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 22
Witnesses:
Dr. Robert E. Magnien, Director, Center for Sponsored Coastal
Ocean Research, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Biography.................................................... 34
Ms. Suzanne E. Schwartz, Acting Director, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
accompanied by Dr. Richard M. Greene, Ecosystem Dynamics and
Effects Branch Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Biography.................................................... 40
Biography for Dr. Richard M. Greene.......................... 40
Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Coastal Shellfish
Lead, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Biography.................................................... 45
Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Director, U.S. National
Office for Harmful Algal Blooms
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Biography.................................................... 60
Dr. Gregory L. Boyer, Professor of Biochemistry, State University
of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry;
Director, New York's Great Lakes Research Consortium
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 61
Biography.................................................... 67
Dr. Donald Scavia, Graham Family Professor of Environmental
Sustainability; Professor of Natural Resources & Environment;
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 67
Written Statement............................................ 69
Biography.................................................... 75
Discussion
Statements from Representatives Connie Mack and William
Delahunt..................................................... 76
The Inefficacy of Traditional Water Treatment.................. 78
Growing Dead Zones and Their Causes............................ 79
Current Control and Mitigation Strategies...................... 79
Comments from Representative Mack.............................. 81
The Economic Costs of Hypoxia and HABs......................... 83
Potential Changes at EPA....................................... 84
Research Funding on the Causes of HABs and Hypoxia............. 85
Closing........................................................ 87
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA: FORMULATING AN ACTION PLAN
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:21 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia:
Formulating an Action Plan
thursday, september 17, 2009
1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, September 17, 2009 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a
legislative hearing to examine Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and Hypoxia
research and response needs to develop and implement action plans to
monitor, prevent, mitigate and control both marine and fresh water
bloom and hypoxia events. The Subcommittee will also receive testimony
on draft legislation entitled ``The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 2009.'' Witnesses will provide their
comments on, and suggestions to, the bill.
Witnesses
Dr. Robert Magnien is the Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal
Ocean Research in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Dr. Magnien will discuss NOAA's current HABs and hypoxia
activities, as well as the need for the implementation action plans to
address both marine and fresh water blooms and hypoxia events.
Ms. Suzanne E. Schwartz is Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ms.
Schwartz will discuss EPA's current HABs and hypoxia activities as well
as the agency's role in addressing the impacts and research needs of
freshwater harmful algal blooms.
Mr. Dan Ayres is a Coastal Shellfish Manager and Lead Biologist at the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Region Six Office. Mr.
Ayres will discuss the impacts HABs and hypoxia events impose on the
west coastline. He will also discuss research and need for response and
implementation plans regarding HABs and hypoxia for prevention,
control, and mitigation.
Dr. Donald Anderson is a Senior Scientist and Director of the Coastal
Ocean Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Anderson
will discuss the impacts HABs and hypoxia events impose on the Nation's
coastlines. He will also discuss the current research and need for
response and implementation plans regarding HABs and hypoxia for
prevention, control, and mitigation.
Dr. Greg L. Boyer is a Professor of Biochemistry at the State
University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
and Director of the Great Lakes Research Consortium. Dr. Boyer will
discuss impacts of freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and the
research and implementation needs to respond to freshwater HABs events.
Dr. Donald Scavia is a Graham Family Professor of Environmental
Sustainability and Professor of Natural Resources and Environment at
the University of Michigan. Dr. Scavia will discuss the impacts of HABs
and hypoxia on the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay areas, as well as the
needs for an implementation strategy for hypoxia in the Northern Gulf
of Mexico and Mississippi River.
Background
Harmful Algal Blooms and Related Impacts
A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is a bloom, or rapid overproduction of
algal cells, that produces toxins which are detrimental to plants and
animals. These outbreaks are commonly referred to as ``red'' or
``brown'' tides. Blooms can kill fish and other aquatic life by
decreasing sunlight available to the water and by using up the
available oxygen in the water, which then results in a hypoxia (severe
oxygen depletion) event. These produced toxins accumulate in shellfish,
fish, or through the accumulation of biomass that in turn affect other
organisms and alter food webs. In recent years, many of the Nation's
coastlines, near-shore marine waters, and freshwaters have experienced
an increase in the number, frequency, duration and type of HABs. Blooms
can be caused by several factors; for example, an increase in nutrients
can cause algae growth and reproduction to increase dramatically. In
other instances, an environmental change in the water quality,
temperature, sunlight, or other factors allows certain algae to out-
compete other microorganisms for nutrients, which can result in a bloom
of the algae with the advantage.
Harmful algal blooms are one of the most scientifically complex and
economically significant coastal management issues facing the Nation.
In the past, only a few regions of the U.S. were affected by HABs, but
now all U.S. coastal regions have reported major blooms. These
phenomena have devastating environmental, economic, and human health
impacts. Impacts include human illness and mortality following direct
consumption or indirect exposure to toxic shellfish or toxins in the
environment; economic hardship for coastal economies, many of which are
highly dependent on tourism or harvest of local seafood; as well as
dramatic fish, bird, and mammal mortalities. There are also devastating
impacts to ecosystems, leading to environmental damage that may reduce
the ability of those systems to sustain species due to habitat
degradation, increased susceptibility to disease, and long-term
alterations to community structure.
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act and
Current Federal Research
Scientific understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events
has progressed significantly since the early 1990s; however, there is a
need for additional efforts in monitoring, prevention, control and
mitigation of these complex phenomena. Practical and innovative
approaches to address hypoxia and HABs in U.S. waters are essential for
management of aquatic ecosystems and to fulfill a stronger investment
in the health of the coasts and oceans called for by the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan\1\ and recent reports on ocean policy. Recognizing this
need, in 2004 Congress reauthorized and expanded the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-383)
by passing the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-456).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Bush Administration, 2004.
http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act
(HABHRCA) established an Interagency Task Force to develop a national
HABs assessment and authorized funding for existing and new research
programs on HABs. This includes two multi-year research programs at
NOAA that focus on HABs, the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal
Blooms (ECOHAB) program and the Monitoring and Event Response for
Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. These programs involve federal,
State, and academic partners and support interdisciplinary extramural
research studies to address the issues of HABs in an ecosystem context.
HABHRCA was reauthorized in 2004, requiring assessments of HABs in
different coastal regions and in the Great Lakes and plans to expand
research to address the impacts of HABs. The law also authorized
research, education, and monitoring activities related to the
prevention, reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia
and reconstituted the Interagency Task Force on HABs and Hypoxia.
The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce several
reports and assessments. The Prediction and Response Report, released
in September 2007, addresses both the state of research and methods for
HAB prediction and response, especially at the federal level. The
National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Technology Transfer Plan for Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms
(RDDTT Plan) establishes research priorities to develop and demonstrate
prevention, control and mitigation methods to advance current
prediction and response capabilities.
The law also required development of local and regional Scientific
Assessment of Hypoxia and a Scientific Assessment of Harmful Algal
Blooms. These assessments were to be initiated at the request of State,
tribal, or local governments or for affected areas identified by NOAA.
Funding was also authorized for ongoing and new programs and activities
such as: competitive, peer-reviewed research through the ECOHAB
program; freshwater harmful algal blooms added to the research
priorities of ECOHAB; a competitive, peer-reviewed research program on
management measures to prevent, reduce, control, and mitigate harmful
algal blooms supported by the MERHAB program; and activities related to
research and monitoring of hypoxia supported by the competitive, peer-
reviewed Northern Gulf of Mexico program and Coastal Hypoxia Research
Program administered by NOAAs National Ocean Service.
The HABHRCA authorized funds were directed to conduct research and
seek to control HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine waters, estuaries and
the Great Lakes. The 2004 reauthorization also required a reporting
requirement on The Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal
Blooms that describe the state of the knowledge of HABs in U.S. inland
and freshwaters and presents a plan to advance research and reduce the
impacts on humans and the environment. However, since the completion of
the report, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unilaterally
determined its obligations regarding implementation of the report
recommendations and the agency has ceased participation in freshwater
HAB research and mitigation activities.
The investigation into marine blooms is critically important, as
are HABs found in the Great Lakes; therefore, there is a need to
research and respond to HABs in inland waterways, such as rivers, lakes
and reservoirs. The Environmental Protection Agency oversees a wide
array of programs specifically designed to protect and preserve the
coastal and marine waters of the United States, including watershed
protection programs working through partnerships and an array of
regulatory programs. EPA currently has no research and development
effort that addresses freshwater harmful algal blooms. In conjunction
with its statutory responsibilities to ensure water quality under the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has a program of
research and development on water treatment technologies, health
effects of water pollutants, security from deliberate contamination,
and watershed protection. Current annual funding for these activities
is approximately $50 million.
Currently, EPA and Louisiana researchers are studying whether the
dead zone pollution violates water quality standards. With EPA's
assistance, the State of Louisiana could set standards using the legal
authority of the Federal Clean Water Act, including non-point source
runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. EPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are co-leads of a Federal
Workgroup of thirteen federal agencies committed to supporting the Gulf
of Mexico Alliance, a partnership formed by the five Gulf State
Governors. In addition, EPA is also a participating member of the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
However, at present, there is a lack of significant federal research
and development aimed at addressing freshwater HABs. Because of the
agency's complementary work on inland water ecosystems, the EPA is a
logical federal entity to partner with NOAA to develop and implement a
research, development, and demonstration program to address freshwater
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia through research, monitoring,
prevention, mitigation, and control. As the lead agency with oversight
over freshwater quality, the EPA should ensure the protection of
aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and
recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants,
and wildlife by conducting research to develop HAB prevention, control
and mitigation technologies.
Reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act
For the past 12 years, the science community has been guided by the
National Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae (Anderson, et al.,
1993)\2\. This plan has served as the foundation for the development of
national, regional, State and local programs and the advancement of
scientific knowledge on HABs and their impacts. HABs have increased in
their type, frequency, location, duration and severity, yet the
decision-making and management systems have not changed. Thus, the
national plan was updated to reflect the current state of the HAB
problem, needs, priorities and approaches. The new plan, Harmful Algal
Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-
2015\3\ (HARRNESS) is composed of views from the research and
management community and outlines a framework for actions over a ten-
year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Anderson, D.,Galloway,S.B., Joseph, J.D. A National Plan for
Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae. 1993. http://hdl.handle.net/1912/
614; https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/614/1/WHOI-93-
02.pdf
\3\ HARRNESS, Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National
Environmental Science Strategy 2005-2015. National Plan for Algal
Toxins and Harmful Algal Blooms. http://www.esa.org/HARRNESS/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HABs issue has been approached at a multi-agency level to
address its many dimensions. There is presently a range of programs and
agencies that address specific aspects of HABs. There have been several
reports and assessments on the range of aspects. The reauthorization of
the HABHRCA should build upon and utilize the findings and results of
these workings to formulate a national action strategy as well as
develop regional research action plans. There is also a need to expand
the work and research of Harmful Algal Blooms to include both marine
and freshwaters.
Draft Legislation:
The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments
Act of 2009
Section-by-Section Analysis
The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments
Act of 2009
Purpose: To establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive strategy to address
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for the development
and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
Section 1: Short Title
The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control
Amendments Act of 2009
Section 2: Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998
Section 2 explains that the text the bill modifies is the Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, unless
otherwise expressly stated.
Section 3: Definitions
Section 3 provides definitions for the Act, including:
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; the National
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program; and the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
Section 4: National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program
Section 4 directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, through the Interagency Task Force, to establish and
maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The bill
outlines tasks for the Under Secretary to ensure through the Program:
1) to develop a national strategy to address both marine and freshwater
HABs and hypoxia; 2) to ensure the coordination of all federal programs
related to HABs and hypoxia; 3) to work with regional, State, tribal,
and local government agencies; 4) to identify additional research needs
and priorities; 5) to support international research efforts on HABs
and hypoxia; 6) to ensure the development and implementation of methods
and technologies to protect ecosystems damaged by HABs; 7) to
coordinate an outreach, education, and training program; 8) to
facilitate regional, State, tribal, and local efforts to implement
response plans, strategies, and tools; 9) to provide resources for
training of regional, State, tribal and local coastal and water
resource managers; 10) to enhance observations, monitoring, modeling,
data management, information dissemination, and operational forecasts;
11) to oversee the updating of the Regional Research and Action Plans;
and 12) to administer peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant
funding.
In addition, Section 4 directs the Under Secretary to work
cooperatively with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as
well as, with States, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and other
agencies represented on the Task Force. Section 4 also directs the
Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to jointly carry out the duties for the freshwater aspects of
the Program.
This bill also requires the Under Secretary to transmit to Congress
an action strategy that outlines the specific activities to be carried
out by the Program, a timeline for such activities, and the
programmatic roles of each federal agency in the Task Force. The action
strategy shall be published in the Federal Register and be periodically
revised by the Under Secretary. Section 4 also requires the Under
Secretary to prepare a report to Congress describing the budget,
activities, and progress of the Program.
Section 5: Regional Research and Action Plans
Section 5 directs the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to
oversee the development and implementation of Regional Research and
Action Plans by identifying the appropriate regions and sub-regions to
be addressed by each Plan. The bill outlines some contents the Plans
should identify: 1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and
social research related to the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2)
research, development, and demonstration activities to advance
technologies to address the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 3) actions to
minimize the occurrence of HABs and hypoxia; 4) ways to reduce the
duration and intensity of HABs events; 5) research and methods to
address the impacts of HABs on human health; 6) mechanisms to protect
vulnerable ecosystems that could be or have been affected by HABs; 7)
mechanisms by which data is transferred between the Program and State,
tribal, and local governments and relevant research entities; 8)
communication, outreach, and dissemination methods used to educate and
inform the public; and 9) the roles that Federal agencies can play to
assist implementation of the Plan.
Section 5 directs the utilization of existing research,
assessments, and reports in the development of the Plans. Section 5
also provides a list of individuals and entities that the Under
Secretary may work with to develop the Plans. The bill also requires
that the Plans be completed within 12 months of the date of enactment
and updated once every five years. Furthermore, Section 5 requires that
the Under Secretary submit a report to Congress not later than 12
months after the date of enactment and once every two years after the
completion of the Regional Research and Actions Plans.
Section 6: Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
Section 6 directs the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force to transmit a report to Congress and the President
on the progress made toward attainment of the coastal goals of the 2008
Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan. The initial report is required no later than
two years after the date of enactment and every five years thereafter.
The reports are required to assess progress made toward nutrient load
reductions, the response of the hypoxia zone and water quality
throughout the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin and the economic and
social effects. The reports shall include an evaluation of current
policies and programs and lessons learned. In addition, Section 6
requires the reports to recommend appropriate actions to continue to
implement or, if necessary, revise the strategy set forth in the 2008
Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan.
Section 7: Authorization of Appropriations
Section 7 provides a five year authorization to the Under Secretary
to carry out the Program and a separate authorization for the
development of the Regional Research and Action Plans. Section 7 also
provides a five year authorization to the Administrator for the
freshwater HABs Program.
Chairman Baird. I want to thank our witnesses for joining
us. We apologize for the delay. It happens here sometimes. We
have clusters of votes, and normally, of course, you have to
sit and listen to us talk at you for far too long, so we are
going to dispense with that so we can hear people who know what
they are talking about, which is actually theoretically the
purpose of a hearing on Capitol Hill.
So I will recognize Mr. Inglis, who I think is going to say
the same thing, and then we will hear from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today's legislative
hearing on Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and draft legislation for the
reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act.
Last year the Subcommittee convened and discussed the impact
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia has on our coastlines and in bodies of
freshwater. I know in the State of Washington, HABs have made it
increasingly difficult to manage important fisheries. It has also been
our responsibility to protect citizens from the threats that these
blooms cause on our beaches and subsequently result in wide area
closures.
Harmful algal blooms pose serious threats because of their
production of toxins and reduction of oxygen in the water. These
impacts include alteration of the ocean's food web, human illnesses,
and economic losses to communities and commercial fisheries.
The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and the even more recent occurrences of
coastal dead zones, such as those in Oregon, have also caused many
fish, crabs, and other aquatic organisms to either flee or die in
suffocating waters.
I believe we have taken some important steps and made great
advances in our research findings due to the 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Research and Control Act and in the 2004 reauthorization.
However it is now time to build upon the numerous reports and
assessments that came out of these two laws.
This reauthorization calls for action plans to begin responding to
the needs of our communities. This bill establishes a National Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tasked as the lead in overseeing the
development of these plans. In addition, there needs to be more work
done on the freshwater HABs. HABs affect not only our coastlines, but
our inland waters as well. I think my colleagues will agree that we
expect to see a collaborative effort between NOAA and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in addressing the threat of HABs to freshwater.
Since the last reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act in 2004, there has been an increase in
the number, frequency, and type of blooms and hypoxic events in recent
years. We need to continue the valuable ongoing research while now
implementing strategic national and regional plans.
We must use our research and advances in our understanding of these
blooms and the hypoxic events they cause to better monitor, mitigate,
and control these occurrences and even prevent them, if possible.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today, and I hope
they will offer us expert testimony on how we can move forward together
in responding to this problem.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. At this
time, I would like to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Inglis of South Carolina for his opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good afternoon and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
In the 110th Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on Harmful
Algal Blooms and Hypoxia issues. We discussed previous legislation and
the progress made on a new national plan, HARRNESS: Harmful Algal
Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-
2015, and how it will help coordinate the Federal Government's efforts
on HAB and hypoxia research.
Today we are here to discuss next steps. We will discuss
legislation that will push federal efforts beyond previous statutes and
make use of what we've learned to date. Hopefully we can place greater
emphasis on the critical areas of monitoring, control, and mitigation.
South Carolina's Phytoplankton Monitoring Network is a
collaborative effort of scientists and academics from all over the
United States. Since it was started in 2001, the Network has reported
over 70 algal blooms. Cooperative efforts like these and advancements
in monitoring coordination are important first steps in dealing with
harmful algal blooms, but we have a lot of work left to do to develop
an event response program.
Once blooms are identified, several questions arise: Could the
bloom have been predicted? How do we control the bloom without causing
further harm? What can we do to mitigate the economic impacts of these
blooms?
I'm also interested in how to properly use regional partnerships to
leverage greater resources and appropriately differentiate the HAB and
hypoxia issues and impacts on our diverse coast line. Moreover, I hope
the witnesses can talk to the appropriate level of resources that the
Federal Government should invest in an event response program.
I hope as we discuss this piece of legislation we can keep in mind
that the end goal is to minimize the negative impacts of HABs and
hypoxia on our coasts and economy.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists about
all these issues. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent
speech.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing to review prevention and response needs of harmful algal blooms
(HAB) and hypoxia events and to receive testimony on draft legislation
to reauthorize and expand the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act of 1998.
The Subcommittee has examined the ecological and health risks posed
by HABs and hypoxia several times through hearings and legislation. Yet
these harmful events continue to occur in our coastal regions and
happen regularly in the Great Lakes and other major waterways. The
spread of HABs and hypoxia to new regions of the country will require
efforts to monitor, prevent, and respond to these outbreaks.
In particular, we must take action to address the development of
HABs and hypoxia in our inland waterways, including the Mississippi
River and the Great Lakes. The Mississippi River serves as a vital
transportation corridor for the movement of goods and as a center for
recreation in Illinois. A HAB or hypoxia outbreak in the Mississippi
River could have a severe effect on the economy and cause major health
risks. Previous outbreaks have occurred in the Mississippi River Delta,
yet the Environmental Protection Agency has no research program in
place to address inland, freshwater HABs or hypoxia. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses how their research efforts may address these
concerns to manage HBAs and hypoxia in our inland waterways.
I am pleased Subcommittee Chairman Baird has proposed legislation
to build upon the 2004 expansion of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act to combat the harmful effects of these
occurrences. The guidelines set forth in the proposed legislation aim
to manage HABs and hypoxia more efficiently by creating a national
strategy to address marine and freshwater outbreaks. This strategy
focuses on regional efforts to address HABs and hypoxia and prevent
their spread. I would like to hear from our witnesses if this regional
approach will be effective in preventing the development of HABs and
hypoxia in areas of the country, such as the Midwest.
I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. It my privilege to introduce our
outstanding panel of witnesses, who bring great expertise. Dr.
Robert Magnien--and if I mispronounce, please forgive me--is
the Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ms.
Suzanne Schwartz is Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds at the U.S. EPA. Mr. Dan Ayres hails from
my home state--good to see you again, Dan--the Coastal
Shellfish Manager and Lead Biologist at the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 6 office. Dr. Donald
Anderson is Senior Scientist and Director of the Coastal Ocean
Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Dr. Greg L.
Boyer is Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of
New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and
Director of Great Lakes Research Consortium, and Dr. Donald
Scavia is a Graham Family Professor of Environment
Sustainability and Professor of Natural Resources and
Environment at the University of Michigan, a state from whence
hails our delightful Dr. Ehlers, who has been a passionate
advocate of this. I should also mention that Representatives
Connie Mack and Kathy Castor of Florida both have been very
strong advocates of that. As witnesses should know, you will
have five minutes for spoken testimony. Those of you are dying
to hear what Mr. Inglis and I were going to say can find those
on our web sites. Don't rush out and bookmark that right now.
With that, let us hear from Dr. Magnien and the rest of our
distinguished panel.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT E. MAGNIEN, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
SPONSORED COASTAL OCEAN RESEARCH, NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL
OCEAN SCIENCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Magnien. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Robert Magnien and I am Director
of NOAA's Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research. In this
role, I administer on behalf of the Department of Commerce and
NOAA the five national programs on harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia that are authorized by the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research Control Act (HABHRCA) of 1998. I also
coordinate these programs nationally and internationally.
NOAA views hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, or HABs, as
significant threats to the health of the American public and
the U.S. economy. HABs, which now occur in all states, are a
growing problem worldwide. They threaten human and ecosystem
health and the vitality of fish and shellfish, protected
species and coastal economies. Similarly, hypoxia, or areas of
low dissolved oxygen called dead zones, have increased 30 fold
since 1960. They now occur in over 300 U.S. coastal systems
including the Great Lakes, signaling severe degradation of
water quality and habitats nationwide. I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the draft reauthorization so that we
can build upon the many successes of this legislation.
In 1998, HABHRCA authorized NOAA to take action to address
the growing problems of HABs and hypoxia and coordinate
interagency efforts. A major component of this responsibility
is NOAA's leadership of the Nation's only competitive research
programs focused solely on these issues, three for HABs and two
for hypoxia. HABHRCA also authorizes NOAA to carry out
intramural research and assessment activities. Active areas of
research include HAB and hypoxia forecasting, development of
new methods for HAB cell and toxin detection, and understanding
the impacts of HABs and hypoxia on aquatic life and coastal
economies. The 2004 reauthorization required five reports. Four
have been submitted to Congress and the fifth is undergoing
interagency approval.
Many significant research advances supported by HABHRCA
programs have greatly improved HAB and hypoxia management.
These accomplishments are described in the HABHRCA reports that
were submitted to Congress in my written testimony. Let me just
highlight two.
HAB forecasting has been extended to new areas, an outcome
of many years of sustained research, and shows great promise in
providing early warning to public health and resource managers.
Forecasts in the western Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, the
Gulf of Maine, Chesapeake Bay and the Pacific Northwest are in
various stages of development. NOAA has preliminary plans for a
national HAB forecasting system which will make routine
forecasts, like weather forecasts, in areas where HABs are a
major threat. In 2008, the interagency Mississippi Gulf of
Mexico Task Force updated the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan, which
reaffirmed the goal of reducing the hypoxic zone and prescribed
45 percent reductions in both nitrogen and phosphorus. The
recommendations were based in large part on the many years of
NOAA-funded research authorized by HABHRCA.
Regarding the draft bill, it addresses two issues that are
consistent with NOAA goals. First, it will establish an
overarching HAB and hypoxia program within NOAA. This will
enhance the visibility of these issues as a national priority
and improve coordination within NOAA and with other federal
agencies. Secondly, regional research and action plans will be
developed with input from local experts and managers. These
plans will guide future research priorities toward development
of products that are of greatest benefit to those on the front
lines of managing these threats as well as the public. We note,
however, that all mention of specific ongoing HAB and hypoxia
programs that were identified in prior versions of HABHRCA have
been removed. NOAA has found the specification of programs
helps to clarify the intent of Congress when implementing this
legislation. Much of the Nation's progress in improving HAB and
hypoxia management and response has come from information and
products developed under these highly successful programs.
Further, one of the HABHRCA reports presented to Congress last
year, called ``HAB Management and Response,'' recommended that
progress would be enhanced if event response and infrastructure
programs were added.
Finally, the role of research within NOAA is not specified
in the draft legislation as it was in the previously enacted
legislation. Such authorization assures that the valuable
research conducted within NOAA will be continued. We understand
that this bill is only a draft so we would welcome additional
opportunities to work with the Committee to develop the
language of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
this opportunity to comment on the pending legislation and
update you on NOAA's programs. NOAA strongly supports
reauthorization of HABHRCA and the new opportunities it will
provide. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Magnien follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Magnien
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Robert E. Magnien and I am the Director of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean
Research (CSCOR). CSCOR provides competitive funding for regional-
scale, multi-disciplinary research on understanding and predicting the
impacts of major stressors on coastal ecosystems, communities, and
economies in order to support informed, ecosystem-based management. In
this capacity, I administer the five national programs solely focused
on harmful algal blooms (HAB) and hypoxia that were authorized by the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998
(HABHRCA) and reauthorized in 2004. I serve on the Interagency Working
Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology to coordinate NOAA's
programs with other federal agencies. Additionally, I serve as the U.S.
representative for the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission panel
on HABs to maximize international opportunities for exchange of
relevant research.
At NOAA, we work to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans,
and provide products and services that benefit the economy,
environment, and public safety of the Nation. By improving our
understanding of, and ability to predict changes in, the Earth's
environment, and by conserving and managing ocean and coastal
resources, NOAA generates tremendous value for the Nation. NOAA's role
is all the more important given the profound economic, environmental,
and societal challenges currently facing the country. Two of these
challenges are HABs and hypoxia, which together represent a significant
threat to the health of the American public and the U.S. economy.
