Marine harmful algal blooms (HABs) have affected and likely will continue to affect U.S. coastal communities. HABs may affect human, animal, and ecosystem health and may have socioeconomic consequences. A range of stakeholders—including individuals; local, state, and tribal governments; the federal government; nongovernmental organizations; and the private sector—may have a role in preventing the development of HABs and mitigating their effects. Congress historically has supported a range of federal agency activities related to marine HABs.

This report concentrates on marine HABs, although there may be overlap between marine and freshwater HAB types in places where rivers meet the ocean.¹ The report provides background on marine HABs, including their effects, factors that may contribute to their development, and geographic incidence and trends. It then discusses federal agency, interagency, and interorganizational activities to address marine HABs. Finally, the report offers several issues for Congress to potentially consider, including an evaluation of federal marine HAB-related activity expenditures, an assessment of federal performance and coordination regarding marine HABs, the establishment of new or adjustment of existing marine HAB authorities and funding, and other concerns.

What Are Marine Harmful Algal Blooms?

Algae are naturally occurring photosynthetic organisms often part of healthy aquatic ecosystems. However, under certain environmental conditions, colonies of algae can grow excessively, or bloom, and produce toxins or have other harmful effects. These HABs may be caused by organisms of different sizes and types, including phytoplankton, cyanobacteria, benthic algae, or macroalgae, among other organisms.²

HAB species occur in waters of various salinities or may form only in waters of a specific salinity. Some HAB species can move from freshwater locations into areas with greater salinity, such as estuaries or the ocean, through the natural movement of water or via human activities.³ Cyanobacteria, a type of photosynthetic bacteria, often cause algal blooms in freshwater and occasionally cause them in marine water, sometimes turning the water a bright blue-green color.⁴ HAB species such as golden algae and brown tides may discolor brackish estuarine waters.⁵ Dinoflagellates and diatoms, two types of phytoplankton, are the most common HAB species in marine and brackish waters;⁶ these algae may cause the water to turn red and brown.

Figure 1. Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Offshore of San Diego County, CA

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "Why Do HABs Happen?," at https://www.noaa.gov/what-is-harmful-algal-bloom.

HAB Effects

HABs may affect human, animal, and ecosystem health and may have socioeconomic impacts and costs.⁷ HABs sometimes produce discolorations in the water that can appear as scums, paint-like slicks, clotted mats, or foam and may vary in color (i.e., light to dark green, yellow, red, or brown; Figure 1). HABs, in some cases, may wash up onshore and decompose, causing nuisance or harmful air-quality concerns. In addition to aesthetic concerns, HABs can contribute to poor water quality and ecosystem health numerous ways. For example, excessive algal growth may reduce water transparency (i.e., increase turbidity), clog the gills of fish and invertebrates, and change the biological community (e.g., smother corals and submerged aquatic vegetation).⁸

As algae dies, the decomposition process uses oxygen in the water. This process may leave waterways in a low-oxygen, or hypoxic, state, sometimes leading to the formation of dead zones—areas where aquatic life cannot survive (Figure 2). Hypoxic areas can suffocate and kill fish and bottom-dwelling organisms, such as crabs and clams. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over 166 dead zones have been documented nationwide, including in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.⁹

Figure 2. How Dead Zones Typically Form

Source: CRS, adapted from National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy: An Interagency Report, 2016, at https://cdn.coastalscience.noaa.gov/page-attachments/research/FINAL_HABs Hypoxia Research Plan and Action.pdf.

Of the thousands of known algal species, more than 100 can produce toxins that are harmful to humans and wildlife.¹⁰ The types of algae, the toxins they may produce, and the effects of these toxins vary from region to region.¹¹ Common toxins in marine HABs include brevetoxin, azpiracid, ciguatoxin, domoic acid, okadaic acid, saxitoxin, and dinophysistoxin.¹² Humans may be exposed to HAB toxins by consuming tainted drinking water, seafood, or foods watered with contaminated irrigation water; swimming or recreating in waters in which certain concentrations of toxins are present; or inhaling aerosolized toxins.¹³ The toxins also can impact fish, shellfish, invertebrates, pets, and other animals. Exposure to the HAB-associated toxins can cause hepatic (liver-related), neurologic, respiratory, dermatologic, and other symptoms in humans, as well as in wildlife.¹⁴ Symptoms may be acute or chronic, mild or severe, and in some cases may be fatal for both humans and animals.