HABs, which now occur in all U.S. states,\1\,\2\ are a
growing problem worldwide. HABs threaten human and ecosystem health,
and the vitality of fish and shellfish, protected species, and coastal
economies. Similarly, hypoxia occurs in over 300 U.S. coastal
systems,\3\ including the Great Lakes. There has been a 30-fold
increase in hypoxia events since 1960,3 signaling severe
degradation of water quality and aquatic habitats nation-wide. HABs and
hypoxia are two of the most complex phenomena currently challenging
management of aquatic ecosystems. Given the profound, pervasive,
complex and growing impacts of HABs and hypoxia, these are important
issues NOAA will continue to address in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lopez, C.B., Dortch, Q., Jewett, E.B., Garrison, D. 2008.
Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful Algal Blooms. Interagency
Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human Health of the
Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.,
62 pp.
\2\ Lopez, C.B., Jewett, E.B., Dortch, Q., Walton, B.T. Hudnell,
H.K. 2008. Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms.
Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and Human
Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.
Washington, D.C., 65 pp.
\3\ Jewett, E.B., Lopez, C.B., Kidwell, D.M. Bricker, S.B., Burke,
M.K., Walbridge, M.R., Eldridge, P.M., Greene, R.M., Hagy, J.D.,
Buxton, H.T., Diaz, R.J. In Prep. Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia in
U.S. Coastal Waters. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms,
Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science
and Technology. Washington, D.C., 149 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft HABHRCA
reauthorization before this committee so we can maximize the
opportunities to reduce or prevent HAB and hypoxia events and their
impacts in an efficient and coordinated manner. In order to provide
context for the importance of HABHRCA reauthorization, I will first
describe the nature of the problem in more detail, discuss NOAA's role
in addressing HABs and hypoxia in our coastal and Great Lakes waters,
and highlight some of the significant advances NOAA has made as a
result of HABHRCA.
Harmful Algal Blooms in the United States
Generally, algae are simple plants that in general are beneficial
because they provide the main source of energy that sustains aquatic
life. However, some algae cause harm to humans, animals, and the
environment by producing toxins or by growing in excessively large
numbers. When this occurs they are referred to as ``harmful algal
blooms'' or HABs. Sometimes, certain algal species accumulate in such
high numbers that they discolor the water, and are commonly referred to
as ``red tides'' or ``brown tides.'' Table 1 lists some of the major
HAB-causing organisms in the United States.
Some algae produce potent toxins that cause illness or death in
humans and other organisms. Fish, seabirds, manatees, sea lions,
turtles, and dolphins are some of the animals commonly affected by
harmful algae. Humans and other animals can be exposed to algal toxins
through the food they eat, the water they drink or swim in, or the air
they breathe. Other algae species, although nontoxic to humans and
wildlife, form such large blooms that they degrade habitat quality
through massive overgrowth, shading, and oxygen depletion (hypoxia),
which occurs after the bloom ends and the algae decay. These high
biomass blooms can also be a nuisance to humans when masses of algae
accumulate along beaches and subsequently decay.
HABs can have major negative impacts on local economies when, for
example, shellfish harvesting is restricted to protect human health or
when tourism declines due to degradation of recreational resources.
HABs can also result in significant public health costs when humans
become ill. A recent conservative estimate\4\ suggests that HABs
occurring in marine waters alone have an average annual impact of $82
million in the United States. In 2005, a single HAB event in New
England resulted in a loss of $18 million in shellfish sales in
Massachusetts alone.\5\ Economic impacts can be difficult to calculate
as they vary from region to region and event to event, but they are a
primary concern of coastal communities that experience HAB events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hoagland, P., and Scatasta, S. 2006. The Economic Effects of
Harmful Algal Blooms. In E. Graneli and J. Turner, eds., Ecology of
Harmful Algae. Ecology Studies Series. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer-Verlag, Chap. 29.
\5\ Jin, D., Thunberg, E., and Hoagland, P. 2008. Economic Impact
of the 2005 Red Tide Event on Commercial Shellfish Fisheries in New
England. Ocean and Coastal Management 51(5):420-429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to impacting public health, ecosystems, and local
economies, HABs can also have secondary social and cultural
consequences. For example, along the Washington and Oregon coasts, tens
of thousands of people visit annually to participate in the
recreational harvest of razor clams. However, a series of beach
closures in recent years due to high levels of the HAB toxin domoic
acid prevented access to this recreational fishery. These harvesting
closures have not only caused economic losses, they have also resulted
in an erosion of community identity, community recreation, and a
traditional way of living for native coastal cultures.
As mentioned above, the geographic distribution of HAB events in
the United States is broad. All coastal states have experienced HAB
events in marine waters in the last decade, and freshwater HABs occur
in the Great Lakes and in many inland waters. Evidence indicates the
frequency and distribution of HAB events and their associated impacts
have increased considerably in recent years in the United States and
globally.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GEOHAB, 2006. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal
Blooms, Harmful Algal Blooms in Eutrophic Systems. P. Glibert (ed.).
IOC and SCOR, Paris and Baltimore, 74, pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although all coastal states experience HABs, the specific organisms
responsible for the HABs differ among regions of the country (see
Figure 1). As a result, the harmful impacts experienced vary in their
scope and severity, which leads to the need for specific management
approaches for each region and species. Some species need to be present
in very high abundances before harmful effects occur, which makes it
easier to detect and track the HAB. However, other species cause
problems at very low concentrations and can in essence be hidden among
other benign algae, making them difficult to detect and track. The
factors that cause and control HABs, from their initiation to their
decline, vary not only by species, but also by region due to
differences in local factors such as the shape of the coastline, runoff
patterns, oceanography, nutrient regime, other organisms present in the
water, etc. Consequently, the development of HAB management strategies
requires a regional approach.
As noted above, the causes of HABs are complex and are controlled
by a variety of factors. While we know the causes of HAB development
vary between species and locations, we do not have a full understanding
of all the factors involved, including the interplay of different
contributing factors. In general, algal species grow best when
environmental conditions (such as temperature, salinity, and
availability of nutrients and light) are optimal for cell growth. Other
biological and physical processes (such as predation, disease, toxins
and water currents) determine whether enhanced cell growth will result
in biomass accumulation (or what we call a ``bloom''). The challenge
for understanding the causes of HABs stems from the complexity and
interrelationship of these processes for individual species and among
different HAB species. The complexity of interactions between HABs, the
environment, and other plankton further complicate the predictions of
when and where HAB events will occur. Knowledge of how these factors
control the initiation, sustainment, and decline of a bloom is a
critical precursor for advancing HAB management.
Human activities are thought to contribute to the increased
frequency of some HABs.3 For example, increased nutrient
pollution has been acknowledged as a factor contributing to increased
occurrence of several high biomass HABs.\7\ Other human-induced
environmental changes that may foster development of certain HABs
include changes in the types of nutrients entering coastal waters,
alteration of food webs by overfishing, introductions of non-indigenous
species that change food web structure, introduction of HAB cells to
new areas via ballast water or other mechanisms, and modifications to
water flow.1 It should also be noted that climate change
will almost certainly influence HAB dynamics in some way since many
critical processes governing HAB dynamics--such as temperature, water
column stratification, up-welling and ocean circulation patterns, and
freshwater and land-derived nutrient inputs--are influenced by climate.
The interactive role of climate change with the other factors driving
the frequency and severity of HABs is in the early stages of research,
but climate change is expected to exacerbate the HAB problem in some
regions (http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/
CC-habs.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Heisler, J., Glibert, P.M., Burkholder, J.M., Anderson, D.M.,
Cochlan, W., Dennison, W.C., Dortch, Q., Gobler, C.J., Heil, C.A.,
Humphries, E., Lewitus, A., Magnien, R., Marshall, H.G., Sellner, K.,
Stockwell, D.A., Stoecker, D.K., and Suddleson, M. 2008. Eutrophication
and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Scientific Consensus. Harmful Algae 8(1):3-
13.
Hypoxia in the U.S.
Hypoxia means ``low oxygen.'' In aquatic systems, low oxygen
generally refers to a dissolved oxygen concentration less than two to
three milligrams of oxygen per liter of water (mg/L), but sensitive
organisms can be affected at higher thresholds (e.g., 4.5 mg/L). A
complete lack of oxygen is called anoxia. Hypoxic waters generally do
not have enough oxygen to support fish and other aquatic animals, and
are sometimes called dead zones because the only organisms that can
live there are microbes.
The incidence of hypoxia has increased 10-fold globally in the past
50 years and almost 30-fold in the U.S. since 1960, with over 300
coastal systems3 now experiencing hypoxia (see Fig. 2). The
increasing occurrence of hypoxia in coastal waters worldwide represents
a significant threat to the health and economy of our nation's coasts
and Great Lakes. This trend is exemplified most dramatically off the
coast of Louisiana and Texas, where the second largest eutrophication-
related hypoxic zone in the world is associated with the nutrient
pollutant load discharged by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.
Although coastal hypoxia can be caused by natural processes, the
dramatic increase in the incidence of hypoxia in U.S. waters is linked
to eutrophication due to nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and organic
matter enrichment, which has been accelerated by human activities.
Sources of enrichment include point source discharges of wastewater,
non-point source atmospheric deposition, and non-point source runoff
from croplands, lands used for animal agriculture, and urban and
suburban areas.
The difficulty of reducing nutrient inputs to coastal waters
results from the close association between nutrient loading and a broad
array of human activities in watersheds and explains the growth in the
number and size of hypoxic zones. While nutrients leaving water
treatment facilities can often be controlled through improvements in
technology and facility upgrades, diffuse runoff from non-point
sources, such as agriculture, is more difficult to control. Although
there have been some welcome efforts to optimize fertilizer
applications, agriculture remains a leading source of nutrient
pollution in many watersheds due in part to the high demand for
nitrogen intensive crops. Another exacerbating factor is the short-
circuiting of water flow due to drainage practices, including tile
drainage and ditching, that have been used to convert wetlands to
croplands. Wetlands serve as filters and the loss of wetlands increases
the transport of nitrogen into local waterways and ultimately coastal
waters. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition from fossil fuel combustion
remains an important source of diffuse nutrient pollution for rivers
and coastal waters.
Unfortunately, hypoxia is not the only stressor impacting coastal
ecosystems. Overfishing, HABs, toxic contaminants, and physical
alteration of coastal habitats associated with coastal development are
several problems that co-occur with hypoxia and interact to decrease
the ecological health of coastal waters and reduce the ecological
services they can provide.
HABHRCA Today
HABHRCA authorizes NOAA to take action to address the growing
problem of HABs and hypoxia in the United States. The existing statute:
1. Establishes a mechanism for interagency coordination
through an interagency Task Force;
2. Requires reports assessing the causes and impacts of HABs
and hypoxia and plans to improve management and response; and
3. Authorizes funding for HAB and hypoxia research through
national competitive research programs, and for research and
assessment within NOAA.
Since 2005, the Interagency Working Group on HABs, Hypoxia and
Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
has been meeting monthly to coordinate interagency efforts with regard
to HABs and hypoxia. A major focus for the group has been writing the
five reports mandated by the 2004 reauthorization of HABHRCA. Four of
the five reports have been submitted to Congress and the fifth is
undergoing interagency approval (http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/
extremeevents/hab/habhrca/Report-Plans.html). These reports
provide guidance for NOAA HAB and Hypoxia programs. Specifically, the
HAB Management and Response: Assessment and Plan\8\ recommended the
formation of the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs Program,
which NOAA established this year. The Plan also highlights the need for
an enhanced HAB event response program and a new infrastructure
program, which have been incorporated into drafts of the 2009
reauthorization of HABHRCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Jewett, E.B., Lopez, C.B., Dortch, Q., Etheridge, S.M., Backer,
L.C. 2008. Harmful Algal Bloom Management and Response: Assessment and
Plan. Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia, and
Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee on ocean Science and Technology.
Washington, DC., 76 pp.
NOAA HAB and Hypoxia Programs
The goal of NOAA's programs is to prevent or reduce the occurrence
of HABs and hypoxia and/or to minimize their impacts. Developing useful
products for HAB and hypoxia management is a multi-step process that
requires a variety of approaches, and must be based on a strong
scientific understanding of the causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia.
NOAA leads the Nation's three competitive research programs solely
focused on HABs and authorized by HABHRCA:
1. The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
(ECOHAB) Program is focused on research to determine the causes
and impacts of HABs. The ECOHAB Program provides information
and tools necessary for developing technologies for, and
approaches to, predicting, preventing, monitoring and
controlling HABs.
2. The Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms
(MERHAB) Program focuses on incorporating tools, approaches,
and technologies from HAB research programs into existing HAB
monitoring programs. MERHAB also establishes partnerships to
enhance existing, and initiate new, HAB monitoring capabilities
to provide managers with timely information needed to mitigate
HAB impacts on coastal communities.
3. The newer Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs (PCM
HAB) Program, transitions promising prevention, control, and
mitigation technologies and strategies to end users. The PCM
HAB Program also assesses the social and economic costs of HAB
events, and strategies to prevent, control and mitigate those
events, which will aid managers in devising the most cost-
effective management approaches.
HABHRCA also authorizes research on hypoxia to assess the causes
and impacts of this serious problem in order to guide scientifically
sound management programs to reduce hypoxic zones and thereby protect
valuable marine resources, their habitats and coastal economies. NOAA
leads the Nation's two competitive research programs solely focused on
hypoxia and authorized by HABHRCA.
1. The Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Program (NGOMEX)
supports multi-year, interdisciplinary research projects to
inform management in ecosystems affected by Mississippi/
Atchafalaya River inputs. NGOMEX supports research with a focus
on understanding the causes and effects of the hypoxic zone
over the Louisiana-Texas-Mississippi continental shelf and the
prediction of hypoxia's future extent and impacts.
2. The Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP) supports multi-
year, interdisciplinary research projects to inform management
of hypoxic zones in all of the Nation's coastal waters except
those covered by NGOMEX. The objective of CHRP is to provide
research results and modeling tools, which will be used by
coastal resource managers to assess alternative management
strategies for preventing or mitigating the impacts of hypoxia
on coastal ecosystems, and to make informed decisions regarding
this important environmental stressor.
HABHRCA authorizes NOAA to carry out research and assessment
activities, which has led to a world-class intramural research program
on HABs. Much of this research is conducted in collaboration with
external partners, including academic researchers, State and federal
resource and public health managers, and private enterprises. Active
areas of research include HAB and hypoxia forecasting, development of
new methods of HAB cell and toxin detection, and understanding the
impacts of HAB toxins on higher trophic levels, including humans.
NOAA's extramural and intramural research is leading to the
development of a number of operational activities that provide valuable
products and assistance. For example, NOAA currently provides twice
weekly HAB forecasts for Florida coastal waters (http://
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/development.html) and has developed
preliminary plans for a National HAB Forecasting System, which will
make routine forecasts in any areas where HABs are a major threat.
Forecasts in the western Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of
Maine, and the Pacific Northwest are in various stages of development
through a combination of extra- and intramural research efforts (http:/
/tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/development.html). NOAA scientists have
been instrumental in developing citizen HAB monitoring networks around
the country. Additionally, the NOAA Analytical Response Team provides
state-of-the-art toxin analyses during HAB events, especially events
that involve unusual animal mortality (http://www.chbr.noaa.gov/habar/
eroart.aspx).
Other NOAA programs, including the Oceans and Human Health
Initiative, Sea Grant, the Office of Protected Resources, fisheries
management programs, and the Integrated Ocean Observing System Program,
collaborate with the HABHRCA-authorized HAB and Hypoxia programs to
address specific issues that relate to their research or operational
portfolios. Many of NOAA's HAB and hypoxia accomplishments have
resulted from these coordinated efforts and through external
partnerships.
Major Accomplishments
In the decade following the passage of the original HABHRCA
legislation, several significant advances have greatly improved
management. Many of these accomplishments are described in the four
HABHRCA reports that were submitted to Congress in the last two years.
Rather than list every accomplishment, I will focus on recent
outstanding achievements.
In the last year, HAB prediction and forecasting has been extended
to new areas and shown great promise in providing early warning to
public health and resource managers. In most cases, the ability to
provide HAB forecasts is the outcome of years of research efforts
focused on the causes of HABs. Examples of regional HAB forecasting
include:
In the Gulf of Maine, NOAA-funded researchers issued
a seasonal advisory in the spring of 2009 predicting that there
would be moderately severe blooms of Alexandrium fundyense, the
New England HAB organism that produces a potent neurotoxin,
which accumulates in shellfish and can cause human illness and
death. That timely prediction provided State managers several
months to prepare for the intensive monitoring required to
protect public health. A severe bloom did, in fact, occur and
the researchers provided weekly forecasts of the bloom
intensity and location. Nearly all of the shellfish beds in
Maine and New Hampshire and some of the shellfish beds in
Massachusetts were closed to harvesting. There was concern the
bloom would spread to affect more State waters to the south and
reach federal waters offshore. NOAA provided event response
funding to support monitoring of the actual bloom location and
intensity so the Food and Drug Administration and State
managers would have the information necessary to make decisions
if the bloom were to spread to new areas.
In parts of western Lake Erie, blooms of the
cyanobacterial HAB Microcystis are common. Excessive nutrient
levels and shallow water depth promotes Microcystis blooms,
which are a potential concern to human health due to toxin
exposure through drinking water or recreational use. In 2008,
NOAA produced the first ever Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom
Bulletin, which predicted Microcystis blooms based on satellite
imagery in combination with hydrological, meterological and
limnological data. The bulletin aids in notifying users of
possible human health risks associated with drinking water
quality and Great Lakes beach conditions.
Along the Washington coast, a toxic diatom, Pseudo-
nitzschia, sometimes blooms and is transported to beaches where
razor clams are harvested recreationally and by tribes. When
exposed to such blooms, the clams accumulate the toxin, which
can result in illness and death if the clams are eaten. NOAA-
funded scientists have improved early warning of Pseudo-
nitzschia blooms by determining how winds move HABs from their
source region to coastal beaches. Since 2008, they have issued
an interactive HAB Bulletin that managers from the Washington
State Departments of Health and Fish and Wildlife use to
determine well in advance of openings whether shellfish toxin
levels will require closures. Managers can communicate this
knowledge to harvesters and owners of coastal businesses
catering to harvesters to minimize impacts.
Detection is a critical first step in protecting human health, as
it is not possible to predict and respond to a problem that cannot be
easily quantified or tracked. Many new methods of detecting HAB cells
and toxins have been developed, tested, and in some cases put into
routine use for a variety of purposes.
Local and State shellfish managers needed quick field
tests to determine if shellfish are toxic to humans. Working
with commercial partners, NOAA scientists developed, and have
now made commercially available, a quick test for the potent
neurotoxin domoic acid, which is produced by Pseudo-nitzschia,
a HAB-causing organism that occurs along all U.S. coasts.
Long-term, cost-effective HAB monitoring systems
require sensors that can be deployed in the water remotely and
left for long periods of time. Recently NOAA scientists,
working with partners at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute, successfully used a robotic underwater sensor, the
Environmental Sample Processor, to detect the HAB organism
Pseudo-nitzschia and its toxin domoic acid. This is the first
time that HAB organisms and their toxins have been measured
remotely, which is a critical first step in using Integrated
Ocean Observing Systems to provide early warnings of HABs.
Similarly, NOAA funding has contributed to the
development of automated sensors for Karenia brevis, the
Florida red tide organism, which can be deployed underwater
either on gliders or stationary sampling platforms. A number of
these sensors have been built and are in routine use for HAB
monitoring in Florida, where they provide an efficient means of
ground-truthing satellite observations, a critical element for
accurate HAB forecasting.
NOAA is currently funding research on novel HAB mitigation and
control measures. For example, research on both the east and west
coasts has investigated why some shellfish accumulate toxins but others
of the same species do not when they are exposed to the HAB species,
Alexandrium. Alexandrium produces Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP)
toxins that can cause severe illness or death in humans. Small genetic
differences in shellfish appear to determine whether an individual
shellfish become toxic. Researchers have mapped what they call the
``toxin resistance'' of soft shell clams in New England, providing
local resource managers with new insights on why particular harvesting
areas become toxic much more quickly than others. Research into ``toxin
resistance'' may also lead to the development of shellfish seed stocks
that are appropriate for areas that are exposed to Alexandrium blooms.
NOAA has already begun to develop the Regional Research and Action
Plans that are called for in drafts of the 2009 reauthorization of
HABHRCA. As a part of this work, NOAA organized the 2009 West Coast HAB
Summit, which brought together 80 leading scientists, managers, and
industry representatives for the first time in Portland, Oregon, to
discuss region-specific HAB issues and begin to develop the West Coast
Regional Research and Action Plan. At the Summit, the representatives
also endorsed the vision of the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean
Health to establish a regional HAB monitoring, alert and response
network and forecasting system. Seizing on the opportunities of new and
emerging technologies, this system will provide advanced early warning
of HABs, minimize fishery closures, protect the economy of coastal
communities, mitigate the impacts to marine life and protect public
health.
Through its HABHRCA-authorized hypoxia programs, NOAA has provided
the research foundation upon which management of the ``dead zone'' in
the Gulf of Mexico is based as described in the Mississippi River/Gulf
of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force Action Plan.\9\ Ongoing
targeted regional research is furthering our understanding of impacts
on fisheries and local economies and filling gaps in our understanding
of the factors driving the size and location of the hypoxic zone,
including climate change. This information is vital to support the Task
Force's adaptive management approach to addressing this major coastal
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
2008. Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 for Reducing, Mitigating, and
Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Improving Water
Quality in the Mississippi River Basin. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA has collaborated closely with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in developing and promoting implementation of
management strategies to reduce nutrient pollution contributing to the
Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. The Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator (Dr. Jane Lubchenco) sits on the
EPA-chaired interagency Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force, and NOAA also plays a leading role on the Task
Force's Coordinating Committee, and co-chairs its Monitoring, Modeling
and Research Workgroup. The Task Force released the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia
Action Plan, which reaffirmed the goal of reducing the hypoxic zone and
suggested 45 percent reductions of both nitrogen and phosphorus.
NOAA-funded research has demonstrated that widespread reproductive
impairment occurs in a common marine fish, Atlantic croaker, in the
hypoxic zone west of the Mississippi River. More recently, the actual
molecular mechanism behind the reproductive impairments in fish was
identified. Atlantic croaker exposed to hypoxia had significantly less
of the hormone progestin, which is critical to the croaker reproductive
cycle. The reduction in progestin resulted in reduced ovarian and
testicular growth in adults, and a decrease in hatching success and
larval survival. Identification of this molecular mechanism adds to a
growing body of evidence that non-lethal hypoxia impacts pose long-term
threats to living resource populations in the hypoxic zone.
NOAA-funded researchers are providing predictive modeling tools to
resource and water quality managers in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island
to help mitigate hypoxia events, which have led to major fish kills and
resulted in nutrient reduction criteria for waste water treatment
facilities (WWTF). These predictive modeling tools will provide
alternative management options for WWTFs (such as relocation of outfall
pipes to locations where outward currents would speed nutrients out of
the ecosystem) and will generate ecological impact scenarios for
various nutrient loading estimates, thereby helping to determine
allowable nutrient loadings for WWTFs into local rivers that drain into
Narragansett Bay.
NOAA Comments on the House Bill
We only just recently received a copy of the draft bill to review,
and therefore have not had a sufficient amount of time to fully review
and comment on its content. However, based on an initial review, the
House HAB and hypoxia bill addresses two issues that are consistent
with our goals for improving out HABs and hypoxia efforts:
1. It will establish an overarching HAB and Hypoxia Program
within NOAA. This will enhance the visibility of these issues
as a national priority and improve coordination within NOAA
between programs that primarily address HABs and hypoxia and
those that conduct research and response as part of a larger
mission, such as Sea Grant, OHHI, OPR, IOOS and the NOAA labs.
Coordination with NOAA partners in other federal agencies will
also be improved.
2. Regional Research and Action Plans will be developed with
input from local experts on HABs and hypoxia. These plans will
help further coordinate federal, regional, State, and local
entities and recommend specific actions they can undertake to
prevent, reduce or minimize HABs, hypoxia, and their impacts.
The plans will also provide guidance for NOAA research and
operational programs to better target regional needs.
We note that all mention of specific ongoing HAB and hypoxia
programs that were specified in prior versions of HABHRCA have been
removed. NOAA has found that the specification of programs helps to
clarify the intent of Congress when implementing this legislation. Much
of the progress in improving HAB and hypoxia management and response
has come from information and products developed through these highly
successful programs. Further, the HAHBRCA report presented to Congress
last year, HAB Management and Response: Assessment and Plan,
recommended that progress would be enhanced if an Event Response and
Infrastructure Program were added.
Additionally, the role of research within NOAA is not specified in
the legislation. In the previous legislation, specific authorization
was given for research and assessment in NOAA. Such authorization
assures that the valuable research conducted within NOAA will be
continued.
We understand that this bill is only a draft. As such, we would
welcome additional opportunities to work with your Subcommittee as you
continue to work on the language of this bill.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the pending
legislation and to update you on NOAA's HAB and hypoxia programs. NOAA
strongly supports reauthorization of HABHRCA and the new opportunities
it will provide. With this legislation in place, NOAA and its many
partners and affected communities will be able to build on its numerous
accomplishments. Over the last ten years we have made enormous progress
in understanding the causes and consequences of HABs and hypoxia,
leading to the development of many tools and information products
which, in turn, have directly improved HAB and hypoxia management,
particularly in the area of prediction and mitigation. We anticipate
that in the next ten years we will continue to make progress and our
ability to prevent and control, as well as mitigate, HAB events will be
greatly enhanced.
Biography for Robert E. Magnien
Robert Magnien has been Director of NOAA's Center for Sponsored
Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR) since 2003. CSCOR is responsible for
administering the competitive research programs called for in the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA),
which include the only three national programs devoted solely to
Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) research. CSCOR also administers the two
national competitive Hypoxia research programs called for in HABHRCA
and other regional-scale applied research programs to provide the
predictive capabilities necessary for management of coastal systems in
an ecosystem context. Dr. Magnien has served as the NOAA lead on HAB
and hypoxia coordination internally, across the Federal Government, and
internationally.
From 1983 to 2003 Dr. Magnien held several positions in the State
of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Program from its inception and served in
numerous leadership roles (technical and policy) for the EPA-led
regional Chesapeake Bay Program. He last served from 1995 to 2003 for
Maryland's Department of Natural Resources as Director of the Tidewater
Ecosystem Assessment (TEA) Division and, additionally, from 2002 to
2003 as Director of the Resource Assessment Service, which oversees the
Maryland Geological Survey and three other Divisions which include most
of the State's science capabilities related to the management of the
Chesapeake Bay and freshwaters. In these capacities Dr. Magnien led
Maryland's efforts to respond to threats posed by HABs and reported to
the Governor and his cabinet as needed. He also provided both
scientific and policy leadership on regional efforts to understand and
manage the Chesapeake Bay's hypoxia problem as well as numerous other
issues such as water quality, habitat restoration, dredging operations,
toxic contaminants, ecological forecasting, and information management.
Dr. Magnien has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications,
technical reports, agency documents and workshop reports and has also
made numerous invited and submitted presentations at international,
national, and regional scientific conferences. These publications and
presentations include his work on harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, large-
scale monitoring programs, environmental assessments and the
interactions between science and policy.
Dr. Magnien received a Ph.D. in Aquatic Ecology from Dartmouth
College and a B.S. in Biology from the State University of New York at
Albany.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Magnien.
Ms. Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF MS. SUZANNE E. SCHWARTZ, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND WATERSHEDS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. RICHARD M. GREENE,
ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS AND EFFECTS BRANCH OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Schwartz. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Suzanne Schwartz, the Acting Director of
the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds within the
Office of Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). I would also like to introduce now to you Dr. Rick Green
of our Office of Research and Development, who is sitting
behind me, who is the Agency's technical expert on the subject
of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss some of the things that EPA is doing to
address the threats to human health and our marine and
freshwater resources from harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
Obviously, everyone here knows the problems associated with
harmful algal blooms. I would, however, just note that the
second largest hypoxic zone in the world is located in the
northern Gulf of Mexico. It is not something we are proud of.
There is very strong evidence connecting hypoxia and algal
blooms with nutrient pollution, excessive nitrogen and
phosphorus in the water, with the most significant sources of
nutrients coming from agricultural runoff as well as
residential and commercial fertilizers, animal waste, sewage
treatment plants and air deposition from utilities and
vehicles. EPA's focus, while we have done research, has largely
been to look at ways to control those sources of this
pollution.
EPA has statutory authority under the Clean Water Act and
the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act to protect
oceans and coastal waters as well as freshwater lakes, rivers
and streams. We have a number of programs under the Clean Water
Act that look specifically to regulating discharges into waters
of the United States and establishing limits for pollutants
that can go into waters of the United States. We regulate
discharges of sewage from vessels as well as discharges of
other materials. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, we
promulgate drinking water standards for the protection of human
health from exposure to contaminants.
It is clear that the discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus
and their effects on the development of hypoxia and harmful
algal blooms is a problem now more than ever. In response,
since the introduction of HABHRCA, we have worked to adopt a
watershed approach to reducing nutrient discharges that
involves identifying high-priority watersheds and applying both
voluntary and regulatory tools to achieve water quality goals.
In the Mississippi River basin states, EPA has approved a total
of about 3,500 nutrient-related TMDLs, total maximum daily
loads, which identify a maximum amount of pollutant that a
water body can receive and still achieve water quality
standards. We are also working closely with the states on
developing nutrient management and nutrient reduction
strategies. Just today EPA is seeking public input on a draft
nutrient TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay, which again we will be
looking at innovative ways to address the non-point sources in
particular as well as the point sources that are causing the
problems. We also have non-point source grant program and other
grant programs where we provide some financial assistance for
nutrient management.
We are working with the states on assessing the Nation's
waters. The National Lakes Assessment Report, which is due for
release in December, will include for the first time the
occurrence of microcystin, the most commonly measured algal
toxin in lakes across the country. The surveys will provide
information on nutrient levels in our waters as well. EPA is
also working with the states to support the development of
numeric nutrient water quality standards. We are engaged in
rule-making for that purpose in Florida. We are carefully
considering our response to a petition to do the same in the
Mississippi/Atchafalaya River basin and we have just recently
provided to EPA's Science Advisory Board methodologies for
states to use in developing their own criteria.
EPA has a long history of doing research whether it is in
the Great Lakes, through the ECOHAB program or through other
programs. We are also in the process of reviewing the addition
of algal toxins on the EPA Candidate Contaminant list for
drinking water. We have worked with EPA's Science Advisory
Board as well as the National Academy of Sciences, and I would
just highlight that they found that while the Clean Water Act
had much reduced direct discharges from point sources into the
Mississippi River, problems stemming from urban runoff,
agriculture and other non-point sources have proven difficult
to address. This is an issue that confronts the EPA because our
statutory authority is focused primarily on point source
pollution and we have limited regulatory authorities over non-
point source pollution.
The Office of Research and Development is working to guide
the science on Gulf hypoxia and nutrient management decisions,
to help forecast the effects of nutrient management actions
that are taken and provide options to guide restoration and
decision-making. As part of the Task Forces, we have been
actively participating as well and we chair the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
In conclusion, EPA is an active participant in research and
control of freshwater and marine hypoxia and harmful algal
blooms, and particularly their primary cause, excess nutrients.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's efforts in this area. We look
forward to working with you further on the bill. We do have
some comments that I won't provide at this time and I thank you
very much. I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schwartz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Suzanne E. Schwartz
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Suzanne Schwartz, Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, within the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). I would also like to introduce to you Dr. Rick Greene of
our Office of Research and Development, who is here with me as the
Agency's technical expert on the subject of hypoxia and harmful algal
blooms. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss some of the things EPA
is doing to address the threats to human health and our marine and
freshwater resources from harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia.
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA--THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND
ECOSYSTEMS
Harmful algae and hypoxia, or low dissolved oxygen, represent a
serious and growing threat to freshwater and marine mammals and
fisheries, as well as to human health. While the understanding of the
causes and impacts of harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events is not
complete, it is known that the death and decay of algal blooms can lead
to oxygen depletion in the water, resulting in widespread mortality of
fish, shellfish and other invertebrates. These algae can grow,
displacing native species, and altering habitat. Public health
officials and ocean resource managers have had to increasingly respond
to the adverse impacts of harmful algae by sensitive public.
There are over 405 hypoxic zones around the world (Science, 2008),
and the second largest zone in the world is located in the Gulf of
Mexico. There is strong evidence connecting hypoxia and algal blooms
with nutrient pollution--excessive nitrogen and phosphorus--in the
water, with the most significant sources of nutrients coming from
agricultural runoff, largely from the upper Mississippi River Basin, as
well as residential/commercial fertilizers, animal waste, sewage
treatment plants, and air deposition from utilities and vehicles. NOAA
has provided a conservative estimate that the cost of hypoxia and algal
blooms to the U.S. seafood and tourism industries is approximately $82
million annually.
EPA RESPONSE
Programmatic
EPA has statutory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) to implement
programs designed to provide protections for oceans and coastal waters
and freshwater lakes, rivers and streams. For example, EPA and
delegated States may issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the U.S., including the territorial seas, under section 402
of the CWA. In addition, EPA may issue section 402 permits for
discharges to ocean waters beyond the territorial seas. For discharges
to coastal and marine waters, section 403 of the CWA includes
additional requirements related to permitting such discharges. CWA
section 303 directs states to adopt water quality standards for their
waters establishing the designated uses and water quality criteria to
protect those uses. By regulation, publishes scientific information
related to water pollution. CWA section 312 addresses discharge of
sewage and other materials from vessels. EPA also works with the Army
Corps of Engineers to manage ocean dumping of dredged material under
the MPRSA. Also under the MPRSA, EPA regulates the dumping of materials
(other than dredged materials) into the ocean. Additionally, EPA has
authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to promulgate drinking
water standards for the protection human health from exposure to
contaminants, possibly including toxins created by harmful algal
blooms, which might be present in public drinking water systems.
It is clear that the discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus, and
their affect on the development of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms is
a problem, now more than ever. In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone
was among the largest ever recorded since measurements began over
twenty years ago. Last year, while it was smaller in size, it was more
severe in terms of oxygen depletion. In response, since the
introduction of HABHRCA, EPA has worked to adopt a watershed approach
to reducing nutrient discharges that involves identifying high-priority
watersheds and applying both voluntary and regulatory tools to achieve
water quality goals. In the Mississippi River Basin States, EPA has
approved a total of about 3500 nutrient-related TMDLs (Total Maximum
Daily Loads), which identify the maximum amount of pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still achieve water quality standards. The
non-point source grant program under CWA section 319, and the Targeted
Watershed Grants provide financial assistance to states that are
implementing their own nutrient management programs.
EPA is also working with the states to assess the condition of the
Nation's waters through a series of statistical surveys on rivers and
streams, lakes and reservoirs, coastal waters and wetlands. The
National Aquatic Resource Surveys are beginning to contribute
significant information we can use to evaluate the extent and impact of
toxic algae, nutrients and other key indicators. The National Lakes
Assessment report, due for release in December, will include the first
national picture of the occurrence of microcystin (the most commonly
measured algal toxin), in lakes across the country. These data will
provide valuable information in assessing the scope of toxic algal
problem nationally. The Surveys also provide information on nutrient
levels in our waters which can be related to land use, harmful algal
bloom risk levels and other issues such as hypoxia.
EPA is also working with the States to support implementation of
Clean Water Act regulatory tools through the development of numeric
nutrient water quality standards. EPA is engaged in proposed rule-
making for numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida,
following the Agency's January 2009 determination that numeric nutrient
criteria are needed in Florida. EPA is also at this time carefully
considering its response to a petition to establish nutrient criteria
within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin. The great distances
between the sources of nutrients contributing to hypoxia in the Gulf,
and the impact that factors other than nutrients--temperature,
precipitation and storm events--have on the size of the hypoxic zone,
complicate the regulatory issues.
Harmful algal blooms are of concern in the Great Lakes and other
waters because of their toxicity and impact on human and ecosystem
health. A particularly toxic species is present in have significant
cyanobacterial blooms. These blooms cause fouling of the beaches and
shoreline, economic and aesthetic losses, taste and odor impairments of
drinking water, and direct risks to human, fish and animal health.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office funds research on harmful
algal blooms research and coordinates with NOAA's Center of Excellence
for Great Lakes and Human Health (CEGLHH).
EPA has had a long-standing collaboration with NOAA through the
Interagency Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program,
authorized by HABHRCA in 1998 and 2004. A Memorandum of Understanding
that is still in effect allowed the participating agencies, EPA, NOAA,
NSF, NASA, and ONR, to fund competitive research on the causes and
impacts of HABs and to develop methods of detection, prevention and
control EPA funded nearly 30 projects between 1997 and 2006, several of
them joint efforts with NOAA.
EPA continues to evaluate the human health implications from
harmful algal blooms and the toxins they produce in drinking water. The
Agency included cyanotoxins as a group and discussed the three algal
toxins, anatoxin, microcystin, and cylindrospermopsin, on the draft
Candidate Contaminant List published in February 2008. The CCL
identifies contaminants that may occur in public water systems and may
require a drinking water regulation. The Agency sought public comment
and review by the Science Advisory Board of the draft CCL 3. EPA is
reviewing comments on the draft CCL 3 and anticipates publishing a
final list soon.
Scientific
In 2006, EPA's Office of Water requested that the EPA Science
Advisory Board (SAB) convene an independent panel to evaluate the state
of the science regarding hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and
potential nutrient mitigation and control options in the Mississippi-
Atchafalaya River basin (MARB).
The SAB Panel found that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem appears to
have gone through a regime shift with hypoxia such that today the
system is more sensitive to inputs of nutrients than in the past, with
nutrient inputs inducing a larger response in hypoxia than has been
evidenced in other coastal marine ecosystems such as the Chesapeake
Bay. Further, the SAB suggested that changes in benthic and fish
communities exposed to hypoxia are cause for concern. The recovery of
hypoxic ecosystems may occur only after long time periods or with
further reductions in nutrient inputs. If actions to control hypoxia
are not taken, the SAB warned that further ecosystem impacts could
occur within the Gulf.
In 2008 the National Academy of Science (NAS), published
``Mississippi Water Quality and the Clean Water Act,'' which found that
while the Clean Water Act had much reduced direct discharges from point
sources into the Mississippi River, problems stemming from urban
runoff, agriculture and other non-point sources had proven difficult to
address. A second NAS study, supported by the EPA entitled, ``Nutrient
Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River
Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico,'' recommended more collaborative
action between EPA and USDA. A third study, ``Clean Water Act
Implementation Across the Mississippi River Basin'' is currently
underway.
To respond to the challenge posed by hypoxia, the EPA's Office of
Research and Development has ongoing hypoxia research and modeling
activities that will help guide the science needed to address Gulf
hypoxia and support nutrient management decisions. The goal of that
effort is to develop a suite of model applications, data products and
other tools to assess and predict the relationships between nutrient
loads and Gulf hypoxia, quantify sources of error and uncertainty
associated with nutrient load reduction targets, forecast the effects
of nutrient management actions in the Basin on Gulf hypoxia, and
provide defensible options to guide restoration and decision-making.
In addition, the Office of Research and Development has published
multiple regression models that describe the relationship between the
Gulf hypoxic area and nitrate and phosphorus concentrations and spring
discharge in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya Rivers. These models explain
much of the variability in the size of the hypoxic zone over the past
25 years and provide improved capabilities for evaluating dual
nutrients management strategies to address Gulf hypoxia. However, model
predictions indicate that with gradual nutrient reductions (e.g., 45
percent over 10 years), much more than a decade would be required
before a significant downward trend in hypoxic area could be observed.
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia/Gulf Hypoxia Task Forces
In response to the human health and environmental risks posed by
the threat of excess nutrient pollution to the Nation's fresh and
marine waters, EPA, NOAA, and other federal and State agencies have
been working collaboratively to better understand, and ultimately,
manage or respond effectively and efficiently to nutrient pollution and
hypoxia in particular. EPA is an Interagency Working Group on HABs,
Hypoxia, and Human Health (IWG-4H) led by NOAA, which, among other
responsibilities, implements the reporting requirements of HABHRCA
2004.
Recently a Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms
was developed through the Interagency Working Group on HABs, Hypoxia
and Human Health (IWG-4H), which examined the causes, ecological
consequences, and economic costs of freshwater HABs. It was based, in
large part, on a workshop report from the International Symposium on
Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms (ISOC-HAB) sponsored by EPA, and
other agencies, held September 2005, which focused on: 1) occurrence of
freshwater blooms and toxins, 2) causes, prevention, and mitigation, 3)
toxins, toxin kinetics and dynamics, 4) human health and ecological
effects, 5) analytical methods for identifying and quantifying
freshwater HAB organisms and toxins, and 6) risk and/or impact
assessments for freshwater HABs.
In addition, the EPA chairs and manages the Mississippi River/Gulf
of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, comprised of fifteen States
and Federal Agencies, which work together to reduce, mitigate, and
control hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and improve water
quality in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins. In 2008, the Task
Force published their second Action Plan, identifying three goals and
eleven actions designed to accelerate the reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the Mississippi watershed, and ultimately reduce the Gulf
hypoxic zone to 5,000 km. On September 23rd and 24th, the Gulf Hypoxia
Task Force will meet in Des Moines, IA, to discuss a variety of
strategic proposals that have the potential for significant reductions
in nutrient discharges to the Gulf. The Task Force will also be
presenting its first Annual Report, and FY 2010 operating plan in a
public forum.
In conclusion, EPA believes that harmful algal blooms and hypoxia
represent serious threats to human health and the environment and we
have robust research ongoing that is targeting the causes and their
impacts. In addition, EPA is using its regulatory authority under the
Clean Water Act (including the Beach Act) to address the causes of
harmful algal blooms where necessary, and ultimately to protect human
health and the environment. The Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, which engages
federal agencies and the states in a voluntary collaborative effort, is
proposing innovative approaches to reducing nutrient discharges that
could have significant results. At the same time, EPA appreciates the
Subcommittee's efforts to improve the effectiveness of this overall
effort, and to increase the focus on the freshwater impacts of HABs and
hypoxia. We look forward to working with you in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. We will
be happy to answer your questions.
Biography for Suzanne E. Schwartz
Suzanne Schwartz is the Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) within the Office of Water. OWOW promotes a
watershed approach to manage, protect, and restore the water resources
and aquatic ecosystems of the Nation's marine and fresh waters. OWOW's
programs include wetlands regulation and restoration, regulation of
ocean dumping and vessel discharges, monitoring and assessment,
including the National Aquatic Resource Surveys, non-point source
pollution management, TMDL oversight, and building capacity of State
and local governments and watershed organizations.
Suzanne has served as the Deputy Director of OWOW since April 2007.
Previously she was the Director for EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection
Division. In this capacity she was responsible for the Clean Water Act
Nation Estuary Program; the regulation of disposal of wastes in the
ocean, and other ocean, marine and coastal programs.
Since Suzanne joined EPA in 1980 she has worked on a number of
water issues in a variety of staff and management positions. Prior to
coming to EPA, Suzanne was the founding editor of the Environmental Law
Institute's National Wetlands Newsletter. She holds a law degree from
Columbia University School of Law.
Biography for Richard M. Greene
Dr. Greene is the Chief of the Ecosystem Dynamics and Effects
Branch, Gulf Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory in EPA's Office of Research and
Development. He is the EPA lead for Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia research and
water quality research supporting nutrient criteria development in
estuarine and coastal waters. Dr. Greene serves as the EPA
representative on numerous federal/State science teams, advisory
committees and task forces, including the interagency Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task Force Coordinating
Committee. He recently co-chaired the symposium ``Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico: Assessing the State of the Science'' which was
conducted as part of the Task Force's reassessment of the 2001 Action
Plan for Reducing, Mitigating and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern
Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Greene holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Oceanography from the
State University of New York, Stony Brook, a Master of Science in
Biological Sciences from California State University, Fullerton, and a
Bachelor of Science in Biology from Oregon State University. In
addition, he was a postdoctoral researcher in the Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Sciences Division at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and a
research faculty in the Oceanography Department, Texas A&M University.
His research interests and expertise include estuarine and coastal
water quality; nutrient dynamics and eutrophication; improving the
science supporting numeric nutrient criteria development; phytoplankton
production and bloom dynamics; and coastal oceanographic processes.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.
Mr. Ayres.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAN L. AYRES, FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST,
COASTAL SHELLFISH LEAD, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE
Mr. Ayres. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
As the Washington Coastal Shellfish Manager, I am here
today to represent the many State and tribal fishery managers,
aquaculture industry managers and human health experts who,
like me, work hard to manage important shellfish resources,
allowing for the maximum socioeconomic value these resources
can provide to the small communities along the Washington
coast. We each have responsibility in our respective areas to
manage the harvest of the bountiful natural resources we have
been blessed with in the Pacific Northwest.
The West Coast aquaculture industry, which produces a large
portion of the Nation's oysters, mussels and hardshell clams,
is valued at more than $110 million annually. In an average
year, landings in the West Coast Dungeness Crab Fishery have a
value just to the fishermen of between $25 million to $45
million, making this fishery an important coastal economic
driver for the hundreds of licensed fishers, both State and
tribal, and many more people involved in shoreside processing
operations, and the fishery that I know so well, Washington
State's Recreational Razor Clam Fishery, that draws very large
numbers of participants from great distances to the small
communities along our coast during the October to May period
when few visitors would otherwise be present. The 2008-2009
season recorded just under 250,000 digger trips and generated
an estimated $12.5 million to the many small tourist-related
coastal businesses.
However, all of us find our jobs are made much more
difficult by the ever-present threat of harmful algal species
that are naturally occurring in the waters of the West Coast
and the potential harm they pose to human health. When the
growth of these species bloom and produce dangerous toxins,
then the fisheries we manage are disrupted and the activities
and income of those who depend on them are greatly impacted.
This last winter, NOAA hosted the first ever West Coast
Harmful Algal Blooms Summit. This three-day workshop in
Portland, Oregon brought together West Coast scientists, State
and tribal fishery managers, human health experts and
aquaculture industry members to design a West Coast regional
HAB monitoring, alert and response network as well as a West
Coast regional HAB forecasting network. In addition, workshop
participants also began developing a West Coast HAB research
and action plan. Joining regional expert scientists and
managers to address regional HAB problems is very valuable. The
solutions to these problems can best be found within each
region with the help, support and guidance of federal agencies.
We applaud NOAA's efforts along with representatives of the
West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health to organize and
execute the West Coast HAB summit. Direction to federal
agencies to continue to organize and fund regional workshops
that result in regional HAB research action plans around the
Nation should be an integral part of future legislation.
In 2007, I participated in a NOAA-sponsored workshop that
brought together a group of HAB researchers and coastal
managers from all around the Nation to provide input into the
National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration and
Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal
Blooms, the RDDTT plan. The major result was a call for three
new federal programs. First, a program that focuses on methods
for prevention, control and mitigation of HABs, second, a
comprehensive national HAB event response program, and third, a
core infrastructure program. While we see all three programs as
important to move the Nation ahead in addressing HAB-related
issues, as a State fishery manager, I worked hard on the HAB
Event Response Program. Today we want to strongly encourage you
to consider this as a potential new program that federal
agencies are directed to implement. Such a program will improve
access to existing resources for better response through
information sharing, communication, and coordination and will
provide essential new resources. However, improving our
national response to regional HAB events is only half the
battle. We want to encourage you to include in any future HAB
legislation support for continued research into ways to
mitigate for and some day actually prevent HAB events. The
other two programs proposed in the RDDTT plan will certainly
move the Nation in that direction. The Prevention, Control and
Mitigation Program will focus on moving promising technologies
and strategies that arise through basic research programs from
development to demonstration to technology transfer for field
application by managers. The Core Infrastructure Program will
increase availability of adequate analytical facilities,
research and reference materials, technical training and access
to data.
Finally, in reviewing the Committee's draft legislation for
the reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act, we are very concerned that two key
existing HAB programs administered by NOAA are not specifically
identified. On the Washington coast, we are now enjoying the
results from the work of two important projects that were
funded through these programs, the Monitoring and Event
Response for Harmful Algal Bloom, the MERHAB program, and
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, the ECOHAB
program. My written testimony includes specific examples of why
these programs should be continued.
So in the end, the ability to predict the onset of these
harmful algal blooms, to better respond on a region-wide basis
and to find innovative ways to mitigate and even prevent them
will be a huge step forward in allowing us to better accomplish
our mission: to provide our citizens access to some of the best
seafood in the world. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ayres follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan L. Ayres
I am pleased to submit this prepared testimony to Members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the United States House of
Representatives.
As a Washington State coastal shellfishery manager, I represent the
many State and tribal fishery managers, aquaculture industry members,
and human health experts, who like me, work hard to manage important
sustainable shellfish resources, allowing for the maximum socioeconomic
value these resources can provide to the small communities along the
Washington Coast. We each have responsibility in our respective areas--
to manage the harvest of the bountiful natural resources we've been
blessed with in the Pacific Northwest.
Each of us can tell you the story of how important these
resources--and the ability to harvest them--are to the citizens of our
State and tribal communities.
The West Coast aquaculture industry, which produces a large portion
of the Nation's oysters, mussels and hard-shell clams, is valued at
more than $110 million annually.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.pcsga.org/pub/farming/farm-benefits.shtm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an average year, landings in the West Coast Dungeness crab
fishery\2\ have a value--just to the fishermen--of between $25 to $45
million, making this fishery a very important coastal economic driver
for the hundreds of licensed fishers (both State and tribal) and many
more people involved in shore-side processing operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/crabreg/comcrab/coast/
index.htm; http://www.oregon dungeness.org/general-info/
ODCC-the-fishery.htm; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
marine/dungeness.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the fishery that I know so well, Washington State's
recreational razor clam fishery\3\ is a very popular activity that
draws very large numbers of participants from great distances to the
small communities along the Washington coast during the October to May
season when few visitors would otherwise be present. The most recent
2008-09 season recorded just under 250,000 digger trips and generated
an estimated $12.5 million to the many small tourist-related coastal
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Washington State has actively managed razor clam populations
along 58 miles of its Pacific Ocean coastline for more than 70 years.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/razorclm/razorclm.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Razor clams also provide an important source of sustenance and
much-needed income to members of the Quinault Indian Nation\4\ who have
a very long history of depending on safe sources of shellfish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://209.206.175.157/index1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, all of us find our job is made much more difficult by the
ever present threat of harmful algal species that are naturally
occurring in the waters of the Washington coast and the threat they
pose to human health.
When the growth of these species takes off--or bloom--and produce
dangerous toxins,\5\ then the fisheries we manage are disrupted and the
activities and income of those who depend on them are greatly impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Eating of fish and 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. Eating of fish and shellfish
containing saxitoxin causes human illness known a paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP). Symptoms include tingling of the lips followed by
paralyzing of the diaphragm and possible death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the Washington and Oregon razor clam fisheries have
seen numerous closures--often erasing an entire season for State and
tribal recreational and commercial fishers and creating a big economic
loss for the tourist communities who depend on these visitors.
In Puget Sound, not a year goes by when some areas are closed and
the harvest and shipment of shellfish is banned because of harmful
algae. Some of these closures can last for many months--perhaps
affecting a shellfish grower's entire annual income.