HABs may have socioeconomic effects, which differ based on the characteristics and magnitude of the HAB event.¹⁵ Direct and indirect impacts of HABs may include costs related to recreation and tourism, commercial fisheries, public health, and monitoring and management costs.¹⁶ According to some experts, there is a lack of consistent data on the socioeconomic impacts of marine HABs at the national and regional scales.¹⁷ A 2006 report is the most recent comprehensive national evaluation of the average annual economic effects of HABs in the United States.¹⁸ Using available information from 1987 through 2000, the report estimated an annual average of $82 million (2005 dollars) in economic effects associated with marine HAB impacts on public health, commercial fisheries, recreation and tourism, and monitoring and management.¹⁹ More recent information about the economic impacts of marine HABs is available for certain regions and HAB events.²⁰ For example, NOAA reported that an HAB along the West Coast in 2015 caused a $97 million loss in the commercial Dungeness crab fishery, with an additional $40 million lost in tourism spending in Washington State.²¹ In another study, 12 counties on Florida's west coast reported a total of $130.6 million in physical and economic damages due to red tide events between August and December 2018.²²

Factors Contributing to Marine HAB Formation

Many factors may influence the occurrence and prevalence of HABs in marine waters, including nutrient concentrations, water temperature and pH, availability of light, shape of the coastline, other organisms in the water, and water currents or circulation.²³ Some scientists note that factors such as pollution, food-web alterations, and the introduction of HAB species into new regions due to international commerce and water-flow modifications also may contribute to HAB formation.²⁴

Excessive nutrients are widely recognized as one of the key causes of HAB formation.²⁵ Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are essential to plant growth and are natural parts of aquatic ecosystems. Although some sources of nutrients in water bodies are natural, many anthropogenic activities contribute nutrients to waterbodies from various sources, including the following:

• Municipal and industrial wastewater discharges
• Concentrated animal feeding operations
• Failing septic systems
• Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from fossil fuel combustion
• Runoff from urban and suburban stormwater, fertilized cropland, and manure from cropland, pastures, and animal feeding operations²⁶

Environmental conditions related to climate change also may affect marine HAB development. Some studies indicate that increased water temperatures and changes in rainfall frequency and intensity may favor HAB formation, as HABs generally proliferate in warmer waters.²⁷ Other studies have found that swings between flooding and drought also may enhance HAB formation. For example, if intense rainfall is followed by a drought, the nutrients washed into receiving coastal water bodies may remain in the water bodies for longer than average, increasing the potential for HAB development.²⁸

Marine HAB Incidence and Trends

HABs have been found in all U.S. coastal marine states (Figure 3).²⁹ Coastal U.S. waters are home to most major HAB poisoning syndromes, such as paralytic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, amnesic shellfish poisoning, and ciguatera fish poisoning.³⁰

Some experts assert that the frequency and distribution of HABs, the economic costs associated with them, the types of resources affected, and the number of toxins and toxic species all have increased in recent decades.³¹ Several factors may contribute to greater incidence, including, in some cases, better detection methods, increased observations, and other factors described in the section "Factors Contributing to Marine HAB Formation."³²

Figure 3. Marine HAB Events in the United States Through 2020

Source: CRS from U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms, "Distribution of HABs in the U.S.," at https://hab.whoi.edu/maps/regions-us-distribution/. According to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), data were obtained from the Harmful Algae Event Database (HAEDAT) maintained by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Science and Communications Center in Vigo, Spain. Graphic created by the National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms at WHOI. Notes: ASP = amnesic shellfish poisoning; DSP = diarrhetic shellfish poisoning; HAB = harmful algal bloom; NSP = neurotoxic shellfish poisoning; PSP = paralytic shellfish poisoning; USVI = U.S. Virgin Islands. According to the U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms, "each 'Event' noted on the map is considered to be something that constituted a quarantine, closure or management decision where toxicity was detected exceeding regulatory limits."