This last winter, the NOAA Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean
Research hosted the first-ever West Coast HAB (Harmful Algal Bloom)
Summit.\6\ This three day workshop, in Portland, Oregon, brought
together a large group of West Coast scientists, State and tribal
fisheries managers, human health experts and aquaculture industry
members to design a West Coast Regional HAB Monitoring, Alert and
Response Network as well as a West Coast Regional HAB Forecasting
Network. In addition, workshop participants also focused on beginning
the process of developing a West Coast HAB Research and Action Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/
HAB-Summit09/west- coast-summit.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of joining regional expert scientists and managers to
address regional HAB problems has proven to be very valuable. The
solutions to these problems can best be found within each region--with
the help, support and guidance of federal agencies. We applaud NOAA's
efforts, along with representatives of the West Coast Governor's
Agreement on Ocean Health to organize and execute the West Coast HAB
Summit.
Much work remains on these important regional plans and NOAA
remains the collaborative yet driving force that will ensure these
plans reach their goals of completion and implementation.
Direction to federal agencies to continue to organize and fund
regional workshops that result in regional HAB research action plans
around the Nation should be an integral part of future legislation.
I was honored to be invited in 2007 to participate in a NOAA-
sponsored workshop that brought together a group of HAB researchers and
coastal managers from around the Nation to provide input into the
National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Technology Transfer Plan on Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal
Blooms,\7\ (RDDTT Plan). The major result of this plan was the call for
three new federal programs. First, a program that focuses on
development, demonstration, and technology transfer of methods for
prevention, control, and mitigation of HABs; also, a comprehensive
national HAB Event Response program: and finally, a Core Infrastructure
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=43464&pt=10&p=19132
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we see all three new programs as important to move the Nation
ahead in addressing HAB-related issues, as a State fishery manager I
worked hard on the HAB Event Response Program. Today we want to
strongly encourage you to consider this as a potential new program the
federal agencies are directed to implement. Such a program will improve
access to existing resources for response through better information
sharing, communication, and coordination and provide essential new
resources. Our proposal lays out a regionally based, federal HAB Event
Response Program linked to a network of Regional HAB Coordinators.
However, it is true that improving our national response to
regional HAB events is only half of the battle. We would like today to
also encourage you to include in any future HAB legislation support for
continued research into ways to mitigate for and someday actually
prevent HAB events.
The other two programs proposed in the RDDTT Plan will certainly
move the Nation in that direction. The Prevention, Control and
Mitigation Program will focus on moving promising technologies and
strategies that arise through basic research programs from development
to demonstration to technology transfer for field application by
managers or other end-users. The Core Infrastructure Program will
increase availability of adequate analytical facilities, reference and
research materials, technical training, and access to data; improve
integration of HAB activities with existing monitoring and emerging
observational programs; and enhance communication and regional and
national coordination.
We are concerned that two key existing HAB programs administered by
NOAA are not called out specifically in the Committee's draft
legislation for the reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Blooms and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act. On the Washington Coast we now are
enjoying the results from the work of two important projects that were
funded through these programs, the Monitoring and Event Response for
Harmful Algal Bloom (MERHAB) program and Ecology and Oceanography of
Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program.
MERHAB provided five years of funding that allowed Seattle-based
NOAA HAB researchers, University of Washington oceanographers and algae
experts, State and tribal fishery managers and human health experts to
form a successful partnership we call the Olympic Region Harmful Algal
Bloom project. MERHAB funding allowed us to ramp up our ability to
monitor for harmful algal species in our marine waters--providing much
needed advance notice of potential HAB events. This endeavor started
with MERHAB funds in 2000 and transitioned to State dollars (generated
by a surcharge on shellfish licenses) in 2005. In addition, on-going
MERHAB funded programs in our region continue to add to our ability to
monitor for and respond to potential HAB events. In just the last few
days, data collected by the Oregon's MOCHA (Monitoring Oregon Coastal
HABs)\8\ project--funded by MERHAB--alerted our staff to watch closely
for increases in the harmful algae species that could produce PSP
(paralytic shellfish poison) in shellfish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://bioloc.oce.orst.edu/strutton/hab-intro.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECOHAB funding of an ambitious five-year project, ECOHAB-PNW,\9\
has provided us with valuable understanding of how HAB events initiate
in Washington's northern off-shore marine waters and how and why they
then move to our near-shore waters, potentially affecting Washington's
coastal shellfish resources. ECOHAB is also funding a new project (PNW-
TOX) that will allow University scientists in both Washington and
Oregon to look specifically at HAB events that initiate in Oregon's
off-shore waters and then move to both Oregon and southern Washington's
near-shore waters affecting shellfish resources on the coasts of both
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.ecohabpnw.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs such as MERHAB and ECOHAB are vitally needed by Washington
State and the other states of our region.
As you continue to work on the draft of the reauthorization of the
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act we urge you
to specifically direct NOAA to continue the very valuable MERHAB,
ECOHAB and the newly started PCM HAB programs.
In the end, the ability to reliably predict the onset of these
harmful algal blooms--both when and where they can be expected--to
better respond on a region-wide basis and to share expertise, and to
find new innovative ways to mitigate and even prevent these dangerous
blooms will be a huge step forward in allowing us to better accomplish
our mission--to provide our citizens safe access to some of the best
seafood found anywhere in the world.
Biography for Dan L. Ayres
Dan Ayres is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist who leads the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife's coastal shellfish unit based in
Montesano and Willapa Bay. He manages Washington's very popular razor
clam fishery and oversees the unit's work managing the coastal
Dungeness crab, pink shrimp and spot prawn fisheries, the Willapa Bay
oyster reserves and research projects in Willapa Bay.
He has also worked closely with other State and federal agencies on
harmful algal bloom issues since the marine toxin domoic acid was first
found along the Washington Coast in 1991. Dan is currently serving his
second term on the National Harmful Algal Bloom Committee. He has
represented WDFW in testimony on this topic at both the State and
federal level. He has collaborated on several national HAB plans
including: Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National
Environmental Science Strategy (2005); Harmful Algal Research and
Response: a Human Dimensions Strategy (2006); Harmful Algal Bloom
Research and Development, Demonstration and Technology Transfer--
National Workshop Report (2008). He also worked to organize the
recently held West Coast HAB Summit (2009) and is currently working
with the team developing the reports that will be products of the
summit.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Ayres.
Dr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD M. ANDERSON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, BIOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION; DIRECTOR,
U.S. NATIONAL OFFICE FOR HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS
Dr. Anderson. Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Inglis, my
name is Don Anderson and I am a Senior Scientist at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution where I direct the U.S. National
Office for Harmful Algal Blooms. I am also Co-Chair of the
National HAB Committee and have been actively involved in
research on HABs and in formulating our national HAB program.
I was asked to talk about technologies used to mitigate and
control HABs. Mitigation is a term that includes well-proven
strategies such as monitoring programs for toxins in shellfish,
public education and outreach, scientifically based siting of
aquaculture facilities, and other activities that reduce HAB
impacts. In a major advance for the United States, we are now
forecasting HABs over time scales ranging from weeks to months.
For example, an ECOHAB program in the Pacific Northwest has
identified an eddy, or a circulating water mass, off Puget
Sound that serves as an incubator for the toxic cells that
cause amnesic shellfish poisoning. This is a debilitating
illness that can cause death or permanent memory loss in some
victims. As the water spins off of that eddy, it carries cells
to shore, causing sudden and significant outbreaks that are now
easier to manage, given this understanding.
On the East Coast, again with ECOHAB and MERHAB support, we
have taken forecasting a step further and now have computer
models that allow us to evaluate conditions that caused past
outbreaks, but we can also look forward with forecasts. For the
last two years, we successfully forecast major regional red
tides months in advance and have provided weekly forecasts as
well. The value of this information is evident in the
commitment by Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire to pay
nearly one-half million dollars for the collection of data
needed to initiate these forecasts for the next two years.
Another important mitigation tool relies on DNA probes for
identifying and enumerating HAB species. In a very exciting
development this technology is now being incorporated into
robotic instruments that can be deployed remotely, collecting
water and conducting the manipulations needed to detect and
count HAB cells and measure their toxins. This brings us one
step closer to a dream that I share with many in my field--
arrays of instruments deployed along a coast that can detect
HABs, monitor their development and provide real-time data to
the computer models that then predict landfall and impacts.
This is the approach used by the Weather Service to provide
accurate weather forecasts. There are significant challenges to
do this with biological systems in the ocean but I think we are
up to that challenge.
In the area of control of marine HABs, I am afraid progress
has been regrettably slow. This is not for a lack of
strategies, as there are methods to kill HAB cells using
bacteria, parasites, viruses, chemicals or even minerals such
as clay that can be sprayed over a bloom to capture the toxic
cells and carry them to bottom sediments. The stumbling block
has been transitioning these laboratory studies to the field.
And why is this? One reason is that given a choice, scientists
will propose fundamental research on bloom dynamics, for
example, rather than undertake the risky, controversial and
highly visible task of trying to control a bloom. Another
reason is that we do not have a separate program with its own
funding line and yet another is that we have no agency that
currently has a clear mandate to control marine nuisance
organisms just like the Agricultural Research Service has for
control of terrestrial pests. To jump-start progress, this
HABHRCA legislation needs to explicitly call for a program on
prevention, control and mitigation of HABs and authorize funds
for that specific program. If the funding is significant and
targeted, scientists and engineers will participate and move
this field forward. This is also an area where the HAB
community should work with those who seek to manage invasive
species or again with agencies such as the Agricultural
Research Service.
A related comment is that we need to authorize two other
programs as detailed in my written testimony and as you have
also heard so far today. One is the National HAB Event Response
Program and the other an infrastructure program. The need for
the former was clearly evident this year when a red tide closed
shellfish beds in Maine, New Hampshire and much of
Massachusetts, leading to requests to NOAA from Senator Snowe
and from the FDA for information on the offshore extent and
status of the bloom. This led to a scramble for funds to
support cruises and personnel on a very short notice. Had there
been a national program other than response, this would have
been much more effective and timely.
I will close by saying that I am strongly supportive of the
involvement of EPA in our national HAB program. The inclusion
of freshwater HABs is important as well. This committee, I
believe, has shown great foresight and initiative in
recognizing this need and acting upon it.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald M. Anderson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Donald M.
Anderson, a Senior Scientist in the Biology Department of the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, where I have been active in the study
of red tides and harmful algal blooms (HABs) for 30 years. I am here to
provide the perspective of an experienced scientist who has
investigated many of the harmful algal bloom (HAB) phenomena that
affect coastal waters of the United States and the world. I am also
Director of the U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms, co-Chair
of the National HAB Committee, and have been actively involved in
formulating the scientific framework and agency partnerships that
support and guide our national program on HABs. Today my testimony will
briefly summarize HABs and their impacts and provide some examples of
the nature of our national HAB program and the technologies that have
been developed to help mitigate and control these outbreaks. I will
also provide my perspective on the research, programmatic, and
legislative needs to move towards a National HAB action plan, and will
offer some comments about the Committee's draft legislation for the
reauthorization of HABHRCA (Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act). Other than a few general comments, I will restrict my
comments to marine HABs, as testimony on freshwater HABs is being
provided by my colleague Dr. Greg Boyer.
Background
HABs are caused by algae--many of them microscopic. These species
sometimes make their presence known through massive ``blooms'' of cells
that discolor the water (hence the common use of the term ``red
tide''), sometimes through illness and death of humans who have
consumed contaminated shellfish or fish, sometimes through mass
mortalities of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals, and sometimes
through irritating aerosolized toxins that drive tourists and coastal
residents from beaches. Macroalgal or seaweed blooms also fall under
the HAB umbrella. Excessive seaweed growth, often linked to pollution
inputs, can displace natural underwater vegetation, cover coral reefs,
and wash up on beaches, where the odor of masses of decaying material
is a serious deterrent to tourism. As you will hear from Dr. Boyer,
there are also HABs in freshwater systems that pose threats to human,
animals, and ecosystems as a result of toxins present in drinking and
recreational waters.
With regard to human health, one major category of HAB impact
occurs when toxic phytoplankton are filtered from the water as food by
shellfish which then accumulate the algal toxins to levels that can be
lethal to humans or other consumers. These poisoning syndromes have
been given the names paralytic, diarrhetic, neurotoxic, azaspiracid,
and amnesic shellfish poisoning (PSP, DSP, NSP, AZP, and ASP). All have
serious effects, and some can be fatal. A sixth human illness,
ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP) is caused by biotoxins produced by
dinoflagellates that grow on seaweeds and other surfaces in coral reef
communities. Ciguatera toxins are transferred through the food chain
from herbivorous reef fishes to larger carnivorous, commercially
valuable finfish. Yet another human health impact from HABs occurs when
a class of algal toxins called the brevetoxins becomes airborne in sea
spray, causing respiratory irritation and asthma-like symptoms in
beach-goers and coastal residents, typically along the Florida and
Texas shores of the Gulf of Mexico.
Distribution of HAB Phenomena in the United States. With the exception
of AZP, all of the poisoning syndromes described above are known
problems within the U.S. and its territories, affecting large expanses
of coastline (Fig. 1). PSP occurs in all coastal New England states as
well as New York, extending to offshore areas in the northeast, and
along much of the west coast from Alaska to northern California.
Overall, PSP affects more U.S. coastline than any other algal bloom
problem. NSP occurs annually along Gulf of Mexico coasts, with the most
frequent outbreaks along western Florida and Texas. Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina and Alabama have also been affected
intermittently, causing extensive losses to the oyster industry and
killing birds and marine mammals. ASP has been a problem for all of the
U.S. Pacific coast states. The ASP toxin has been detected in shellfish
on the east coast as well, and in plankton from Gulf of Mexico waters.
Until recently, DSP was virtually unknown in the U.S., but a major
outbreak was recently reported along the Texas coast, resulting in an
extensive closure of shellfish beds in that area. CFP is the most
frequently reported non-bacterial illness associated with eating fish
in the U.S. and its territories, but the number of cases is probably
far higher, because reporting to the U.S. Center for Disease Control is
voluntary and there is no confirmatory laboratory test. In the Virgin
Islands, it is estimated that nearly 50 percent of the adults have been
poisoned at least once, and some estimate that 20,000-40,000
individuals are poisoned by ciguatera annually in Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands alone. CFP occurs in virtually all sub-tropical to
tropical U.S. waters (i.e., Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Guam, Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico, and many Pacific Territories). As tropical fish
are increasingly exported to distant markets, ciguatera has become a
problem for consumers far from the tropics. For example, recent
poisonings of restaurant patrons in the Washington, DC area and
elsewhere were linked to fish caught in the Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico south of Texas. The FDA
subsequently issued a letter of guidance to seafood processors that
recommends that certain fish species caught around that sanctuary
should be avoided.
Recent Trends. The nature of the HAB problem has changed considerably
over the last three decades in the U.S. Virtually every coastal state
is now threatened by harmful or toxic marine algal species, whereas 30-
40 years ago, the problem was much more scattered and sporadic. In
inland states, HABs in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and other water
bodies have increased as well. Overall, the number of toxic blooms, the
economic losses from them, the types of resources affected, and the
number of toxins and toxic species have all increased dramatically in
recent years in the U.S. and around the world (Ramsdell et al., 2005).
There are many reasons for this expansion, some of which involve
human activities. Some new bloom events likely reflect indigenous
populations that have been discovered because of better detection
methods and more observers rather than new species introductions or
dispersal events. Other ``spreading events'' are most easily attributed
to dispersal via natural currents, while it is also clear that man may
have contributed to the global HAB expansion by transporting toxic
species in ship ballast water. The U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, and the
International Maritime Organization are all working toward ballast
water control and treatment regulations that will attempt to reduce the
threat of species introductions worldwide.
Of considerable concern, particularly for coastal resource
managers, is the potential relationship between the apparent increase
in HABs and the accelerated eutrophication of coastal waters due to
human activities (Anderson et al., 2002). Some HAB outbreaks occur in
pristine U.S. waters with no influence from pollution or other
anthropogenic effects, but in other areas, linkages between HABs and
eutrophication have been noted (Anderson et al., 2008). Coastal waters
are receiving massive and increasing quantities of industrial,
agricultural and sewage effluents through a variety of pathways. Just
as the application of fertilizer to lawns can enhance grass growth,
marine algae can grow in response to various types of nutrient inputs.
Shallow and restricted coastal waters that are poorly flushed appear to
be most susceptible to nutrient-related algal problems. Nutrient
enrichment of such systems often leads to eutrophication and increased
frequencies and magnitudes of phytoplankton blooms, including HABs.
Economic and Societal Impacts. HABs have a wide array of economic
impacts, including the costs of conducting routine monitoring programs
for shellfish and other affected resources, short-term and permanent
closure of harvestable shellfish and fish stocks, reductions in seafood
sales (including the avoidance of ``safe'' seafoods as a result of
over-reaction to health advisories), mortalities of wild and farmed
fish, shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation and coral reefs, impacts
on tourism and tourism-related businesses, and medical treatment of
exposed populations. A conservative estimate of the average annual
economic impact resulting from HABs in the U.S. is approximately $82
million (Hoagland and Scatasta, 2006). Cumulatively, the costs of HABs
exceed a billion dollars over the last several decades. These estimates
do not include the application of ``multipliers'' that are often used
to account for the manner in which money transfers through a local
economy. Furthermore, individual bloom events can approach the annual
average, as occurred for example in 2005 when a massive bloom of
Alexandrium species along the New England coast closed shellfish beds
from Maine to southern Massachusetts. The impact to the Massachusetts
shellfish industry alone was estimated by the State Division of Marine
Fisheries to be $50M, with similar large impacts occurring in Maine.
Additional unquantified losses were experienced by the tourist industry
and by restaurants and seafood retailers, as consumers often avoided
all seafood from the region, despite assurances that no toxins had been
detected in many of these seafood products.
HAB Program Development
In addition to providing background information on HABs, I was
asked to comment on the technologies that are used for the mitigation
and control of HABs. I was also asked to comment on the draft HABHRCA
legislation and the need for action plans and research strategies,
including those at the regional level. Below I will highlight some of
the technologies that have been developed under past funding
initiatives. This will demonstrate some of the extraordinary progress
that has been made in our ability to monitor and manage HABs, but it
will also help to demonstrate where there are gaps in our national
program that need to be filled through specific, thematic funding
programs that I believe should be specified in the draft legislation.
Our national HAB program is viewed by many colleagues in other
disciplines as a model program that has succeeded because of its
organization and planning. As recently as 20 years ago, this was not
the case, however, as there was very little research on HABs, and that
being conducted in the academic community was scattered and unfocused.
To help rectify this problem, we formulated a National Plan (Anderson
et al., 1993) that guided activities in this field for the next 10-15
years, identifying major impediments to progress and identifying the
steps that were needed to overcome those impediments. The National Plan
was broadly based, however, encompassing ecology, physiology,
toxicology, human health, economics, ecosystem health, and many other
topics. This breadth exceeded the mandate and resources of any single
agency or program, and thus for implementation purposes, it was
necessary to break the plan into a series of programs on complementary
topics that together would meet all needs. The first thematic area was
the ``Ecology and Oceanography of HABs,'' which was addressed by the
ECOHAB program. This was followed by MERHAB (Monitoring and Event
Response of HABs), and then by Ocean and Human Health (OHH) programs.
The latter began with a partnership between the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF), who have supported four Centers for Oceans and Human
Health that include significant HAB research and outreach activities.
This program is in transition at the moment, due to the decision of
NIEHS not to participate in the renewal process for the Centers due to
budgetary issues. NSF has provided interim support, and efforts are
underway to encourage NIEHS to re-join the program. NOAA has also
created an Oceans and Human Health Initiative (OHHI) that supports
extramural research and focused activities at three federal OHHI
centers. As discussed below, several other programs are needed to
complete the national program.
Research progress and technological advances
ECOHAB projects have been highly successful in unraveling the
fundamental mechanisms behind the blooms or outbreaks of toxic and
harmful algae throughout the U.S. In some cases, the advances represent
the accumulation of knowledge that leads to a conceptual understanding
of the dynamics of blooms that can stretch for 1,000 km or more.
Imagine the complexity of the biological, chemical, and physical
phenomena that underlie blooms that occur on that scale. Yet as a
result of the ECOHAB program's sustained investment in regional survey
cruises and multi-disciplinary research teams, we now have what I
believe is the best fundamental understanding of several regional HABs
anywhere in the world. In the Northeastern U.S., for example, this has
led to our ability to forecast toxic PSP outbreaks on an annual basis,
which we have done quite successfully for the last two years, and which
we will continue to do in the future. (See www.whoi.edu/
page.do?pid=24039&tid=282&cid=41211). We also provide weekly numerical
model predictions of bloom status that are posted on the Internet and
widely used by resource managers within the region. The value of these
long and short-term forecasts is seen in the actions of three states
(Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire) who contributed nearly
$500,000 of emergency (``failed fishery'') funds for the collection of
data needed to initialize the models that will be used to forecast the
regional blooms for 2010 and 2011.
In a similar manner, a regional ECOHAB program on the west coast of
the U.S. has identified an eddy or circulating water mass off Puget
Sound that serves as a reservoir or incubator for the toxic cells that
cause ASP poisonings on that coast. (ASP is a debilitating illness that
includes permanent loss of short-term memory in some victims). As water
spins off of that eddy, it carries the cells to shore, causing sudden
and significant outbreaks that are now easier to manage given this
understanding of the source. I expect that Dan Ayres will provide more
information on the value of this type of information in his
accompanying testimony.
In the Gulf of Mexico, a second phase of the ECOHAB-Florida program
is investigating nutrient uptake by the toxic red tide organism Karenia
brevis, and is conducting surveys of nutrient concentrations in the
region that are addressing the sensitive and highly controversial issue
of the potential link between red tide blooms and nutrient inputs from
land, including those associated with agriculture and other human
activities. This ongoing research has obvious implications to policy
decisions concerning pollution and water quality in the region.
These are but a few of the advances in understanding that have
accrued from ECOHAB regional funding. Equally important are the
discoveries from smaller, targeted research projects, as well as those
that provide management tools to reduce the impacts of HABs on coastal
resources. The most effective HAB management strategies are monitoring
programs that involve sampling and testing of wild or cultured seafood
products directly from the natural environment, as this allows
unequivocal tracking of toxins to their site of origin and targeted
regulatory action. Numerous monitoring programs of this type have been
established in U.S. coastal waters, typically by State agencies. This
monitoring has become quite expensive, however, due to the
proliferation of toxins and potentially affected resources. States are
faced with flat or declining budgets and yet need to monitor for a
growing list of HAB toxins and potentially affected fisheries
resources. Technologies are thus urgently needed to facilitate the
detection and characterization of HAB cells and blooms. This need is
being addressed through the MERHAB program. MERHAB projects have
contributed valuable technologies to these ongoing monitoring programs,
such as the application of species-or strain-specific DNA ``probes''
that can be used to label only the HAB cells of interest so they can
then be detected visually, electronically, or chemically. With
technological advances that often started with ECOHAB projects and
moved to MERHAB applications, progress has been rapid and probes of
several different types are now available for many of the harmful
algae, along with techniques for their application in the rapid and
accurate identification, enumeration, and isolation of individual
species. One example of the direct application of this technology in
operational HAB monitoring is for the New York and New Jersey brown
tide organism, Aureococcus anophagefferens. The causative organism is
so small and non-descript that it is virtually impossible to identify
and count cells using traditional microscopic techniques. Antibody
probes were developed that bind only to A. anophagefferens cells, and
these are now used routinely in monitoring programs run by State and
local authorities, greatly improving counting time and accuracy.
These probes are now being incorporated into a variety of different
assay systems, including some that can be mounted on buoys and left
unattended while they robotically sample the water and test for HAB
cells. Clustered with other instruments that measure the physical,
chemical, and optical characteristics of the water column, information
can be collected and used to make ``algal forecasts'' of impending
toxicity. These instruments are taking advantage of advances in ocean
optics, as well as the new molecular and analytical methodologies that
allow the toxic cells or chemicals (such as HAB toxins) to be detected
with great sensitivity and specificity. A clear need has been
identified for improved instrumentation for HAB cell and toxin
detection, and additional resources are needed in this regard. This can
be accomplished during development of the Integrated Ocean Observing
System (IOOS) for U.S. coastal waters, and through a targeted research
program on HAB prevention, control, and mitigation (see below). These
are needed if we are to achieve our vision of future HAB monitoring and
management programs--an integrated system that includes arrays of
moored instruments as sentinels along the U.S. coastline, detecting
HABs as they develop and radioing the information to resource managers.
Just as in weather forecasting, data from instrumented networks can
also be assimilated into numerical models to improve forecast accuracy.
This capability is consistent with ECOHAB and MERHAB goals to
develop and incorporate forecasts or predictions of bloom development
and movement into management and mitigation programs. Prediction of HAB
outbreaks requires numerical models which account for both the growth
and behavior of the toxic algal species, as well as the movement and
dynamics of the surrounding water. Numerical models of coastal
circulation are advancing rapidly in the U.S., and a number of these
incorporate HAB dynamics as well. A model developed to simulate the
dynamics of the organism responsible for paralytic shellfish poisoning
(PSP) outbreaks in the Gulf of Maine is relatively far advanced in this
regard (McGillicuddy et al., 2005), and is now being transitioned from
academic use towards an operational mode. Here again, congressional
support is needed to provide the appropriations needed to turn these
academic tools into operational programs, as discussed below. Note also
that scientists from the New England region are working with colleagues
in Washington State to help them adapt the Gulf of Maine numerical
model for use in Puget Sound waters, since closely related organisms
cause PSP outbreaks in both regions.
In the Gulf of Mexico, satellite images of ocean color are now used
to detect and track toxic red tides of Karenia brevis. Bloom forecast
bulletins are now being provided to affected states in the Gulf of
Mexico by the NOAA NOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment.
The combination of warning and rapid detection is a significant aid to
the Gulf states in responding to these blooms. As is the case with the
Gulf of Maine HAB forecasting system and one for the Great Lakes,
Congressional attention is needed to provide the mandate and funding to
make these HAB forecasting systems operational within NOAA. In FY 2010,
funds were requested for this purpose in the President's budget, but
were not included in either the House or Senate appropriations. I would
like to see this operational HAB forecasting capacity within NOAA
authorized in the HABHRCA legislation, and a specific funding line
recommended.
Other practical strategies to mitigate the impacts of HAB events
include: regulating the siting of aquaculture facilities to avoid areas
where HAB species are present, modifying water circulation for those
locations where restricted water exchange is a factor in bloom
development, and restricting species introductions (e.g., through
regulations on ballast water discharges or shellfish and finfish
transfers for aquaculture). Each of these strategies requires
fundamental research such as that being conducted through ECOHAB, but
further advances would occur if they are moved to practical application
through a new program on the prevention, control, and mitigation of
HABs.
Several approaches to directly control or suppress HABs are under
study as well--similar to methods used to control pests on land--e.g.,
biological, physical, or chemical treatments that directly target the
bloom cells. Here however, progress towards direct field applications
has been slow, and efforts are needed to change the nature and the pace
of this line of investigation. To date, other than one study in which
copper sulfate was dropped from crop dusting planes to control a
Florida red tide over 50 years ago, there has not been a single effort
to control a natural HAB in U.S. waters. Another sign of the lack of
progress in this topic area is seen in the submissions of scientific
papers to the forthcoming 5th U.S. HAB Symposium--a national meeting of
U.S. HAB researchers and managers. Of the nearly 200 abstracts
submitted to this conference, only two involve bloom control studies.
The reasons for this lack of progress in bloom control will be
discussed below, and recommendations will be offered for ways to change
this worrisome trajectory, but it is not for lack of possible
strategies. One example is work conducted in my own laboratory, again
through ECOHAB support, using ordinary clay to control HABs. When
certain clays are dispersed on the water surface, the tiny clay
particles aggregate with each other and with other particles, including
HAB cells. The aggregates then settle to the ocean bottom, carrying the
unwanted HAB cells from the surface waters where they would otherwise
grow and cause harm. As with many other new technologies for HABs,
initial results are quite promising and small-scale field trials have
been conducted, but continued support is needed to fully evaluate
benefits, costs, and environmental impacts.
Another intriguing bloom control strategy is being evaluated for
the brown tide problem. It has been suggested that one reason the brown
tides appeared about 15-20 years ago in the Long Island region was that
hard clams and other shellfish stocks have been depleted by
overfishing. Removal of these resources altered the manner in which
those waters were ``grazed''--i.e., shellfish filter large quantities
of water during feeding, and that removes many microscopic organisms
from the water, including natural predators of the brown tide cells. If
this hypothesis is valid, a logical bloom control strategy would be to
re-seed shellfish in the affected areas, and to restrict harvesting.
In general, bloom control is an area where very little research
effort has been directed in the U.S. (Anderson, 1997), yet considerable
effort is needed before these means are used to control HABs in natural
waters given the high sensitivity for possible damage to coastal
ecosystems and water quality by the treatments. The U.S. lags behind
countries like Japan, China, South Korea and Australia in pursuing and
implementing bloom control strategies. At the current pace of research
and development, options for HAB control may not be in place for many
years unless a concerted effort is made to encourage and promote these
kinds of studies. As discussed below, this could be accomplished as
part of a national program on HAB prevention, control, and mitigation,
and through cooperation with other fields of science where control of
aquatic or terrestrial pests is more common.
Comments on the draft legislation
It is my belief that the 1993 National Plan provided the guidance
and perspective that led to the creation of several multi-agency
partnerships for HAB studies, and to many individual agency initiatives
on this topic. Together, ECOHAB and MERHAB have funded over $100
million in marine and freshwater (Great Lakes) HAB research since the
programs began in 1996 and 2000, respectively. Significant funding has
also been provided by the COHH and OHHI programs. After more than 10
years of strong program growth and diverse research activities, the
1993 National Plan became outdated, however, and thus was replaced by
HARRNESS (Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental
Science Strategy 2005-2015; Ramsdell et al., 2005). Several hundred
scientists and managers, from a wide array of fields, contributed to
the knowledge base on which this new national science and management
strategy is based. HARRNESS is the plan that will guide U.S. HAB
research and monitoring well into the future, and is one that I
enthusiastically support.
At the conceptual level, HARRNESS is a framework of initiatives and
programs that identify and address current and evolving needs
associated with HABs and their impacts. At the programmatic level,
several of the existing national programs will continue to function,
and new programs will need to be added. In the former category, ECOHAB
should continue to address the fundamental processes underlying the
impacts and population dynamics of HABs. Research results have been
brought into practical applications through MERHAB, a program
formulated to transfer technologies and foster innovative monitoring
programs and rapid response by public agencies and health departments.
MERHAB should also continue under the new HARRNESS framework.
Two relatively new programs (the Centers for Oceans and Human
Health (COHH) initiative of NIEHS and NSF and NOAA's OHHI) should also
continue under HARRNESS. They fill an important niche by creating
linkages between members of the ocean sciences and biomedical
communities to help both groups address the public health aspects of
HABs. The COHH focus on HABs, infectious diseases, and marine natural
products, whereas the NOAA OHHI Centers and extramural funding include
these subjects in addition to chemical pollutants, coastal water
quality and beach safety, seafood quality, sentinel species as
indicators of both potential human health risks and human impact on
marine systems. The partnership between NIEHS, NSF, and NOAA clearly
needs to be sustained and expanded in order to provide support to a
network of sufficient size to address the significant problems under
the OHH umbrella. This is best accomplished through additional funds to
these agencies, as well as through the involvement of other agencies
with interests in oceans and human health, including, for example, EPA,
NASA, FDA, and CDC.
A number of the recommendations of HARRNESS are not adequately
addressed by existing programs, however. As a result, the HAB community
needs to work with Congressional staff and agency program managers to
create new programs, as well as to modify existing ones, where
appropriate. Specific recommendations are given below in this regard.
Freshwater HABs. With the exception of the Great Lakes, which fall
under NOAA's jurisdiction, freshwater systems that are impacted by HABs
have not been comprehensively addressed in ECOHAB, MERHAB, or the OHH
HAB programs. This is because NOAA's mandate includes the Great Lakes
and estuaries up to the freshwater interface, but does not include the
many rivers, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs that are subject to
freshwater HAB problems. Freshwater HABs are an important focus within
HARRNESS, and therefore I strongly support the inclusion of EPA in the
draft HABHRCA legislation before us. More direction should be provided,
however, so that EPA and NOAA move this program forward in a productive
and efficient manner. As the draft legislation reads now, the direction
of the freshwater HAB program will be determined by the Regional
Research Action Plans. There is certainly a need for prioritization and
planning at the regional level, but national planning workshops and a
national research agenda for freshwater HABs are also needed, as was
done with the 1993 National Plan and HARRNESS for marine HABs. This is
particularly true given that two federal agencies will be involved.
Coordination and the division of responsibilities will be important
issues to resolve.
It is critical however that appropriations be increased to include
this new area of investigation. If appropriations remain level, and a
new freshwater program is established, resources will be drawn away
from marine issues that are already thinly funded, and research
progress will decrease dramatically and the productive scientific
community working on HABs will grow smaller and less effective.
The support provided to HAB research through ECOHAB, MERHAB, Sea
Grant, and other national programs has had a tremendous impact on our
understanding of HAB phenomena, and on the development of management
tools and strategies. Since HAB problems facing the U.S. are diverse
with respect to the causative species, the affected resources, the
toxins involved, and the oceanographic systems and habitats in which
the blooms occur, we need multiple teams of skilled researchers and
managers distributed throughout the country. This argues against
funding that ebbs and floods with the sporadic pattern of HAB outbreaks
or that focuses resources in one region while others go begging. I
cannot emphasize too strongly the need for an equitable distribution of
resources that is consistent with the scale and extent of the national
problem, and that is sustained through time. This is the only way to
keep research teams intact, forming the core of 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 HARRNESS and with the inter-agency effort that has been
guiding its implementation.
New Programs to be Established and Sustained. The 1998 Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act (HABHRCA) and the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (2004 HABHRCA Reauthorization)
authorized the establishment of three national programs on HABs: 1)
``Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms'' (ECOHAB) (HABHRCA
Sec. 605 (2) ); 2) ``Monitoring and analysis activities for HABs''
(renamed Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms or
MERHAB) (HABHRCA Sec. 605 (4) ); and 3) ``A peer-reviewed research
project on management measures that can be taken to prevent, reduce,
control, and mitigate HABs.'' (HABHRCA Sec. 605 (3) ). Under HABHRCA
the ECOHAB program was authorized as an interagency (NOAA, NSF, EPA,
NASA, ONR), competitive research program, led by NOAA, and the MERHAB
program was established as a NOAA competitive research program. A
Federal Register Notice (FRN), published 5/04/2009 (http://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-10187.htm), announced that NOAA was
establishing the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal
Blooms (PCMHAB) Program.
Guidelines for the PCMHAB are given in the National Scientific
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan on
Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan; Dortch et al.,
2008). The proposed RDDTT program has two other essential components.
These are: 1) a comprehensive national HAB Event Response program: and
2) a Core Infrastructure program. Together with the PCM component,
these are interdependent and critical for improving future HAB research
and management, and I therefore urge the Committee to include these as
specific, named programs in the draft legislation. Justification for
this emphasis is as follows.
Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs. Congress mandated a
program for HAB Prevention, Control and Management in the legislation
reauthorizing the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act of 1998 and again in the 2004 reauthorization. Further rationale
for this program is that much of the focus of past HAB research has
been on fundamental aspects of organism physiology, ecology, and
toxicology, so less effort has been directed towards practical issues
such as resource management strategies, or even direct bloom
suppression or control (Anderson, 1997). As discussed above, progress
in the area of bloom suppression or control has been very slow. I have
attached a commentary that I wrote for the journal Nature more than 10
years ago (Annex 1) that discussed why progress in bloom control was
advancing so slowly. Unfortunately, many of the points in that
discussion are still valid today. Among the impediments to progress is
that scientists have chosen to focus more on less controversial, and
therefore more easily funded lines of work. Societal concern about
bloom control strategies that might involve the use of chemicals or
engineered or non-indigenous organisms is significant, and therefore it
has been difficult to move research from the laboratory to the field.
In the case of my own laboratory's work on the use of clay dispersal to
control blooms, we have seen that a few vocal opponents can raise
environmental concerns that delay or stop field applications, even
though this method is environmentally benign in comparison to the
damage from the HAB itself, and that this same bloom control strategy
is used routinely elsewhere in the world to protect fish farms (e.g.,
Korea).
Yet another impediment is that there is no specific funding
specified for PCM research. As a result, PCM proposals compete with
ECOHAB and MERHAB submissions for funds. Given the controversial nature
of many PCM strategies, it is not surprising that peer reviews of the
proposals are variable and sometimes negative, and that more
conservative projects on bloom dynamics, toxin chemistry, or other
topics are selected. I therefore strongly recommend that specific
wording be inserted in the draft HABHRCA legislation to establish and
sustain a national program on Prevention, Control and Mitigation of
HABs, and that specific funds be authorized for that program.
In this context, Congressional oversight may be needed to establish
an agency mandate for control of marine and freshwater nuisance
species. Unlike the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, which
has a mandate for control of terrestrial plant pests, there is no
federal agency with this responsibility for marine waters. This is an
area where the growing concern about invasive species could be of great
help to the HAB field, as technologies, regulations, policies, and
environmental concerns are common to both fields. I can see a great
deal of value in the convening of a workshop to in which HAB
investigators would meet with those working on control strategies for
invasive species, insects, aquatic vegetation, other pest infestations,
as well as with those working on bioremediation strategies used for oil
spill and pollution events.
Event Response. A major HAB outbreak in the Gulf of Maine in 2009
highlighted the need for an Event Response program as part of the
national HAB program. During this event, virtually the entire coastline
of the State of Maine was closed to shellfish harvesting due to
dangerous levels of toxicity. The same was true for New Hampshire, and
for portions of Massachusetts. Government officials, resource managers,
and the general public were anxious for information on the offshore
extent of the bloom, and it's potential duration, yet there were no
research programs ongoing to provide such information. Senator Snowe
made a direct request to NOAA to provide this type of information,
resulting in a scramble to find funding for ships and research
personnel on short notice. Had there been a national HAB Event Response
Program, as described in the RDDTT report (Dortch et al., 2008), the
response would have been significantly more comprehensive, rapid, and
efficient.
This is but one example of the need for rapid response to HABs that
occur throughout the US. In some cases, local resources are sufficient,
but in unexpected events, or those that are more significant and
dangerous than normal, additional resources are needed that can be
rapidly mobilized and used to protect the public health and fisheries
resources. It is therefore my recommendation that specific wording for
a national HAB Event Response program be included in the HABHRCA
legislation, and that specific funds be authorized for that program.
Infrastructure. Researching and implementing new PCM strategies and
improving event response will not be possible without certain types of
infrastructure, including chemical analytical facilities, reference and
research materials, toxin standards, HAB culture collections, tissue
banks, technical training centers, and databases. At the present time,
many of these facilities or resources are maintained by individual
investigators or laboratories, with no centralized coordination or
support. Personally, I maintain a culture collection of HAB species
that exceeds 400 strains, yet I do not receive direct funding for its
expenses. For other infrastructure needs, the necessary resources to
not exist, and therefore funds are needed to provide these to the HAB
community. For example, analytical standards for some HAB toxins are
not available, severely restricting research and management progress.
Likewise, molecular probes that allow the accurate and rapid
identification of HAB species are also not universally available.
The RDDTT report (Dortch et al., 2008) identifies and prioritizes
infrastructure needs for the national HAB program. What is needed is
the Congressional recognition of the need for such a program, and
therefore I recommend that specific wording for a national HAB
infrastructure program be included in the HABHRCA legislation, and that
funds be authorized for this specific program.
Although PCMHAB will be the program that the public will most
readily perceive as 'progress' in the management of HABs, the program
is part of an integrated approach to HAB risk management that must
include Event Response and Infrastructure programs. Furthermore, since
many agencies are involved in HAB research and response, it will be
necessary to specify that these new programs should be interagency
partnerships, and funding should be provided to agencies with major
roles. In addition to NOAA, NSF, and EPA, other agencies, such as FDA,
CDC, NSF, and NIEHS also contribute substantially and should be named
as partners in the national HAB program.
Regional Research Action Plans. As emphasized above, HAB phenomena are
diverse throughout the US, and therefore impacts and research needs
will vary across regions. I therefore support the congressional
directive to create regional research action plans through a series of
meetings involving managers, scientists, government officials,
industry, and other stakeholders. My only concern here is the timescale
for these meetings. Having participated in a very successful meeting of
this type in Florida, I know that a significant cost is involved, and
that considerable time is needed to plan, convene, and then report on
the results of such a meeting. Given the inclusion of ``freshwater''
regions involving inland states, of which there may be many, I can
envision NOAA HAB program officials struggling to organize and run a
large number of meetings in a short period of time, and having to
commit significant funds that would otherwise be directed to research.
I would thus recommend a more gradual approach to the regionalization.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The diverse nature of HAB phenomena and the hydrodynamic and
geographic variability associated with different outbreaks throughout
the U.S. pose a significant constraint to the development of a
coordinated national HAB program. Nevertheless, the combination of
planning, coordination, and a highly compelling topic with great
societal importance has initiated close cooperation between officials,
government scientists and academics in a sustained attack on the HAB
problem. The rate and extent of progress will depend upon how well
federal agencies work together, and on how effectively the skills and
expertise of government and academic scientists can be targeted on
priority topics that have not been well represented in the national HAB
program. The opportunity for cooperation is clear, since as stated in
the ECOHAB science plan (Anderson, 1995), ``Nowhere else do the
missions and goals of so many government agencies intersect and
interact as in the coastal zone where HAB phenomena are prominent.''
The HAB community in the U.S. has matured scientifically and
politically, and is fully capable of undertaking the new challenges
inherent in an expanded national program, exemplified in HARRNESS. This
will be successful only if a coordinated interagency effort can be
implemented to focus research personnel, facilities, and financial
resources to the common goals of a comprehensive national strategy.
In summary:
Marine HABs are a serious and growing problem in the
U.S., affecting every coastal state; freshwater HABS are an
equally significant problem in inland states. HABs impact
public health, fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and coastal
aesthetics. HAB problems will not go away and will likely
increase in severity.
HABs are just one of many problems in the coastal
zone that are affected by nutrient inputs and over-enrichment
from land. They represent a highly visible indicator of the
health of our coastal ocean. More subtle impacts to fisheries
and ecosystems are likely occurring that are far more difficult
to discern.
A coordinated national HAB Program was created over
15 years ago and partially implemented. That National Plan has
been updated with a new plan called HARRNESS that can guide the
next decade or more of activities in HAB research and
management.
Recommendations:
Sustain and enhance support for the national HAB
program HARRNESS.
Sustain and enhance support for the ECOHAB, MERHAB
and OHH programs, and authorize new programs. In the latter
context, a separate program on the practical aspects of HAB
prevention, control and mitigation (PCMHAB) needs to be
authorized, as it was in past HABHRCA legislation, and two new
programs (HAB Event Response and HAB Infrastructure) should be
authorized as well, each with a specific amount of funds to
insure that resources are indeed directed to these programs by
NOAA and EPA.
Recognize that NOAA will require funds for operations
in support of HAB management, such as HAB forecasting;
authorize these activities with specific language, and specific
funding allocations.
Encourage interagency partnerships, as the HAB
problem transcends the resources or mandate of any single
agency.
Freshwater HABs are an important focus within
HARRNESS, and therefore EPA should be included in the draft
HABHRCA legislation. More direction should be provided,
however, so that EPA and NOAA move this program forward in a
productive and efficient manner. For example, national planning
workshops and a national research agenda for freshwater HABs
are needed, given that two federal agencies will be working on
the topic. The direction of the freshwater program should not
be determined solely by Regional Research Action Plans.
Encourage methods and instrument development for
land-and mooring-based HAB cell and toxin detection, and for
bloom forecasting through instrument development support for
the Integrated Ocean Observing System.
Recommend appropriations that are commensurate with
the scale of the HAB problem in both marine and fresh waters.
The national HAB program is well established and productive,
but it needs additional resources if new topics,
responsibilities and tasks are added through new legislation.
Research should be peer-reviewed and competitive, and should
take full advantage of the extensive capabilities of the
extramural research community.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer information that is based on my own research and
policy activities, as well as on the collective wisdom and creativity
of numerous colleagues in the HAB field. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other Members may have.
Literature citations:
Anderson, D.M. 1997. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388:513-
514.
Anderson, D.M. (Ed.). 1995. ECOHAB: The ecology and oceanography of
harmful algal blooms--A research agenda. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. 66 pp.
Anderson, D.M., J.M. Burkholder, W.P. Cochlan, P.M. Glibert, C.J.
Gobler, C.A. Heil, R. Kudela, M.L. Parsons, J.E. Rensel, D.W.
Townsend, V.L. Trainer, and G.A. Vargo. 2008. Harmful algal
blooms and eutrophication: Examining linkages from selected
coastal regions of the United States. Harmful Algae 8:39-53.
Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. 1993. Marine Biotoxins
and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Tech. Report, WHOI 93-02. Woods Hole, MA. 59 pp.
Anderson, D.M., P.M. Glibert, and J.M. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful algal
blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and
consequences. Estuaries 25(4b):704-726.
Dortch, Q., Anderson, D., Ayres, D., and Glibert, P., editors, 2008.
Harmful Algal Bloom Research, Development, Demonstration and
Technology Transfer: A National Workshop Report. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA. http://www.whoi.edu/
fileserver.do?id=43464&pt=10&p=19132
Hoagland, P. and S. Scatasta. 2006. The economic effects of harmful
algal blooms. In E. Graneli and J. Turner, eds., Ecology of
Harmful Algae. Ecology Studies Series. Dordrecht,
TheNetherlands: Springer-Verlag.
McGillicuddy, D.J., Jr., D.M. Anderson, D.R. Lynch, and D.W. Townsend.
2005. Mechanisms regulating large-scale seasonal fluctuations
in Alexandrium fundyense populations in the Gulf of Maine:
Results from a physical-biological model. Deep-Sea Res. II
52(19-21):2698-2714.
Ramsdell, J.S., D.M. Anderson, and P.M. Glibert (Eds). 2005. HARRNESS.
Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental
Science Strategy 2005-2015. Ecological Society of America,
Washington, DC, 96 pp.
Annex 1. Turning back the harmful red tide. (Nature 388:513-514. 1997)
Biography for Donald M. Anderson
Don Anderson is a Senior Scientist in the Biology Department of the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), where he also serves as
Director of the Cooperative Institute for the North Atlantic Region. He
served as Director of WHOI's Coastal Ocean Institute, from 2004 to
2008. He earned a doctorate from MIT in 1977 and joined the WHOI
scientific staff in 1978. In 1993, he was awarded the Stanley W. Watson
Chair for Excellence in Oceanography, in 1999 was named a NOAA
Environmental Hero, and in 2006 received the Yasumoto Lifetime
Achievement Award from the International Society for the Study of
Harmful Algae.
Anderson's research focus is on toxic or harmful algal blooms
(HABs). His research ranges from molecular and cellular studies of
toxin genetics and regulation to the large-scale oceanography and
ecology of the ``blooms'' of these micro-organisms.
Along with an active field and laboratory research program,
Anderson is heavily involved in national and international program
development for research, monitoring, and training on marine biotoxins
and harmful algal blooms.
Anderson is author or co-author of over 240 scientific papers and
13 books.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Boyer.
STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY L. BOYER, PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY,
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND FORESTRY; DIRECTOR, NEW YORK'S GREAT LAKES RESEARCH
CONSORTIUM
Dr. Boyer. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, thank you
for inviting me to testify at this hearing. My name is Greg
Boyer I am a Professor of Biochemistry at the State University
of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry and
Director of New York's Great Lakes Research Consortium. I have
worked on harmful algal blooms for more than 35 years including
marine and freshwater toxins, but today I would like to
specifically address freshwater harmful algal blooms in this
draft legislation.
The written testimonies provided will expand on many of the
facts and details, so let me briefly review just a few key
points. Marine and freshwater blooms are caused by the very
rapid growth of microscopic plant-like organisms, but unlike
marine systems, most freshwater blooms are caused by blue-green
algae, which is actually a photosynthetic bacteria. This makes
them similar but not identical to their marine counterparts, so
therefore some of the treatment options will be the same, but
many of the approaches for prevention, control and mitigation
of these freshwater blooms will be different than those for
marine systems.
Some marine blooms produce very toxic compounds. Saxitoxin,
a neurotoxin found in both marine and freshwater systems, is
one of the most toxic nonprotein toxins known and is a
regulated biowarfare agent. Microcystins, a common liver toxin
found in blooms in every state of the union, goes by the
trivial name of ``fast death factor.'' An outbreak in the
Potomac River caused 5,000 to 8,000 cases of human
gastrointestinal illness. Anatoxin-A, another neurotoxin
produced by blue-green algae, goes by the trivial name is very
fast death factor. A recent bloom in Lake Champlain resulted in
the deaths of several family pets. These dogs barely made it
off the beach before collapsing and dying in front of the
family's children. Simply put, these are not nice compounds.
Toxic blooms are becoming much more common and being
reported in new locations each year. A recent study from my own
laboratory found 50 percent of the samples collected from
western Lake Erie over the last five years had measurable
levels of toxin. That number is probably typical for any
impacted water body in the United States.
Our existing HAB research programs have been very
successful for coastal waters. This is especially true for
marine systems where their interagency program, ECOHAB, has
made tremendous strides in understanding the ecology of harmful
algal blooms in the western Gulf of Maine and in the Gulf of
Mexico. Similarly, NOAA's MERHAB program has developed exciting
new technologies for monitoring blooms both in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Great Lakes region. I am also strongly
supportive of NOAA's new program in prevention, control and
mitigation. These programs need to be continued and all three
programs adequately funded so they can continue to provide for
essential research in their respective areas.
However, freshwater algal blooms offer an additional
challenge. Most of the pictures you have been watching did not
occur in the Great Lakes and are thus not under NOAA's
jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act clearly give the U.S. EPA oversight of our nation's
freshwater resources; thus, U.S. EPA needs to be more actively
involved in both development and implementation of a freshwater
harmful algal bloom research and control program. The bill
under discussion needs to provide clear direction to U.S. EPA
as to their role. It needs to provide sufficient authority and
it needs to allocate funds necessary to carry out that work. It
should clearly delineate U.S. EPA's responsibility for
freshwater HABs and direct NOAA and the U.S. EPA to
cooperatively administer the program where they have
overlapping jurisdictions so that duplication can be avoided. I
also want to emphasize that providing funds for extramural
research is absolutely essential to the success of the HAB
programs and the best way to harness the vast talents of the
scientific community at large.