Federal Activities to Address Marine HABs

Experts have identified various interventions that stakeholders (including federal, state, or local government; nongovernmental organizations; individuals; and others) may take to address HABS. See Table 1 for some potential actions to prevent, control, understand, and reduce the impacts of Karenia brevis, or red tide, blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

Congress has directed multiple federal agencies to support a range of activities to address marine HABs, including some of the activities listed in Table 1. In 2016, GAO identified 17 federal agencies that reported undertaking HAB-related activities between FY2013 and FY2015 (Table 2).³³ The GAO report identified federal agency activities related to HABs, such as research and analysis, forecasting, monitoring, outreach, and response.³⁴ GAO did not specify whether the activities were related to freshwater or marine HABs. Other stakeholders, such as state, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and individuals, also may address aspects of marine HABs in these ways.

Federal Agency Marine HAB Statutory Authorities

Congress has taken action to address marine HABs primarily through the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA; P.L. 105-383, as amended, Table 3). HABHRCA includes provisions that could apply to HABs in all water bodies, as well as provisions specific to marine HABs. Congress also has enacted other HAB-related laws that either do not specify the type of waterbody or are specific to marine HABs (Table 3).³⁵

Federal agency activities authorized under the statutes listed in Table 3 include HAB observations, monitoring, modeling, forecasting, management, and mitigation. The statutes also authorize activities related to HAB data management, information dissemination, federal coordination, and support of federal and nonfederal research to address HABs.³⁶ Congress has directed federal agencies to perform these activities both independently and in coordination with other federal and nonfederal entities. Congress also has directed various federal agencies to support HAB-related activities in annual appropriations language and associated committee reports and explanatory statements.³⁷

In addition, Congress has directed federal agencies to perform activities that may indirectly address marine HABs. Some legislation authorizes federal agencies to address factors that may contribute to HAB formation, such as excessive nutrient runoff.³⁸ Other legislation requires multiple federal agencies to support the conservation or restoration of habitats or species, which may indirectly help to prevent HAB formation.³⁹ In some cases, Congress also has provided some federal agencies with broad authorities related to environmental health and public health prevention and research under which some agencies support activities related to marine HABs.⁴⁰

Federal Agency HAB Funding

Congress typically appropriates funding to agencies to support HAB-related activities through multiple budget line items that may or may not explicitly focus on HABs. Congress has directed several agencies to support HAB-related activities primarily through explanatory statements and committee reports accompanying appropriations bills in recent fiscal years (FY2019-FY2021). For example, in language accompanying the FY2021 appropriations act, Congress included extensive directives to several federal agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], EPA, NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], the U.S. Department of Agriculture's [USDA's] Agricultural Research Service, and U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) to support HAB-related activities (see Table A-1).⁴¹ Congress encouraged the agencies to use appropriations to support research, work with federal and nonfederal stakeholders, establish pilot projects, develop models, and improve monitoring and detection. Congress directed these and other agencies (e.g., USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service) to address HABs in language accompanying FY2019 and FY2020 appropriations acts, as well. The accompanying reports and statements directed agencies to support work internally and to fund nonfederal partners to prevent, research, monitor, model, forecast, control, and mitigate HABs and their effects.⁴² The congressional guidance did not always distinguish whether federal agency activities were related to HABs in fresh or marine waters.

Few resources provide information about HAB-related expenditures at federal agencies. GAO released the most recent analysis on federally funded HAB-related activities in 2016.⁴³ The study found that 12 selected federal agencies spent approximately $101 million from FY2013 through FY2015 on various HAB-related activities.⁴⁴ Of the 12 agencies, NOAA reported the largest expenditures, at $39.4 million over the three-year period.⁴⁵ The report did not distinguish between spending on freshwater and marine HABs. According to GAO, each of the agencies "had its own methods for collecting HAB-related expenditure data," making comparisons between the agencies difficult. Two additional federal agencies could not provide HAB-related expenditure data, and two other federal agencies provided "expenditure data that [GAO] determined were not sufficiently reliable" for the report.⁴⁶

NOAA HAB Authorities

Congress has charged either the Department of Commerce (DOC) or NOAA, directly, with implementing the majority of marine HAB-related statutory provisions and congressional guidance (Table 3 and Table A-1). DOC typically delegates HAB-related responsibilities to NOAA. Congress has provided NOAA with additional HAB-related direction under broad statutes that mention HABs as a program focus among other issues. Congress also has authorized DOC and/or NOAA HAB-related activities in certain freshwater systems, such as the Great Lakes. As presented in Table 3, statutory language and congressional guidance do not always distinguish whether activities are related to HABs in fresh or marine waters; therefore, the sections below describe NOAA's HAB-related activities without distinguishing between fresh or marine waters.

Activities under HAB-specific and broader authorities include coordination, research, monitoring, detection, forecasting, and mitigation. NOAA's HAB-related statutory responsibilities are not fulfilled by one program; rather the agency fulfills its requirements through various line offices and programs. NOAA is administratively organized into six line offices. NOAA identified HAB-related activities in at least three of these line offices: the National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), and Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO).⁴⁷ Programs with HAB-related efforts under these three line offices include the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Sea Grant College Program, and Integrated Ocean Observing System, among others.⁴⁸ Programs and activities under National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science include the HAB monitoring system; HAB forecasting in certain areas (see Figure 4 for a 2020 map of coastal HAB monitoring instruments and forecasts in the United States); the Ecology and Oceanography of HABs (ECOHAB) program; the Phytoplankton Monitoring Network (PMN); the Monitoring and Event Response for HABs (MERHAB) research program; the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs (PCMHAB) program; and rapid response programs.⁴⁹

Figure 4. Coastal HAB Monitoring and Forecasting

Source: CRS, adapted from NOAA, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Service and U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System, Framework for the National Harmful Algal Bloom Observing Network: A Workshop Report, December 18, 2020, p. 28. Notes: ESP = environmental sample processor; FL = Florida; HAB = harmful algal bloom; HABscope = harmful algal bloom scope; IFCB = Imaging FlowCytobot; MA = Massachusetts; NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; S CA = Southern California; SF = San Francisco; TOAST = Texas Observatory for Algal Succession Timeseries; TX = Texas; WA = Washington. The automated HAB monitoring legend provides information about the instruments used in each region. According to NOAA, operational forecasts are those that are conducted consistently, whereas occasional forecasts may be conducted sporadically in response to bloom dynamics. The efforts are "supported primarily with research funding."

Congress also has directed NOAA to implement two additional HAB-related activities: responding to HAB events of "national significance" and estimating the socioeconomic impacts of HABs.

HAB and Hypoxia Events of National Significance

In January 2019, Congress directed the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to make funds available to affected state or local governments for assessment and mitigation of HAB and hypoxia effects if an event in marine and coastal waters is determined to be an "event of national significance."⁵⁰ In July 2019, NOAA published a notice of intent to develop a policy for determining HAB and hypoxia events of national significance in marine and coastal waters.⁵¹ The public comment period on the notice closed in September 2019. In February 2021, NOAA indicated the draft policy was under review by NOAA and DOC.⁵² The agency has not yet released the policy. The statute does not include an authorization of appropriations, and Congress has not appropriated funding to NOAA to support implementation of the provision.⁵³