Freshwater HABs adversely impact all segments of U.S.
society: north, south, east, west and in the middle, and the
impacts on health, ecology and economics on affected
communities is large. These programs require a federally
directed program with interagency cooperation and the
recognition that different research will be needed for
different areas. We cannot borrow from one program to pay for
another. Therefore, I would like to thank the Committee for
having the foresight to understand the gaps in our efforts and
work towards trying to improve the Nation's water quality, both
in marine and freshwater systems. With that, I will end my
comments. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Boyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory L. Boyer
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Gregory Boyer, and I am a Professor of Biochemistry at the State
University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry
(SUNY-ESF). I am also the Director of New York's Great Lakes Research
Consortium (NY-GLRC), a Consortium of over 300 scientists located at 18
New York academic institutions and seven Canadian affiliate
institutions with interests in all aspects of Great Lakes Science and
Policy. However more importantly, I am a career scientist who has
worked on the chemistry and ecology of harmful algal blooms (HABs) for
more than 35 years, starting from my Ph.D. work on the chemistry of
paralytic shellfish poisons, the neurotoxins produced by selected
marine red tides, and continuing in my current work on the toxins
produced by freshwater HABs. In 2002, I became the lead scientist for
MERHAB-Lower Great Lakes, a NOAA-sponsored regional program to develop
monitoring and event response protocols for harmful algal blooms in the
lower Great Lakes. Working with MERHAB-LGL, NOAA's Oceans and Human
Health Initiative (OHHI), and with the US-EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO), I have spent many thousands of hours on our
Great Lakes and inland waterways examining and responding to freshwater
harmful algal blooms. I also operate a rapid response laboratory at
SUNY-ESF for toxic HAB samples submitted from hospitals, health
departments, State environmental conservation agencies, lake monitoring
organizations and concerned citizens from across North America. These
efforts give me a unique ground-up perspective from the needs of our
national program to address both marine and freshwater HABs.
Today, my colleagues, Donald Anderson and Dan Ayres, will speak to
you about marine harmful algal blooms so I would like to confine my
comments to the issue with Freshwater HABs. This topic was first
brought to your attention in a hearing last summer by Dr. Ken Hudnell.
Here, I would like to summarize the types and impacts of freshwater
harmful algal blooms in the United States, as well a comment
specifically on the proposed legislation that is being developed by
Chairman Bart Gordon that directs the EPA to participate in freshwater
HAB research and authorizes funds for freshwater research applications.
BACKGROUND
Blooms of freshwater algae occur across the United States and
around the world. Under the proper conditions of light, temperature,
and nutrients, these small aquatic plant-like organisms can grow to
extremely dense concentrations, blocking out light from reaching the
water below the surface, clogging the water intakes of our nation's
power and industrial plants, and leading to taste and odor issues with
our drinking water. Unsightly and smelly surface accumulations
interfere with the use of local beaches and recreational parks, leading
to a decrease in the recreational and tourism dollars flowing to small
businesses and local municipalities. Upon their death, the decay of
these blooms can consume the available oxygen in the water column,
leading to fish kills and local hypoxia [low oxygen concentrations].
Freshwater HABs are not simply a nuisance issue. In addition to
those generalized effects described above, there are a number of
freshwater algal species that produce extremely potent toxins. When
these occur in natural systems, bad things can happen, including
illness and mortalities to domestic animals, widespread loss of fish
and wildlife, and potential harm to humans using the waters for
drinking or recreational purposes.
Toxins and Their Health Effects
There are currently more than 300 different toxins reported to be
produced by freshwater algae. These toxins vary widely in their
chemistry, their effect on ecosystems, and in their potential effect on
animals and humans who are exposed to them. Most toxins are produced by
a group of 20 or more species of blue-green algae (a.k.a.
cyanobacteria); however there are also species that are not blue-green
algae that produce of toxins that have dramatic impacts on aquaculture
and fish communities. Some of the major toxins and species include:
Peptide Liver Toxins. The peptide liver or hepatotoxins called
microcystins are probably the most common toxins produced by blue-green
algae. Microcystins are named for the genus of cyanobacteria
(Microcystis) from which they were first identified. Subsequent work
has shown that they can be produced by a number of different genera and
species. The peptide toxins also include a second, closely-related
group of compounds (nodularins) that are usually associated with more
saline environments such as marine systems, the Great Salt Lake in
Utah, or the Salton Sea in California. Microcystis is an extremely
common genus of cyanobacteria and it is likely this toxin will be found
in every state of the United States. It has been associated with recent
animal fatalities in the Midwest, Northeast, and Oregon, and is of
major concern to drinking water suppliers that must use impacted waters
(example: western basin of Lake Erie) as their source water. One of the
first describe toxic events in the United States (1931) refers to an
outbreak of Microcystis in the Ohio and Potomac Rivers that caused
intestinal illness in an estimated 5,000-8,000 people. Nebraska (2004)
recently experienced a similar event on a smaller scale with a number
of dog, livestock, and wildlife fatalities, and more than 50 accounts
of human skin rashes, lesions and flu-like gastrointestinal illness.
Microcystins have been linked with animal deaths and human
illnesses all over the world. The acute human toxicity of these toxins
was graphically observed in Brazil in 1996, when naturally occurring
concentrations of toxin in the water supply for a hemodialysis center
led to the death of over 50 patients. There are also concerns over
long-term sub-acute exposure. Microcystin-LR, the most studied member
of the class, was recently reclassified by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer into risk group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans)
based on a review of existing scientific evidence. This raises further
questions about the risk from chronic exposure to this group of toxins
through drinking water supplies. To date, the United States does not
have regulatory standards or guidelines for the concentrations of
cyanobacteria toxins allowed in drinking water. However standards exist
at both the international level (World Health Organization), national
level (e.g., Australia Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Spain), and exist or are under development at the State
Level (CA, FL, IA, NE and OR). The US-EPA, as a first step for issuing
such as standard, placed microcystins on its Critical Contaminant List
or CCL as described under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as amended
in 1996. The drinking water CCL is a list of priority contaminants,
known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, where further
research may be necessary before US-EPA can decide if a regulatory
ruling is needed under the SDWA. Microcystins have been on the US-EPA's
CCL-1 (1998), CCL-2 (2005), and now CCL-3 (2008). They remain on the
CCL, in part, because of missing information in terms of their health
effects, routes of exposure and analytical methodology. The US-EPA, as
part of their toxicological assessment associated with the CCL, has
determined that microcystins, anatoxin-a and cylindrospermopsin
(discussed below) are the cyanobacterial toxins of most concern
(highest priority), followed by paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)
toxins and anatoxin-a(S).
Freshwater Cytotoxins. The second group of cyanobacterial toxins is the
cylindrospermopsin derivatives. This group is also produced by a number
of different genera of cyanobacteria, including members of the genus
Cylindrospermopsis for which they are named. The major toxin,
cylindrospermopsin, results in generalized cell death (cytotoxin) but
have also been linked to DNA damage as well as possible tumor
initiation. However, in accordance with US-EPA ``Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment'' (2005), this toxin should be listed as
``inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential'' until
further studies have been completed.
Cylindrospermopsin-producing species are generally associated with
tropical or arid environments, and toxic Cylindrospermopsis blooms are
common in the warmer drinking water reservoirs of Florida. Recently,
the major potentially-toxic species (C. raciborskii) has been
identified in temperate Europe and in several of the Great Lake States
(MI, OH, WI), suggesting that its observed range has expanded from
southern states (FL, NC) to more northern temperate climates. The
factors responsible for this potential spread and the production of
toxins in these more northern climates are an area of active
investigation.
Freshwater Neurotoxins. A third class of toxins are the neurotoxic
cyanobacterial toxins; anatoxin, anatoxin-a(S), and the PSP toxins
discussed below. The most important member of the class, anatoxin-a,
was originally reported from an Anabaena species (hence the name), but
like the microcystins, this toxin can be produced by a number of
different species and genera. Blooms containing anatoxin-a in many
states across the United States. They have recently been associated
with domestic animal (dog) and livestock (cattle) fatalities in NY, VT,
OR, and in the mid-western states. A toxic bloom containing anatoxin-a
occurred as recently as this last month in Elk Creek (Douglas County,
OR). This bloom resulted in the deaths of several household pets and
widespread media coverage of the event.
A second neurotoxin, anatoxin-a(S), is very distinct in both its
chemistry and mode of action from anatoxin-a. Originally differentiated
from anatoxin-a because the affected dogs showed extremely salivation
(hence the S), this toxin is commonly reported in the prairie states.
However anatoxin-a(S) symptoms are identical to organophosphate
pesticide intoxication and hence its occurrence is likely under-
reported in this and in other regions of the country.
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Toxins. These freshwater toxins are
produced by selected strains of blue-green algae and are very similar
or identical to the PSP neurotoxins produced by marine red-tide
dinoflagellate species. Blue-green algae produce a larger variety of
PSP toxins than their marine counterparts, with almost twice as many
different variations in chemical structures. Several toxins, including
saxitoxin, are produced by both freshwater and marine algae. Saxitoxin
is considered one of the most potent ``non-protein'' toxins known with
a toxicity about 1,000 times greater than cyanide. Saxitoxin is a
regulated biological warfare agent listed in the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 through the
``Select Agents'' program. Production of PSP toxins have been
associated with domestic and wild-life fatalities in the United States,
but a major bloom (to my knowledge) has never occurred in a drinking
water supply reservoir. Such blooms have occurred in Australia, leading
to the deaths of tens of thousands of livestock and forcing entire
communities to shift to bottled or tanker water supplies.
Golden Algae Fish Toxins. Most toxic freshwater blooms are caused by
cyanobacteria; however there are a number of non-cyanobacterial toxic
species that are important in saline or aquaculture facilities. Perhaps
the most problematic are the blooms of the fish-killing species
Prymnesium parvum, which is also referred to as a ``golden algae''.
These blooms were first suspected of causing massive fish kills in
Texas in the mid 1980's. Since that time, the blooms of golden algae
have expanded and been reported in nine southern states (TX, NM, CO,
NC, SC, GA, AR, AL and OK) and are suspect in two others (NE, FL).
These blooms have been estimated to kill more than 17 million fish
worth over $6.5 million dollars in Texas alone and now threaten the
survival of several endangered or threatened fish species. They
continue to result in the loss of millions of dollars to local
economies due to a decrease in fish-related tourism each year.
In addition to these major categories described above, there have
been a large number of different toxic events where either the bloom
was not directly associated with the die-off of an easily observable
species, or where a definitive cause and effect relationship has not be
established. Harmful algal blooms can cause dramatic changes in
ecosystems through the effect on the lower food web. They may also be
responsible for many of the common ailments (e.g., swimmers itch)
experienced by recreational users that come in contact with these
blooms.
Occurrence and Causes of Freshwater HABs in the United States
As evidenced from the discussion above, freshwater toxic algal
blooms are not confined to any geopolitical boundaries. Blooms of toxic
blue-green algae are widespread and have occurred in all 50 states of
the United States (Figure 1). While not all blooms of cyanobacteria are
toxic, many of the toxic species are cosmopolitan or widely distributed
between ecosystems. Blooms are not confined to large lakes such as the
Great Lakes, but occur in all sorts of water bodies ranging from
smaller prairie potholes, rivers, reservoirs, impoundments to large
lake ecosystems.
A recent study by a NOAA-sponsored regional program to look at the
occurrence of toxic algal blooms in the lower Great Lakes (MERHAB-LGL)
has found that 50 percent of the samples collected from western Lake
Erie over the last decade contained detectable levels of blue-green
algal toxins. A significant fraction of these samples also exceeded the
World Health Organization's guidelines for safe drinking water. As the
Great Lakes in total contain more than 84 percent of North America's
fresh surface waters, 22 percent of the world's fresh surface waters,
and currently provide drinking water for more than 40 million people,
broad scale efforts to protect these essential resources from HABs are
essential.
These studies in the Great Lakes are not an exception. Similar to
the Great Lakes, there has been a rapid proliferation of toxic
cyanobacteria blooms in other freshwater ecosystems, including those in
the Northeast (VT, NY), Midwest (NE, IA), southern (FL), and western
states (NM, CO, OR). Broad scale studies in Europe and the mid-western
United States have shown a similar high percentage ( 50 percent) of
their blooms contain toxic species and/or toxins. Each year, new toxic
blooms are reported in areas where they have not been previously
reported. The increased number of scientific papers on freshwater
harmful algal blooms over the last several decade, the increased
numbers of reports in the popular press, and the increase in health
advisories due to cyanobacterial toxins all suggest that, if anything,
the occurrence of toxic freshwater blooms has increased over the past
30-40 years.
Causes and Costs of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms.
Blooms of freshwater algae, especially cyanobacteria, are triggered
by a number of factors. These include, but is not limited to:
Increases in nutrient loading from point and non-
point sources. Like all plant species, freshwater algae must
obtain the basic building blocks of nitrogen and phosphorus
needed for growth. These are often obtained through runoff due
to agricultural or land-use practices in the surrounding
watershed. For example, the US-EPA has recently started
extensive efforts to look at nutrient inputs from the
watersheds surrounding the Maumee River region [near Toledo,
OH] in western Lake Erie as a causative factor for the large
blooms of toxic blue-green algae that occur in the western
basin.
Extended periods of high solar radiation that promote
photosynthesis. This means bright, sunny days such as those
that often come at the end of the summer season.
Warm temperatures that can accelerate the growth of
the organisms and lead to thermal stratification or separation
of the water column into distinct layers.
Calm wind conditions that also lead to a stable water
column with little mixing. This can allow buoyant species to
rise to the surface and shade competing species. Changes in
hydrology, such as the formation of an impoundment in a
normally flowing river may also increase the intensity and
occurrence of bloom events.
Changes in the ecosystem through the introduction of
invasive species such as dreissenid mussels that selectively
feed on non-cyanobacterial species. This can provide a
selective pressure for the formation of selected species.
These general conditions lead to increased blooms of all algae, not
specifically harmful or toxic algal species. We have a very poor
understanding of those environmental factors that specifically lead to
the formation of a toxic bloom over a non-toxic bloom. This lack of
basic scientific research has hampered our efforts to design specific
remediation techniques for freshwater HABs, to forecast the occurrence
of toxic blooms, and to predict the effects of large- scale ecosystem
changes such as global climate change on freshwater harmful algal
blooms.
For the same reason, it is difficult to provide an economic
assessment for the costs associated with a toxic freshwater algal bloom
in comparison to the costs associated with a non-toxic bloom. Dodds and
co-workers from Kansas have calculated that the annual value of losses
in recreational water usage, waterfront real estate, alteration of
ecosystem structure, loss of endangered species, fish kills, and
impacts on drinking water exceed $2.2 billion dollars annually as a
result of eutrophication in U.S. freshwaters due to increased nutrients
and the resulting algal growth. Not all of these expenses are due to
harmful algae, but anecdotal information provided by large water
providers in states such as Florida suggest that their treatment costs
needed to ensure water safety may increase more than a $100,000 per
week in response to a toxic cyanobacteria bloom. Added to this would be
the millions of dollars in lost recreational activities, monitoring and
response expenses, health care costs, and damage to the aquaculture/
fishing industry. In addition, there are also costs where it is
difficult to assign a monetary value, e.g., what is the value for the
loss of an endangered or threatened species or permanent changes to an
ecosystem? Our nation's freshwaters have faced increasing stress due to
rising population pressure, land use changes, and the increased demand
for freshwater resources. Once a harmful algal bloom becomes
established in a given ecosystem, it is very difficult and costly to
reverse the situation. Research funds spent understanding the basic
science surrounding a toxic bloom, followed by translation of that
knowledge into specific prevention, control, and mitigation
technologies are funds well spent in the long run.
NEED FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FRESHWATER HABs.
Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act in 1998 to authorize funds for research on marine HABs and
hypoxia. This Act was expanded in the 2004 Reauthorization Act to
include all freshwater bodies. This latter act also calls for a series
of reports to clearly assess the status and outline our research needs.
Members of the scientific community and the Interagency Working Group
on Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia and Human Health (IWG-4H) have
prepared a number of reports, including the ``Scientific Assessment of
Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms,'' ``Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal
Blooms, State of the Science and Research Needs,'' and the ``Harmful
Algal Blooms Research Development Demonstration and Technology
Transfer'' (HAB RDDTT) report. These reports clearly document an
increased awareness on a national scale of impacts such as toxin-
contaminated drinking water or seafood, mortality of fish and wildlife,
damages to aquaculture enterprises, economic losses in coastal and
lake-side communities from HABs and the impacts on Public Health. They
also clearly identify the research needs and limitations to progress,
as well as provide a path forward to protect against long-term
ecosystem change.
The marine HAB community has benefited tremendously from the
initial 1993 national plan for harmful algal blooms and the subsequent
formation of the competitive, peer-reviewed, merit-based interagency
research program in Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
(ECOHAB) and NOAA's Monitoring and Event Response of Harmful Algal
Blooms (MERHAB), as called for in the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Amendment Act of 2004. These programs have led to dramatic increase in
our understanding of marine bloom events, increases in detection
technology, improvements in event response, a better understanding of
the societal aspects of harmful algal blooms, and an overall
improvement in coordination between agencies.
Freshwater HABs and their root causes do not respect geopolitical
and agency boundaries. Thus a regional and multi-agency approach is
again required. We need a similar emphasis on freshwater ecosystems,
including, but not limited to, the Great Lakes ecosystems. As called
for in the Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms,
prepared by the IWG-4H, a successful freshwater HAB program must foster
collaboration between agencies, minimize unnecessary duplication, and
provide the essential resources for those agencies to carry out their
mission. Furthermore, Congress must all authorize sufficient funding
levels for each of these programs (Freshwater HABs, ECOHAB, MERHAB and
Prevention Control and Mitigation) if they are collectively to have a
chance for success, not simply shift funds from one to another.
Of key importance is the question of which agency should direct
this important endeavor for freshwater systems. The Department of
Commerce through NOAA has a mandated requirement to protect our marine
environments, the Great Lakes and estuaries. However, the Clean Water
Act of 1968 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (and amendments)
provide for US-EPA oversight of our nation's freshwater resources that
we use for drinking, swimming and recreational purposes. Previously,
EPA, NOAA and other agencies joined together in soliciting research
proposals for funding from the ECOHAB competitive research-grant
program. Each agency reviewed and selected research proposals for
funding by their agency that were appropriate for the agency's mission.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of clear authority from Congress and
limited funding resources to research, monitor, control and prevent
freshwater HABs, the EPA has withdrawn or limited its support for HAB
research grant programs over the past several years. EPA participation
in HAB-related programs and funding HAB research is essential and EPA
needs to reestablish their participation in those grant programs.
Critical research is needed to assess the frequency and concentrations
with which cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins occur in recreational and
finished drinking waters. Health research is needed to obtain the dose-
response data needed to set limits for safe exposure to cyanobacterial
toxins, and for determining cancer assessments. Alternative routes of
exposure such as fish consumption need to be carefully evaluated in
these risk assessments. Risk management research is needed to assess
the efficacy and sustainability of ecological and chemical approaches
to freshwater HAB control, to develop improved and less expensive
control technologies, and to devise enhanced mitigation strategies. New
techniques in molecular biology, biochemistry and chemistry need to be
applied to this problem as we constantly challenge the classical
definitions of what is a ``toxic'' or ``non-toxic'' bloom. Thus, all of
these recommendations and technologies need to be based on the best
available science in this rapidly changing field.
The organisms and causes of freshwater HABs are very different from
those that cause marine HABs, and therefore potential control and
remediation technologies are also likely to be very different between
marine and freshwaters systems. A freshwater HAB program that
specifically addresses those differences is needed. These freshwater
locations needs to extend beyond the Great Lakes into other impacted
large water bodies such as Lake Champlain (VT) and Lake Mead (NV, AZ)
and even to smaller freshwater ecosystems such as the Klamath River
(CA, OR) or Elk Creek (OR) which suffer from freshwater HABs. Congress
needs to provide the US-EPA with a clear statutory mandate to
participate in freshwater HAB research, and authorize funding for that
research. The EPA, working with other affected agencies, needs to
develop a comprehensive National Freshwater-HAB Research and Control
Program, just as NOAA has done for HABs in oceans, estuaries, and the
Great Lakes, and the US-EPA needs to work with NOAA in administering
this program for the betterment of all. Congressman Baird's and this
committee's legislation accomplishes all of these goals related to
freshwater HAB programs and I commend you for recognizing this
deficiency.
Smaller freshwater lakes and rivers are very different from larger
freshwater systems such as the Great Lakes, which are in turn very
different from our estuaries and coastal systems. In spite of these
differences between freshwater, estuarine, and marine HABs, it is
essential to realize that these water-body types are intimately
interconnected; nutrients that enter waterways through their upland
watersheds continually stimulate HABs as they flow from the smaller
streams, to the larger freshwater lakes, to estuaries and finally to
our coasts. Holistic legislation that addresses both marine and
freshwater HABs is needed if we are to understand, control and
remediate the problem of harmful algal blooms that occur within all our
nation's waters.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my viewpoint.
Biography for Gregory L. Boyer
Gregory L. Boyer is a Professor of Biochemistry at the State
University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry
(SUNY-ESF) in Syracuse, NY.
Dr. Boyer received his B.A. Degree in Biochemistry from the
University of California at Berkeley and his Ph.D. degree in
Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin. After postdoctoral
fellowships at the Plant Research Labs at Michigan State University and
in the Department of Oceanography at the University of British
Columbia, he joined the Faculty of Chemistry at SUNY-ESF in 1985. Dr.
Boyer's expertise line in the area of biologically active natural
products produced by algae and he has more than 35 years experience
working with toxins, hormones and siderophores produced by marine and
freshwater algae. He was Director of NOAA's MERHAB-Lower Great Lakes
project to develop a Tier-based Monitoring for Toxic Cyanobacteria in
the Lower Great Lakes'' and is the current Director of New York's Great
Lakes Research Consortium. The NY-GLRC consists of 18 New York
Universities and nine Canadian Universities, almost 400 scientists in
total, working on all aspects of Great Lakes Science, education and
outreach. He is the Great Lakes Co-Chair of the Science Advisory
Council for New York Oceans and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation
Council, a member of New York's Great Lakes Basin Advisory Council and
an active advocate for Great Lakes protection, outreach and public
education.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Scavia.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD SCAVIA, GRAHAM FAMILY PROFESSOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; PROFESSOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES &
ENVIRONMENT; PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Scavia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
formulation of an action plan for harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia. My name is Don Scavia. I am the Graham Family
Professor of Environmental Sustainability as well as Professor
of Natural Resources and Environment and Professor of Civil
Engineering at the University of Michigan. Prior to joining
Michigan's faculty five years ago, I also held several
positions in NOAA, most recently as the Chief Scientist of the
National Ocean Service. While there, I was responsible for
implementing NOAA's portions of this statute and leading the
assessments on behalf of the White House. I also directed the
office that established several of the NOAA and interagency
programs under the statute, including the ECOHAB program, the
MERHAB program and the northern Gulf of Mexico research
program.
While much has been accomplished in the past 10 years since
enactment of the first law, much remains unfinished, and I am
pleased that the Subcommittee is considering reauthorizing this
Act. Because the other witnesses have focused on harmful algal
blooms, I am going to focus my comments on the causes,
consequences and controls of hypoxia.
In 2008, a report documented hypoxia in more than 400
ecosystems across the globe, affecting a total of more than
245,000 square kilometers, and most of those problems are
driven by nutrient pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus. The U.S.
national assessment called for in this original statute,
reported in 2003, that two-thirds of the Nation's estuaries
showed symptoms of nutrient pollution and a 2007 update of that
study indicated that those conditions have not improved and
that worsening conditions are expected in two-thirds of our
estuaries with only about 20 percent potentially improving in
the future. And again, the primary driver of this problem is
the overloading of the system with nitrogen and phosphorus.
If we consider three iconic systems, Lake Erie, the
Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, we see that while there
is lots of year-to-year variability, the dead zones in the
Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf have not gotten smaller, even after
decades of research, management discussions and plans, and the
dead zone in Lake Erie, once thought to be under control and
shrinking, has grown again to sizes that we haven't seen in
decades. Clearly, the nutrient pollution problem is not under
control, and if more is not done to reduce this pollution, we
can expect further degradation of our coastal and Great Lakes
waters and loss of important recreational and commercial
resources. We know that much of the end-of-the-pipe sources of
pollution have been regulated and reduced so most of the
nutrient pollution now comes from diffuse sources, a large
portion of that from agricultural sources. Currently, policy
instruments to control these sources are mostly voluntary and
incentive based and clearly are not fixing the problem. These
instruments are the jurisdictions of other statutes like the
Farm Bill and the EPA programs, and while the algal bill cannot
do what these statutes are supposed to do, the provisions in
the current draft can actually help in some very important
ways. They can independently identify the geographies and the
needed actions in these areas and then measure and report
progress from an ecosystem perspective. As we all know, what
gets measured and reported gets done; however, we are not
reporting at the right scale or in the right context to
influence the impacts of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms.
I have outlined some recommendations for the
reauthorization in my written testimony and I will only
emphasize one here. The current draft calls for a report on the
progress of the Gulf Action Plan two years after enactment of
the reauthorization and every five years thereafter. This
system has been studied for decades. The action plan has been
in place since 2001, so I recommend the task force report
progress one year after enactment and every two years
thereafter. But reporting should be focused at scales that
matter. For example, the report should include details on the
specific management metrics and expenditures and updates on
environmental conditions at sub-basin or State levels. These
reports should be matched up with USGS estimates of nutrient
contributions from these sub-basins and these states to ensure
that the actions and the management measures that are taking
place are actually targeted in the areas that matter most. The
biannual reports from the regional plans should also follow
this approach.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in
reauthorizing the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act. Conditions in our nation's coastal and Great Lakes
waters have unfortunately not improved in the past 10 years
since the original enactment, and in some cases, like Lake
Erie, have gotten worse. It is time to increase implementation
accountability and to ensure we have the research and
monitoring programs in place to track progress. This bill is an
important step in that direction, and I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on it. That ends my testimony. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Scavia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald Scavia
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify today on formulating an action plan for dealing
with Harmful Algal blooms and Hypoxia. My name is Donald Scavia and I
am the Graham Family Professor of Environmental Sustainability, as well
as Professor of Natural Resources & Environment and Civil &
Environmental Engineering at the University of Michigan. Prior to
joining Michigan's faculty, I held several positions in the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the most recent as the Chief
Scientist for the National Ocean Service.
While in NOAA, I was responsible for implementation of NOAA's
components of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act of 1998, as well as leading several of the mandated assessment
reports on behalf of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. I also directed the office that established several NOAA and
interagency research programs under this statute, such as the Ecology
and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) research program, the
Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB)
research program, and the Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia (NGOMEX)
research program. While much has been accomplished, much remains
unfinished. So, I am pleased that the Subcommittee is considering a
bill to reauthorize this Act.
Because other witnesses will be focusing on harmful algal blooms, I
will focus my remarks on hypoxia--its causes, consequence, and
controls--and how this reauthorization can help address the problems.
Hypoxia--coastal and Great Lakes ``dead zones''
Hypoxia, regions of lakes and oceans with seriously depleted
oxygen, has become an issue of global importance. A 2008 review[1]
reports hypoxia from more than 400 ecosystems, affecting a total area
of more than 245,000 square kilometers, and that most of these problems
are driven by nutrient pollution. The U.S. National Assessment[2]
called for in the original statute reported that in 2003, two-thirds of
the Nation's estuaries showed symptoms of nutrient pollution, and a
2007 update[3] of that study indicated those conditions have not
improved and that worsening conditions are expected in 65 percent of
the estuaries, with only 20 percent likely to show improvements. Recent
studies in the Great Lakes have shown that the dead zone in Lake Erie,
once thought to be under control and shrinking, has grown again to
sizes not seen in decades. Clearly, the nutrient pollution problem is
not under control, and if more is not done to reduce this pollution to
coastal and Great Lakes waters, we can expect further degradation and
loss of important recreational and commercial resources.
I will focus my comments on three iconic sites of hypoxia--
Chesapeake Bay, Lake Erie, and the northern Gulf of Mexico, and then
draw some common conclusions in the context of the pending legislation.
The Chesapeake Bay
The causes and consequences of oxygen depletion in Chesapeake Bay
have been the focus of research, assessment, and policy action over the
past several decades.[4] During that period, this 11,000 km2
estuary has been the subject of a series of intergovernmental
agreements[5-8] focused on reducing the impacts1,[9] of nutrient over-
enrichment[10] from its 167,000 km2 watershed. The
Chesapeake 2000 agreement[8] recommitted the parties to nutrient
reduction goals established under the 1987 agreement that called for a
40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loads. In addition,
Chesapeake 2000 adopts the broader goal of taking sufficient action by
2010 to correct nutrient- and sediment-based water quality problems,
such that Chesapeake Bay is no longer designated as ``impaired'' under
the U.S. Clean Water Act.
This goal will obviously not be reached. For example, while
significant commitments and efforts have taken place over these
decades, summer hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay has changed little from
its long-term average since 1985. My colleague Donald Boesch, President
of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science,
summarized some of the reasons why in reflecting on recent Government
Accountability Office and EPA Office of the Inspector General reports
in testimony before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment: limited control over air emissions that impact water
quality, uncontrolled land development, and limited implementation of
agricultural conservation practices. Earlier this year, the regional
governors and the EPA Administrator recommitted to increasing the pace
of progress in reducing nutrient pollution based on achieving two-yield
milestones.[11] Furthermore, President Obama issued an executive order
calling on the Federal Government to lead a renewed effort to restore
and protect the Nation's largest estuary and its watershed.[12]
Among the three systems, the Chesapeake is most vulnerable to
nutrient loads from air emissions because of the amount of high density
population centers compared to those of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake
Erie. While uncontrolled land development and increased impervious
surfaces contribute nutrients and sediments from urban areas,
agricultural sources of nutrient loads are the largest contribution to
the Bay, and traditional best management practices, often designed for
other reasons, are apparently not doing the job. Research has shown
that the Chesapeake Bay has gone through a regime shift such that the
system is now more sensitive to nutrient inputs than in the past, with
nutrient inputs inducing a larger response in hypoxia, the inability to
effectively and efficiently reduce nutrient run-off from agricultural
lands is thus more important than in the past, and a common thread
among all three iconic systems, as well as many other coastal,
estuarine, and lake systems.
Climate change could also affect the run-off of nutrients and
sediments in a number of ways. Climate models for precipitation in the
Mid-Atlantic region project increased precipitation during the winter
and spring. This would likely result in flushing more nutrients through
river flow to the Bay during the critical January-May time period,
exacerbating water quality problems, including summertime oxygen
depletion.[13] So, changes in practices and policies today to reduce
nutrient loads may not be sufficient in a different climate regime. We
may already be seeing this in Lake Erie.
Lake Erie
Lake Erie has seen significant impacts cause by high nutrient
loads--phosphorus as opposed to nitrogen because phosphorus is the most
critical nutrient in freshwater systems. These excessive loads resulted
in harmful and nuisance algal blooms, poor water clarity, and summer
hypoxia in the hypolimnion of the central basin.[14, 15] Excess
phosphorus entered the lake primarily from agricultural runoff and
point source discharges.[16] The extent of hypoxia in the 1960s was one
of the motivations for significant environmental legislation, including
the Clean Water Act. In addition, U.S. and Canada signed a Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement[17] to reduce phosphorus loads at a scale
unprecedented in any region of the world.[18] Unlike the Chesapeake and
the Gulf of Mexico, a combination of point and non-point phosphorus
load reductions achieved the target load of 11,000 metric tons per year
and the Lake responded rapidly and close to that predicted by models.
We thought the problem had been solved.
However, despite this apparent success at reversing summer hypoxia,
the extent of oxygen depletion in the central basin of Lake Erie
recently enlarged and reemerged as a potential hazard to ecosystem
health.[19] Several natural and anthropogenic factors have been
proposed for causing this resurgence, including changes in climate and
hydrology,[20] invasion of zebra and quagga mussels,[21] and changes in
agricultural loading. While investigations are still underway to
evaluate the potential effects of invasive mussels, recent analyses
have shown that, to date, the direct climate effect of warming has not
been the cause of increased hypoxia.[22] However, new evidence is
pointing to the intersection of agricultural practices and changes in
precipitation patterns as a primary cause.
Colleagues Peter Richards and David Baker at Heidelberg College
have been monitoring loads to Lake Erie for decades and have shown
that, after the significant decrease in response to the Water Quality
Agreement, the amount total phosphorus entering the Lake has remained
relatively constant while the proportion of that load that is in the
form algae are most responsive to has increased dramatically since the
mid 1990s.[23, 24] They suggest that while increases in fall and winter
broadcasting of phosphorus fertilizers is a important cause, it is
compounded by increasing intensity of winter and spring rainfall
events. Thus, phosphorus can be lost from fields prior to interacting
with soil particles. They also report that current practices are
leading to increased phosphorus concentrations in the upper layer of
the soil and, combined with the increased storm intensity, also
contribute to this reversing trend in loads of available phosphorus. It
is important to note that, while most climate models project increases
in the intensity of winter and spring storms, such trends are already
found in the climate records of the Midwest.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, proposed in the President's
budget for $475 million in the upcoming fiscal year, if focused
appropriately should provide significant funds for action in the
working lands of Lake Erie's watersheds. While agriculture is now the
dominant source of nutrients from Lake Erie watersheds, nowhere has
this become more significant than in the lands draining to the northern
Gulf of Mexico.
Northern Gulf of Mexico
The development, extent, and persistence of hypoxia in bottom
waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico were first mapped in 1985. Since
then, a large volume of data has been collected and a wide range of
papers and reports have been published that increased our understanding
of the seasonal and inter-annual distribution of hypoxia and its
variability, history, and causes. An Integrated Assessment[25] of the
causes, consequences, and actions needed to reduce hypoxia, mandated in
HABHRCA-1998, was completed in 2000 and an Action Plan for Reducing,
Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,[26]
also mandated in that law, was endorsed by federal agencies, states,
and tribal governments and delivered to the President and the Congress
in 2001. That Action Plan set a goal of reducing the size the hypoxic
region to less than 5,000 square kilometers by 2015 and called for a
long-term adaptive management strategy coupling management actions with
enhanced monitoring, modeling, and research. The Action Plan also
called for an assessment every five years of ``the nutrient load
reductions achieved and the response of the hypoxic zone, water quality
throughout the Basin, and economic and social effects. Based on this
assessment, the Task Force will determine appropriate actions to
continue to implement this strategy or, if necessary, revise the
strategy.''
The most recent reassessment conducted under the EPA Science
Advisory Board[27] focused instead primarily on the scientific basis
for the original plan and it reconfirmed the relationship between the
nitrogen load from the Mississippi River, the extent of hypoxia, and
changes in the coastal ecosystem (e.g., worsening hypoxia). They
recommended that nitrogen load reduction targets be increased from 30
percent to 45 percent, recommended that phosphorus loads also be
reduced by 45 percent, and emphasized that significant time had been
lost because of a lack of implantation of the original Action Plan. The
panel also cites several studies[28, 29] that suggest climate change
will likely create conditions where larger nutrient reductions, e.g.,
50-60 percent for nitrogen, would be required to reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone.
The SAB Panel affirmed the major findings of the original
Integrated Assessment; although, they point out that while the 5,000
km2 target remains a reasonable endpoint, it may no longer
be possible to achieve this goal by 2015. Further, they said that it is
even more important to proceed in a directionally correct fashion to
manage factors affecting hypoxia than to wait for greater precision in
setting the goal for the size of the zone. The panel also found that
the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem appears to have gone through a regime
shift such that the system is now more sensitive to nutrient inputs
than in the past, with nutrient inputs inducing a larger response in
hypoxia, and if actions to control hypoxia are not taken, further
ecosystem impacts could occur within the Gulf, as has been observed in
other ecosystems.
The panel concluded:
``In sum, environmental decisions and improvements require a
balance between research, monitoring and action. In the Gulf of
Mexico, the action component lags behind the growing body of
science. Moreover, certain aspects of current agricultural and
energy policies conflict with measures needed for hypoxia
reduction. Although uncertainty remains, there is an abundance
of information on how to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
and to improve water quality in the MARB, much of it
highlighted in the Integrated Assessment. To utilize that
information, it may be necessary to confront the conflicts
between certain aspects of current agricultural and energy
policies on the one hand and the goals of hypoxia reduction and
improving water quality on the other. This dilemma is
particularly relevant with respect to those policies that
create economic incentives.''
Even though the Action Plan has been in place for eight years,
nutrient loads to the Gulf have not been substantially reduced and the
size of the hypoxic zone has not decreased. In fact, in recent years,
it has set new records. So I fully support these findings of the EPA
panel that immediate action be taken to reduce nutrient loads, and that
an effective process be put in place to track progress and adjust over
time. I also support the recommendations of the recent report of EPA's
Office of the Inspector General that asks EPA to identify significant
waters of national value--like the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and
Lake Erie--and establish appropriate nutrient criteria for them as
drivers for more effective upstream criteria. I will return to these
thoughts when commenting on the Bill under consideration.
Common issues/Common impacts/Common needs
There is a growing body of literature[30-37] pointing to hypoxia
impacts on fisheries in all three systems. While to date no major
species collapses have been documented in these systems as a direct
result of hypoxia, much of this literature points to pending impacts
and the need to avoid a tipping point, where critical species
populations collapse and may not be recoverable. Regime shifts reported
in all three systems may portend such tipping points.
Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from agricultural sources is the
primary driver of hypoxia in these three iconic systems, as well as
many of the other coastal and estuarine regions suffering from hypoxia
and other symptoms, such as harmful algal bloom and loss of fish
habitat. This is well documented in the numerous publications, reports,
and assessments for these specific systems, and more generally for the
Nation in the assessment[2] carried out under the statute being
considered here. It is clear for most of these stressed systems, that
more effective policies and practices are needed for reducing the loss
of nutrients from working agricultural lands.
There are of course, USDA conservation programs that can be brought
to bear on these issues, but funding for them is not adequate to meet
the need and it is important to increase the targeting of those
resources to areas that can do the most good. For example, an analysis
of the Environmental Working Group[38] points out that within the five
percent of the Mississippi drainage basin supplying 40 percent of the
nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico, the ratio of crop subsidies to
conservation spending is 500:1. Even a modest change in that ratio,
would make a significant difference. Such targeting is also consistent
with the recent report of EPA's Office of the Inspector General,
calling for EPA to set nutrient criteria first for significant waters
of national value in a way to guide upstream targets.
I underscore that it is farm policy, not farmers that make it
difficult to reach these environmental goals. For example, to
understand how farmers might respond to different practices that could
affect water quality, my Michigan colleague Joan Nassauer, and her
collaborators conducted in-depth interviews with Iowa farmers in 1998
and in 2007 completed a web survey of more than 500 Iowa farmers on
farming preferences. Their analyses demonstrate that Corn Belt farmers
understand the difference between current cropping practices and future
innovations that could result in dramatically improved water quality.
Given adequate technology to adopt conservation innovations and
assuming their income is unaffected, farmers prefer a more diverse
landscape that shows better conservation and improved water quality.
Specific Comments on the Draft Bill
I understand that much of the discussion above falls under
different jurisdictions and different statutes, but the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act reauthorization can help
frame more action, coordinate and track progress, and ensure adequate
research and monitoring is in place to support adaptive management
approaches.
I believe most elements of the current draft bill represent
positive steps forward and I applaud the Subcommittee's effort to
reauthorize this important law. With regard to specific sections:
Section 603A(b)--Specifically including the Environmental Protection
Agency in the reauthorization is important, both because that agency
chairs the Gulf of Mexico Task Force and because of its broader
freshwater responsibilities. I would suggest, however, that explicit
mention be made in this section of the need for a NOAA-EPA partnership
in the Great Lakes because NOAA already has significant investments in
both harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research there.
Section 603A(c)6--This refers only to freshwater harmful algal blooms.
It should probably apply to both freshwater and marine blooms.
Section 603A(e)--This calls for regional plans to be completed in 12
months. This may be difficult to do depending on the number and scale
of the regions. It may be better to require a staged implementation
such that all are completed in three years.
Section 603A(f)--Biennial reports from the Regional Research and Action
Plans should follow the recommendations provided below for the Gulf
Task Force to ensure appropriate tracking of implementation and
progress.
Section 604(a) and 604(b)--These sections call for a report on Gulf
Action Plan progress two years after enactment of the reauthorization
and every five years thereafter. The EPA Science Advisory Hypoxia
Panel, EPA Office of the Inspector General, and many individuals and
organizations working on the Gulf hypoxia problem since enactment of
the original law have identified lack of progress in implementing the
Action Plan. For better accountability, I recommend Task Force reports
to Congress every year, and that the reports include both details on
specific management actions called for in the plan as well as updates
on environmental conditions (e.g., river nutrient concentrations,
nutrient loads from each sub-basin and to the Gulf, etc.). These
reports should include estimates of expenditures by sub-basin, as well
as metrics of action such as new acres enrolled in each conservation
program. To help guide targeting of actions to the most important
regions, implementation expenditures and actions should be reported
juxtaposed with USGS estimates of nutrient contributions to the Gulf
from specific sub-basins and states.
Section 605--The current draft does not yet specify spending
authorizations; however, I recommend the following considerations:
Authorize at least $40 million to NOAA and at least
$5 million to EPA.
To avoid duplication, it would be good to identify
several efforts already administered by NOAA in support of this
legislation (e.g., ECOHAB, MERHAB, PCM, NGOMEX and CHRP).
Require research funds appropriated to NOAA be
allocated through a competitive, peer review process, and that
the funds are restricted to extramural grants. NOAA has
strength in its own labs and offices, but those entities are
funded adequately through other appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in reauthorizing the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. Conditions in
our nation's coastal and Great Lakes waters have unfortunately not
improved in the past 10 years since its enactment, and in some cases,
like Lake Erie, have gotten worse. It is time to increase
implementation accountability and to ensure we have the research and
monitoring programs in place to track progress. This bill is an
important step in that direction, and I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on it.
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Footnotes
1. Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and
consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321:926-929.
2. CENR 2003. An Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia and Eutrophication in
U.S. Waters. National Science and Technology Council Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C.
3. Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C.
Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007. Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in
the Nation's Estuaries: A Decade of Change. NOAA Coastal Ocean
Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 328 pp.
4. Boesch, D.F., R.B. Brinsfield, and R.E. Magnien. 2001. Chesapeake
Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem
restoration and challenges for agriculture. J. Environ. Qual.
30:303-320.
5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1983. 1983 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
7. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Chesapeake Bay
Agreement: 1992 Amendments. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Chesapeake 2000. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD.
9. Brietburg, D.L., T. Loher, C.A. Pacey, and A. Gerstein. 1997.
Varying effects of low dissolved oxygen on trophic interactions
in an estuarine food web. Ecol. Monogr. 67:489-507.
10. Malone, T.C., W. Boynton, T. Horton, and C. Stevenson. 1993.
Nutrient loading to surface waters: Chesapeake case study, pp.
8-38. In M.F. Uman (ed.), Keeping pace with science and
engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
11. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/
EC-2009-allmilestones.pdf
12. http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/page/About-the-Executive-
Order.aspx
13. Boesch, D.F., V.J. Coles, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller 2007. Coastal
Dead Zones & Global climate change: Ramifications of Climate
Change for Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia, In: Regional Impacts of
Climate Change: Four Case Studies in the United States.
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
Arlington, VA.
14. El-Shaarawi, A.H. 1987. Water Quality Changes in Lake Erie , 1968-
1980. Journal of Great Lakes Research 13:674-683.
15. Rosa, F. and Burns, N.M. 1987. Lake Erie Central Basin Oxygen
Depletion Changes from 1929-1980. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 13:684-696.
16. Dolan, D.M. 1993. Point source loadings of phosphorus to Lake Erie:
1986-1990. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:212-223.
17. GLWQA 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
18. DePinto, J.V., T.C. Young, and L.M. McIlroy. 1986. Great Lakes
water quality improvement. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20(8):752-759
19. Burns, N.M., Rockwell, D.M., Bertram, P.E., Dolan, D.M., and
Ciborowski, J.J.H. 2005. Trends in Temperature, Secchi Depth,
and Dissolved Oxygen Depletion Rates in the Central Basin of
Lake Erie, 1983-2002. Journal of Great Lakes Research 31:35-49.
20. Blumberg, A.F. and Di Toro, D.M. 1990. Effects of Climate Warming
on Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Lake Erie. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 119:210-223.
21. Hecky, R.E. 1994. The near-shore phosphorus shunt: a consequence of
ecosystem engineering by dreissenids in the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:1285-1293.
22. Rucinski, D.K., M.S.; D. Beletsky; J.V. DePinto; D.J. Schwab; D.
Scavia (in review) A Simple 1-Dimensional Climate Based
Dissolved Oxygen Model for Central Basin of Lake Erie.
23. Richards, R. Peter. 2007. Phosphorus Loads and Concentrations from
the Maumee River. Chapter 6, pages 68-74 in Hartig, John H.,
Michael A. Zarull, Jan J.H. Ciborowski, John E. Gannon, Emily
Wilke, Greg Norwood, and Ashlee Vincent, eds., State of the
Strait: Status and Trends of Key Indicators. Great Lakes
Institute for Environmental Research.
24. Richards, R. Peter. 2006. Trends in sediment and nutrients in major
Lake Erie tributaries, 1975-2004. Section 10.10 in Lake Erie
LaMP, 2006 Update. Available on page 22 at http://www.epa.gov/
glnpo/lakeerie/2006update/Section-10.pdf
25. CENR 2000. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico. National Science and Technology Council, Washington,
D.C.
26. Task Force 2001. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and
Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. USEPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: Washington, DC,
2001.
27. SAB HAP 2007. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory
Board. 2007. Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. http://www.epa.gov/
sab/panels/hypoxia-adv-panel.htm,
December 21, 2007.
28. Justic, D., Rabalais, N.N., and Turner, R.E., 2002, Modeling the
impacts of decadal changes in riverine nutrient fluxes on
coastal eutrophication near the Mississippi River delta,
Ecological Modeling, v. 152, pp. 33-46.
29. Donner, S.D., and Scavia, D., 2007, How climate controls the flux
of nitrogen by the Mississippi River and the development of
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, Limnology and Oceanography, v.
52, no. 2, pp. 856-861.
30. Seitz, R.D., et al., Broad-scale effects of hypoxia on benthic
community structure in Chesapeake Bay, USA, J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.004.
31. Ludsin, S.A., et al., Hypoxia-avoidance by planktivorous fish in
Chesapeake Bay: Implications for food web interactions and fish
recruitment, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/
j.jembe.2009.07.016.
32. Roberts, J.J., et al., Effects of hypolimnetic hypoxia on foraging
and distributions of Lake Erie yellow perch, J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.017.
33. Baustian, M.M., et al., Effects of summer 2003 hypoxia on
macrobenthos and Atlantic croaker foraging selectivity in the
northern Gulf of Mexico, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.007.
34. Rose, K.A., et al., Does hypoxia have population-level effects on
coastal fish? Musings from the virtual world, J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.022.
35. Vanderploeg, H.A., et al., Hypoxia affects spatial distributions
and overlap of pelagic fish, zooplankton, and phytoplankton in
Lake Erie, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/
j.jembe.2009.07.027.
36. Vanderploeg, H.A., et al., Hypoxic zones as habitat for zooplankton
in Lake Erie: Refuges from predation or exclusion zones? J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.015.
37. Zhang, H., et al., Hypoxia-driven changes in the behavior and
spatial distribution of pelagic fish and mesozooplankton in the
northern Gulf of Mexico, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.07.014.
38. Booth, M. 2006. Dead in the Water. Environmental Working Group,
Washington, DC. http://www.ewg.org/reports/deadzone
Biography for Donald Scavia
Dr. Scavia and his students combine numerical models, laboratory,
field work, and assessments to improve the understanding of
interactions between human activities on land and their impacts on
coastal marine and freshwater ecosystems. His research and teaching
support integrated assessments that integrate natural science, social
science, and environmental policy-making. As Director of the Graham
Institute, Dr. Scavia leads efforts to engage the full multi-
disciplinary assets of the University of Michigan to support
sustainable communities, ecosystems, and economies.
He serves on Advisory Boards for the Environmental Law and Policy
Center, the National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Program, North
American Nitrogen Center, Annis Water Research Institute, Central
Michigan University Biological Station, and as Science Advisor to the
Healing our Waters Great Lakes Coalition. At UM, he also serves on the
Executive Committee for the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable
Enterprise and the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute.
He has been Associate Dean for Research, Director of the Michigan
Sea Grant Program, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Limnology
and Ecosystems Research, Associate Editor for Estuaries and Coasts;
Associate Editor for Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, and has
served on the Boards of Directors for the American Society of Limnology
and Oceanography and the International Association for Great Lakes
Research.
Prior to joining the Michigan faculty in 2004, Dr. Scavia was the
Chief Scientist of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Director of the
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, the Director of NOAA's
Coastal Ocean Program. Prior to that, he was a senior scientist at
NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. He holds
Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees in Environmental
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of
Michigan, and has published over 70 articles in the primary literature
and books, co-edited two books, and led development of dozens of
interagency scientific assessments and program development plans.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Outstanding testimony. I thank you. By the
way, the haste with which I began the hearing was an example
how seriously I take this, not any shortsightedness on it. I
wanted to hear from you folks and your testimony was certainly
worthwhile. Indeed, I wish every colleague and many people in
the country could hear it. I remember when I first moved to a
community, I am a whitewater kayaker and I go into lakes and
practice rolling my boat, flipping my boat over, and I am real
hesitant because there is nobody else on this lake. I paddled
to shore. It was a little inland lake, you know, a city lake,
and I said, why is nobody out here? They said oh, because that
water is really unhealthy for you. The idea that water in a
lake could kill you and kill your pets is really an alien idea
to us. It just doesn't seem right, and yet it is clearly the
case, and if it doesn't kill you, it can permanently remove
your hippocampi, which is a bad deal; as a neuropsychologist, I
know. So questions then.
First of all, the suggestions are well taken. It sounds
like the elements that were prescribed in the prior legislation
you find important. To be perfectly honest, we kind of took
those for granted and said they'll continue. You feel the need
to specify that because you feel they are valuable. Sometimes
we get the reverse feedback on this committee and other
committees here: ``Don't over-direct us.'' They were included
in prior bills precisely because testimony suggested they were
important and we assume they will continue but we will make
that explicit because there seems to be unanimity. I think the
point is well taken also on the issue of we have studied a lot
of this and it is time to take action, I think, and certainly
to report on that action in a more timely manner and measure
that, and I applaud the recommendations for improved
monitoring, both in the freshwater upstream as well as the
downstream area.
Statements from Representatives Connie Mack and William
Delahunt
I want to at this point invite my colleague, Connie Mack,
who has been a champion of this, given his residence in
Florida, and ask unanimous consent that Representative Mack
join us on the dais. Also, Representative Mack and Mr. Delahunt
from Massachusetts both have statements they would like to
introduce into the record. I would ask unanimous consent.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Connie Mack
I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Inglis and the Members of the Subcommittee for holding this important
hearing. I appreciate the chance to speak on harmful algal blooms
(HABs) and how they are affecting our nation's coastlines, oceans, and
inland waters.
A little over a year ago, I appeared before this committee with
Congressman Boyd and testified about the importance of this issue and
the legislation I introduced to combat red tide. Since then, the
Committee has crafted new language to improve the legislation we've
worked on by including freshwater HABs and instituting regional action
plans. These are important efforts, and it is time we recognize that
although harmful algal blooms affect our entire nation, they are
different throughout the county.
I represent the coastal areas of Southwest Florida. If you haven't
been there, it's a beautiful part of the country, with miles and miles
of white sandy beaches. For Southwest Florida, like many communities, a
healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand-in-hand. When I was
growing up in Cape Coral, Florida, red tide blooms were short-lived
nuisances that lasted just a few days.
Today, however, these blooms continue for months at a time, and
they have long-lasting implications that threaten the environment,
people's health, and our overall quality of life. It is imperative that
we do more to understand and combat this problem. These blooms cause
dangerous respiratory distress, burning eyes, as well as the potential
for severe food poisoning from contaminated shellfish. HABs not only
affect our personal health, they also affect the health of our economy.
Red tide and other toxic blooms cost tens of millions of dollars
annually to communities across America. From New England to the Great
Lakes, from California to Florida, these toxic blooms affect us all.
Legislation regarding these toxic blooms was first introduced in
1998 under the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act. This law authorized appropriations for NOAA to research, monitor,
and manage activities for the prevention and control of HABs. It also
established an interagency task force to develop a comprehensive
coordinated federal response to toxic blooms and hypoxia. By holding
the hearing today, your committee is giving this issue the attention it
deserves.
Last year, I introduced the Save Our Shores Act to increase our
commitment to researching HABS. Since then, I have been working with
the Committee to introduce a new bill to tackle red tide and other
harmful algal blooms. This legislation will ensure that scientists and
experts in the field, not politicians, determine where research money
is spent. Additionally, by improving reporting requirements, Congress
and NOAA will be able to measure the effectiveness of these research
efforts.
Finally, we need to reduce the gap between authorized and
appropriated funds. Annual funding has fallen far short and we need to
close this disparity.
Once again, I commend the Committee for bringing up such an
important issue. The sooner we can understand what factors contribute
to these toxic blooms, the sooner we can develop solutions to save our
nation's coastlines, oceans, and inland waters from the scourge of
HABs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative William Delahunt
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, Members of the Committee:
I commend you for holding this hearing and thank you for granting
me the opportunity to testify today on the importance of formulating
action oriented plans to prevent, mitigate and respond to harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia events.
As many of you know, I represent the 10th District of
Massachusetts. It is an area with a rich maritime history that
encompasses communities on the south shore of Massachusetts, from
Quincy to Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
The economic health and vitality of these coastal communities is tied
directly to the health of the ocean. New England's shellfish industry
is an important part of the region's economy and provides hundreds of
jobs that pump millions of dollars into the economy of these
communities. Over the last ten years, we have seen increasingly serious
outbreaks of harmful algal blooms, commonly referred to as ``red
tide.''
These blooms have caused vast areas of our coastline to close, and
shut down the harvest of clams, mussels, oysters and other shellfish.
This negative economic impact ripples throughout our coastal
communities, from fishermen to buyers, processors, and restaurants. In
2005, New England coastal communities suffered from the worst red tide
outbreak in over thirty years, leading to a Presidential disaster
declaration in many coastal counties. The red tide resulted from an
unusually severe combination of environmental conditions that caused
toxic algae to cover significant portions of the region's coast.
In Massachusetts alone, the red tide impacted over 2,000 commercial
shellfishermen and over 250 shellfish aquaculture grants, resulting in
economic damages exceeding $35 million dollars. Again in 2008,
Massachusetts waters suffered another massive and unanticipated red
tide bloom, forcing an infusion of federal commercial fishery disaster
aid to prevent the collapse of the local industry. This summer, Maine
waters were affected and the economic losses to this region were
estimated in the millions of dollars.
To better prepare for future algal blooms, scientists and
researchers from Woods Hole, located in my district, convened a
national workshop in 2006 and issued a report entitled, ``A Plan for
Reducing HABs and HAB Impacts.'' I am pleased to see that both Senator
Snowe and Congressman Baird have read and implemented many of the
report's recommendations to create a comprehensive national program to
prevent, control and mitigate the economic and environmental impacts of
these events.
It is my belief that we need to take additional measures this year
to help address this serious threat to New England. That is why I
strongly support the creation of a Harmful Algal Bloom Event Response
Program, as part of the national program. It is critical that we
provide a rapid and thorough response to these outbreaks. Senator Snowe
has endorsed such an approach and has included similar provisions in
her legislation, S. 952. I strongly support Senator Snowe and I
strongly support Congressman Baird's efforts in the House to coordinate
national and regional action plans to reduce these harmful blooms.
The health of New England's waters is vital to the economic
prosperity of our coastal communities, and as such I support the
investment in planning and research that may alleviate some of these
economic and environmental hardships in the future.
I welcome the opportunity to work with you in making sure the House
of Representatives takes the additional steps necessary to establish a
robust Harmful Algal Bloom program. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. I will recognize myself for a few more
minutes and then Mr. Inglis will proceed in questioning as time
allows.
The Inefficacy of Traditional Water Treatment
I want to make one thing clear and make sure my
understanding is correct in the case of normal filtration of
water. You know, as a backpacker and a climber, I am used to
carrying a water filter with me, and you filter out the
protozoan and whatnot but you don't filter out the toxin. Is
that correct? So if there were a mountain lake, which there are
in Oregon where when you get to the lake there is a sign that
says caution, there is blue-green algae here, if water is
coming out of that lake and I filter that water, am I still
getting the toxin potentially even if I am not getting the
algae per se?
Dr. Boyer. One of the issues there is if the toxin is in
the algae, then your filter will be very effective, but if the
toxin is released from the cells, it will go straight through.
That is true for boiling too. We quite often boil ourselves to
release the toxins because it is a very easy way to get it into
the water so that we can work with it, so a boil-water
advisory, for example, is meaningless when you start talking
about things like microcystin.
Chairman Baird. That is what I thought. I think it is so
important to help the public understand this, that your normal
defenses against this don't work, filtering, boiling. Iodine,
to my knowledge, doesn't work, or Clorox, I mean, because it is
a chemical toxin that is released from the organism. Is that
accurate?
Dr. Boyer. That is pretty much true. A lot of the basic
technologies that we would normally use in water treatment are
not very effective for freshwater toxins.
Chairman Baird. And that is also the case with the fish or
the shellfish, right? Mr. Ayres, if you close a beach, somebody
can't say well I am going to cook the razor clams.
Mr. Ayres. Exactly. You can't cook it out of the clams. You
can't freeze it out of them. You just simply have to wait for
them to naturally purge themselves of that toxin. Yes, exactly,
you cannot treat it in any way.
Growing Dead Zones and Their Causes
Chairman Baird. This issue of dead zones is profoundly
troubling, and I am glad you raised it, Dr. Scavia. Expanding
from everything I hear--by the way, Puget Sound and Hood Canal,
we have got a major problem, an increasing zone off of Oregon.
It seems in most areas, they are expanding, not diminishing. Is
that accurate?
Dr. Scavia. That is true. In areas where we have had the
dead zones or hypoxic areas, those areas are getting larger in
many cases and we are seeing more estuarine systems having
that. The study that was done between 2003 and 2007 showed
there was no improvement and with the forecast, we are
expecting it to increase in about two-thirds of the estuaries.
Chairman Baird. In both the freshwater and the marine
environments, the culprit, at least a prime suspect, if not
known culprit, seems to be nutrient sources, nitrogen and
phosphorus. To what extent does acidification play a role or
temperature change play a role as well? I mean, weigh those out
for us a little bit, and both environments, if you would.
Dr. Boyer. Well, I will take a stab at the freshwater. You
are exactly right. The prime culprits are nutrients coming in
through the watershed. Acidification probably has very little,
if no, effect on dead zones. I already forgot what your----
Chairman Baird. Temperature.
Dr. Boyer. Oh, temperature. Temperature is going to be a
much trickier issue because associated with rising temperatures
are often changes in weather patterns, which then lead to
increased nutrients. Many of these organisms grow better under
higher temperatures so you would expect that to also be a
problem, and temperatures also need to be in a more stable
water column in many cases, which also leads to algal growth.
So it is going to be sort of a tricky issue there but it is----
Chairman Baird. Great. Excellent testimony. I will close
then and I will ask if I get time. You know, one of the great
paradoxes of this is, you hear your testimony, you know the
importance of it, and yet to try to get the public fired up
about this--well, actually we did a radio interview this week
and we said maybe we should talk about algal blooms, and the
fear was, they are going to say what is he talking about,
algae. Well, it can kill you, badly it can kill you. I love the
name. I decided if I was an ultimate fighter, one of those
guys, I would like the name--what was it--severe death factor?
That would be----
Dr. Boyer. Fast death factor or very fast death factor.
Chairman Baird. With that, I recognize my friend and
colleague, Mr. Inglis.
Current Control and Mitigation Strategies
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Magnien, I was wondering about the control and
mitigation technologies that are currently employed when HABs
or hypoxia events are detected, and who decides what technology
is used and what is the decision protocol for making those
decisions about the control and mitigation approaches?
Dr. Magnien. Well, we define control as actually methods
that you would use to suppress a bloom once it is present, and
mitigation is more in the realm of warning people that a bloom
is there and making sure they don't eat shellfish or come into
contact with the water and get sick. Dr. Anderson mentioned a
little bit about these techniques, especially the control
techniques, are not very well advanced and that is one of the
reasons why we have initiated this prevention, control and
mitigation program to get more research dollars applied to
that. They can include techniques like spreading of clay, which
is a very common technique in the Far East around aquaculture
facilities. They coagulate the bloom and it settles out. They
can include things like viruses or bacteria, disease agents
that are put out, just like we do for various infestations in
forests, introduce bacteria to control caterpillar growth. So
those, you know, are some of the aspects of those programs that
really require additional research. One of the big mitigation
areas of research is this forecasting where we give people
warning or resource managers warning so that a Dan Ayres can
have much more lead time in the decisions he has to make in
terms of opening and closing a beach for razor clams, or the
forecast that we issued through Don Anderson's research in New
England this year that gave managers there a heads up that they
would need to gear up and have more staff on board in order to
deal with a red tide, a big red tide, which in fact did come,
and they were very appreciative of that advanced warning, and
that allowed them to mitigate the impacts.
Mr. Inglis. Who is it that makes the decision? Who makes
the call on those kind of, what course to pursue?
Dr. Magnien. Most of the decisions on the front lines are
State resource managers, again, those folks like Dan Ayres, a
shellfish manager, a public health official. Some of that is
made at the county level. County health officials are empowered
with closing water bodies. We have seen that happen in certain
areas, especially with beach closures: water contacts
recreation. So it is usually at the State and local level where
those decisions are made but those are the same people that
lack the tools and the resources to support those decisions,
and that is what we are trying to provide to them.
Mr. Inglis. Great. Thanks.
And Dr. Anderson, why is there so little research into
control and mitigation?
Dr. Anderson. Well, I tried to address that in my written
testimony. I even have an annex there which is telling because
it is a commentary I wrote in the journal Nature more than 10
years ago about that exact question: Why is it that progress is
so slow? And as I said, we are not that much further along now.
The answers are several, and one of them truly is that without
a targeted program that has money explicitly and specifically
for, let us say, bloom control, then scientists will tend to
propose more safe research, things that are fundamental
science, that build on what they have done before. In my own
lab, I put an entire Ph.D. student into the use of clay to
control these red tide organisms. That student has struggled to
find funding as he moved along, and he has actually left the
field. It is very sad to say that. But as much as that seems
like where the money should be coming from, it has been
difficult to get funding for actual transitioning of these lab
technologies to the field, and part of it is also that we have
permitting issues. And scientists, I guess we are just not used
to having to say ``In order to do this particular line of
research, I need to go get permits from the state, from the
Corps of Engineers, from the EPA.'' They need to do all these
things and they are all going to be asked for more data, and
that tends to slow down progress dramatically. So there are a
number of steps that I think can be alleviated by this program
that we propose, this PCM HAB program, because it has
development stages, developing the technologies, and it has
demonstration and transitioning stages so that you take
something all the way and with substantial resources for all of
those steps.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Mack.
Comments from Representative Mack
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to thank
the Ranking Member for having me and letting me join today, and
I also want to thank all of you for being here and your
testimony.
First of all, a little bit about me, I guess, and why I
have an interest in this, but I grew up in southwest Florida,
Fort Myers, where I spent most of my childhood when I wasn't in
school and sports at the beach on the water enjoying fishing
and water skiing and just enjoying the outdoors in southwest
Florida, and one of the main economic drivers of southwest
Florida is people coming down to come to the beach and have a
little vacation and rest and relaxation. I also have a cousin
who works at Woods Hole as a scientist, and we were talking one
day that I decided I was going to run for Congress and we were
talking about red tide. Frankly, we were talking about it
because we were out at the beach----
Chairman Baird. He didn't mean that in a political sense,
of course.
Mr. Mack. Yeah. We were at the beach and we were talking
about how again growing up we would have red tide blooms, I
guess you would call it, that would come around once a year
sometime in August, last for four to seven, maybe 10 days, and
that was it, and now we see red tide blooms that are off the
coast of Florida that will last 13, 14 months straight. And so
we started talking about things that we thought we could focus
on and how to make the process a little bit better, and a
couple of things that we talked about and that I think are very
important. And I want to again commend the Committee for taking
this up and trying to move forward with the legislation that I
think will have a huge impact, but I wanted to see if there was
a way to stop duplication of research because funding is so
limited that if there is a peer review organization, a group
that can look at the research that is being done, who is
looking to get research dollars, we would have some mechanism
to ensure that we are not duplicating research, and for me,
having been in politics a little bit before I even ran for this
office, you know, all of us want to try to bring home those
dollars to our district, so for me, the Florida Gulf Coast
University or Moat Marine, you know, we all end up finding
ourselves trying to get the dollars so we can go back home and
say we are trying to do something to help, but in the long run,
is that really helping us further research into red tide if we
are splitting up the available funds and really not having a
consistent funding mechanism? So the peer review process was
important, not duplicating research, consistency of funding,
and I am sure that is something all of you deal with. Mr.
Chairman, as you know, you will have research projects that
will be moving along nicely and then funds run out and they
have to stop, and so that stopping and starting and stopping
and starting hinders the progress made in research. And the
last thing that we talked about was a reporting process that
right now there is so much reporting requirements that I am not
saying that we should do away with reporting at all. What I am
suggesting is, we need to do a better job of streamlining those
reports so you can really spend more time doing the research,
spend less resources in doing the reports that are required but
at the same time, given the committee of oversight, given those
who need to have the information to determination whether or
not we are being successful, and what changes might need to be
made.
So these have been the thought process and the ideas that I
have had for some time and I am very pleased that the Committee
is moving forward with this, Mr. Chairman, and I just wondered
if I could make one other statement. We talk a lot about
mitigation. We talk a lot about, you know, what can we do and
what nutrients have really kind of pumped up and kind of, you
know, energized these events. We still need to get back to
trying to figure out what causes it in the first place, and we
recognize that the red tide events that happen in the Gulf of
Mexico will be different from what happens in the inland
waterways, but if we solely focus our energies, Mr. Chairman,
on just how to mitigate and warn people, I think we are missing
the point. Really what we need to do is try to find out how it
starts and that is going to give us the best place to start
with, how to control it, and then I will end with this, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for your patience. Someone said who makes
the call. I think maybe it was the Ranking Member. Who makes
the call on closing the beach? And I wrote a note down to
myself, the one who drew the short straw because that person is
never the popular one, although it is very important for the
safety of our community.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on your
efforts in this legislation, and again, I want to thank the
panelists for being here.
Chairman Baird. I want to thank the gentleman for his
comments and his initiative on this. He has been a champion of
this for an issue that, as I mentioned earlier, is not sort of
a politically--you know, if you do a poll, this is not going to
come up on most people's radar screen very high, but for areas
like Mr. Mack's, that of his childhood and his current
district, and parts of mine, this is a profoundly important
issue and it deserves the kind of attention that has gotten,
and again, I acknowledge Mr. Ehlers and Ms. Castor as well.
The Economic Costs of Hypoxia and HABs
I want to follow up a little bit on a couple of the points
Mr. Mack made. Let me talk for just a second about the
economics of it. He talked about the impact on his district and
on his state. Repeat real quickly the economic costs, the best
estimate of economic cost we have got in terms of both hypoxia
and harmful algal blooms. Do we have any? I mean, in our state,
Mr. Ayres, you threw out some numbers.
Mr. Ayres. Well, yeah. I mean, I threw out some numbers,
and it depends on the fishery that is being affected. We do
have--NOAA recently funded a study on the razor clam fishery
specifically and what would be lost, and that number was much
higher than we would have expected, in the neighborhood of $16
million to the coastal economy, and that is to the small
communities that you know so well. Sixteen million dollars to
the state's economy is not a big deal but to these--well, I
don't know, Governor Gregoire may disagree, but to our small
coastal communities, that is a big hit to them, so it really
depends on the scale you want to look at and how that plays
out, but it is a big---
Chairman Baird. The local hotel owners tell me it is their
season.
Mr. Ayres. Yeah, exactly.
Chairman Baird. In our coastal area, you know, you could
rent your garage when the clam season----
Mr. Ayres. And you are right. I mean, it is not a big deal
on people's radar screen until it doesn't happen, and then when
it doesn't happen and they realize what they don't have----
Chairman Baird. That raises the other side of the issue--
and I think I know the answer to this and I am going to guess
the answer is ``more.'' But if the question were, what do you
think are necessary--other than just something more, what kind
of funding levels do you think, and let us assume that some of
the kind of intervention approaches, control and mitigation
strategies, some of the immediate response kind of things, what
kind of numbers should we be talking about relative to what we
have been spending on research and control, et cetera if we
were to make a national effort commensurate with the importance
of the issue for human health, aquatic health and weather? Any
thoughts?
Dr. Scavia. I will take a partial shot at that, partially
because I used to run the program that Rob Magnien runs and he
can't answer this question so I will for him. I think the
overall program focused on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia,
the NOAA part of it to fund the research, prevention,
remediation needs to be at least $40 million a year, and that
is actually not a lot more than what they are doing now, but I
think that is the level we need to bring it up to. I don't know
if Dr. Anderson has additional from the pure mitigation side.
Dr. Anderson. Not just from the pure mitigation side but if
you look at the back of the, we call it the RDDTT report, R-D-
D-T-T, we actually try to break this down into costs for
ECOHAB, for MERHAB, for PCM and so forth. We even broke it down
into freshwater versus marine, and that is when you get up to
these numbers that are $40 million a year, so that was at least
our first shot at it.
Chairman Baird. A conscientious effort to say what is a
realistic number.
Dr. Anderson. Yes, and we do acknowledge that if we are
going to try, for example, some of these control methods, some
of them could be extraordinarily expensive, much more than we
give out in a lot of these targeted research grants. If you are
going to try to control a red tide over a few, let us say,
square miles or so, it could cost a $1 million just by itself.
So on the control and mitigation side, the costs might go up
the closer we get to demonstration projects.
Potential Changes at EPA
Chairman Baird. To punctuate that, though, a little bit,
you know, if you have got a--a couple years ago we had these
hearings. We talked about municipal water supplies for major
cities that had blue-green algae, and you can literally
overnight have an all-hands-on-deck crisis situation where your
community is instantly out of most of its water, and the costs
of dealing with that and the lack of the remediation strategy,
the lack of a testimony strategy could be--suddenly the most
important thing on your mind is, what you are going to do with
that? Not to put you on the spot, Ms. Schwartz, but is EPA--
what can do EPA do better--let me phrase it that way--in the
freshwater realm here, and not only the freshwater realm as
freshwater per se but as a contributor to the ultimate marine
environment?
Ms. Schwartz. Well, I think there are certainly things we
could be doing better. We are looking actively at different
ways that we can be more effective in controlling non-point
sources in particular of nutrients. We are looking actually--
you know, most everybody else here has been talking about
control and mitigation of the blooms themselves. Our focus has
really been more on addressing the nutrients, getting to the
sources so that hopefully we would prevent the blooms from
being at least as frequent or as serious as they are, and I
would offer, although I don't have a figure to give you, that
the figures that have been thrown around don't include the
costs of prevention in that sense. We are working closely with
USDA on a number of things, and I would urge you in fact as you
are looking at your legislation to think about the different
agencies that really do need to participate because, again, if
you are going to get to the underlying causes, certainly USDA
is a huge player in the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. They are just
about to announce some exciting new efforts to try to address
the particular sources or the hottest sources, at least, in the
upper Midwest as well as along the Mississippi to address the
hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. So we think that there is a
need to bring everybody in. And if you look at what we are
going to be proposing shortly in the Chesapeake Bay, we have
really looked very seriously. There is a huge nutrients and
sediments issue there as well. We are looking very closely at
what steps we can take, whether it is to increase the
activities we regulate under the Clean Water Act, more CAFOs,
concentrated animal feeding operations, whether those numbers
should come down in terms of how many animals are considered a
regulated point source, looking at stormwater discharges and
how those are regulated. Obviously when we have permitting
authority or the state has permitting authority, you could
control what is released much more readily than when you don't
have that authority, as is the case for most non-point sources.
Chairman Baird. And it seems from what you are saying
earlier, it seems to me this non-point source issue is huge,
especially with agriculture and urban runoff. Is that a fair
appraisal? And that if you were just to do the pie chart kind
of model of what percentage of the cause--I mean, algal blooms
have been here for a long time and, you know, it has not just
started now but they seem to be worsening and they seem to be
growing, so too with areas of hypoxia. There seems to be a
consensus that these nutrient issues, much of it from non-point
sources, a substantial portion from ag, is a contributor to the
downstream consequences. Is that a fair portrayal? I am not
going to ask you to put a number on it but a fair portrayal. So
we have to address that, how we deal with the non-point
sources.
Mr. Mack, I am going to have to leave shortly but I want to
give you a chance to follow up with any questions you might
have.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Research Funding on the Causes of HABs and Hypoxia
I guess to try to narrow this down, on one side I think the
Committee and the Congress needs to find a way to ensure that
the appropriate amount of funding is available and that we are
not duplicating research, as I said, and that it is consistent.
I guess I would love to hear from whoever would like to answer
it but how much of the research dollars that are available now
are going to, or what percentage of it is going to actually
trying to identify not what makes the bloom larger but how the
bloom began in the first place, and I know that it is a little
difficult. Of course, I am interested in the Gulf of Mexico but
I know it is a little difficult because all the algae blooms
are different in different parts so they may have different
causes but do we have a good understanding of that?
Dr. Magnien. Yeah, I am glad you asked that question
because I didn't want to leave the impression that these
programs that you have heard so much about, the ECOHAB,
prevention, control and mitigation don't deal with that. In
fact, they do. The ECOHAB program is looking at the fundamental
processes that generate these blooms and we need to understand
that in order to prescribe some kind of a preventative
solution. You know, we would like to prevent as many of these
blooms as possible. So the ECOHAB program looks at that. The
prevention, control and mitigation--I talked about the control
and mitigation because Representative Inglis asked me about
that--but prevention is also, the P is prevention. That gets
at, you know, what is the cause and understanding that. In your
area in Florida, we have a huge project ongoing now to look at
that. It has been a very controversial issue. A lot of people
say we can't control it, we can only mitigate, but we are
putting in some large dollars, a multi-million-dollar grant now
to continue to investigate that question as to whether there
are ways either to lessen the severity. Some people say that
maybe we can't control the initiation, but some of the local
sources of nutrient pollution enhance it and prolong it, so we
are very much looking at that as well as the economic impacts.
You heard a little bit about that. We have sort of piecemeal
information. We know there are big impacts in certain areas and
certain blooms, up to $50 million or more, but we don't have
comprehensive numbers and that economic impact will help guide
where we put some of our effort in terms of research on these
issues as well.
Mr. Mack. Anybody else want to--yes, Dr. Anderson.
Dr. Anderson. The HAB forecasts that we have been able to
do in the northeast region, and in fact with your cousin being
actively involved in that, are based on exactly what you are
looking for. We have identified the source of our blooms. We
know that there are beds of these dormant cells in certain
locations in the Gulf of Maine and we have over the years
learned that if we can map those out and count them, then that
gives us a very good indication of what the next year's red
tide will be like. So there we have identified the source and
understand the linkage to the subsequent blooms. The
challenges, well, other than using that for forecasting, could
we somehow use that source information in an actual bloom
control strategy? That is where it truly becomes challenging
because yes, there are mechanisms. In my lab we actually mate
toxic and nontoxic cells of this HAB organism and produce a
nonviable cell from that. It is like a sterile fruit fly. But
the question to all of you would be, can you imagine me trying
to propose to put an introduced organism into the Gulf of Maine
in huge numbers to do this? The societal challenge of doing
that is dramatic, even though the technology might suggest a
way to step from that knowledge of the source to a control
mechanism. That is where we need to move forward, to take that
knowledge and that little bit of laboratory science and figure
out a way to get it out into the field.
Mr. Mack. Thank you.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Schwartz. One thing I would like to point out is, if
you look at what has been done for the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic
zone, the Department of Interior, the USGS actually did some
mapping and some modeling. It is called the Sparrow Model and
it actually shows the level of concentration provided to the
Mississippi River so you can actually identify where the
largest contributions are coming from, both separately for
nitrogen and for phosphorus from within the basin, and that is
something that we feel is really going to be helpful to us in
order to target--again, we are never going to have enough
resources to take care of everything all at once, but to target
the greatest sources. So we think work like that can be done.
EPA is putting in probably about $4 million to $5 million a
year specifically on hypoxia in both HABs research and
implementation activities. We have a lot of other efforts
underway on nutrients more broadly but without the ability to
really target where the source is and without, you know, some
sort of regulatory or voluntary program to make sure that it is
addressed, it is really hard to do much.
Mr. Mack. And Mr. Chairman, I know you have got to go but I
just wanted--you know, these events, these red tide events can
cripple communities like, you know, Sanibel Island, Florida.
You get an algae bloom off of Sanibel and it just has a
devastating impact on the quality of life of the residents and
tourism, and so again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend you
for your efforts.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Mack. That is why we intend
to try to move this legislation forward with alacrity. I
appreciate the input of the panelists. We hope to incorporate
many of your suggestions in the revision that we will bring up
for markup, hopefully soon. I thank you for your expertise and
your work.
Closing
The record of this hearing will remain open for two weeks
for additional statements from Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask. The witnesses are
again thanked for their expertise and their participation, and
with that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]