Socioeconomic Impacts of HABs

Congress provided appropriations to NOAA in FY2020 to update the estimated annual economic impacts from marine and freshwater HABs in the United States. Congress specified that the study should include

impacts related to public health, drinking water treatment, commercial fisheries, property values, recreation and tourism, and monitoring and management. The study shall also include an assessment of the estimated annual economic impacts in those U.S. States and territories most impacted by HABs.⁵⁴

According to NOAA, as of May 2021, the agency is supporting numerous activities to estimate annual economic impacts from HABs. These activities include grants for research projects assessing specific economic impacts, a workshop on the socioeconomic effects of marine and freshwater HABs in the United States,⁵⁵ updates to a map of national HAB economic impacts,⁵⁶ and a new program to fund research that will provide data for an updated assessment.⁵⁷

NOAA HAB Expenditures

NOAA uses appropriations to support both HAB-related intramural efforts at the agency and grants to nonfederal entities. In the 2016 GAO report, NOAA reported that it spent $39.45 million on HAB-related activities between FY2013 and FY2015 (Figure 5).⁵⁸ According to GAO, several line offices, including NOS, OAR, and OMAO, supported these activities. According to the information NOAA provided to the Congressional Research Service, the agency has spent or estimates it will spend approximately $168.48 million on HAB-related activities between FY2013 and the end of FY2021 (Figure 5).⁵⁹ NOAA notes that the majority of its HAB-related spending occurs through programs within NOS.⁶⁰ Congress has provided NOAA the authority to support activities related to both freshwater and marine HABs; therefore, NOAA's HAB-related expenditures support activities in both settings.

Figure 5. NOAA Reported HAB-Related Final and Estimated Expenditures, FY2013-FY2021 (in millions of nominal $)

Sources: NOAA, OLIA, NOAA HABHRCA (HAB and Hypoxia) Expenditures (in Millions) FY2010-FY2019, provided August 2018; NOAA, OLIA, NOAA HABHRCA (HAB and Hypoxia) Expenditures (in Millions) FY2016-FY2020, provided April 2019; NOAA, OLIA, NOAA HABHRCA (HAB and Hypoxia) Expenditures (in Millions) FY2017-FY2021, provided March 2021; and GAO, Environmental Protection: Information on Federal Agencies' Expenditures and Coordination Related to Harmful Algae, October 2016, GAO-17-119, p. 62. Notes: GAO = Government Accountability Office; HAB = harmful algal bloom; HABHRCA = Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (P.L. 105-383, as amended); NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; OLIA = Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. As noted in GAO-17-119, the numbers in the report "differ from those reported to Congress in NOAA's 'HABHRCA Spending 2010-2015' table, which includes hypoxia work." NOAA indicated that the FY2021 amount is an estimate and that "final amounts depend on final spend plan, budget allocation and results of the competitive review process."

Federal Interagency and Other Coordination

Congress has directed several federal agencies to participate in marine HAB-related interagency coordination efforts through a federal task force and regional efforts.⁶¹ Federal agencies also coordinate their science and research activities with nonfederal entities at the regional, national, and international levels.⁶²

Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia

Congress established the Interagency Task Force on HABs and Hypoxia (also known as the Interagency Working Group on HABHRCA) in 1998.⁶³ Congress has amended the task force's membership and responsibilities several times since its establishment. Table 4 lists the federal agencies and departments currently required to participate in the task force. Other federal agencies are allowed to join the task force "as the President considers appropriate" (see the notes in Table 4 for information about other federal agencies that have joined the task force).⁶⁴

Task Force Responsibilities

Under statute, the Interagency Task Force on HABs and Hypoxia is responsible for numerous reports, including assessments of HABs and hypoxia and plans to reduce their impacts.⁶⁵ Congress also required the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, through the task force, to develop a "comprehensive research plan and action strategy to address marine and freshwater HABs and hypoxia.⁶⁶ In 2016, the task force released its research plan and action strategy, which recommended several federal actions to address HABs and hypoxia (Table A-2).⁶⁷ In 2018, the task force released a report on interagency progress in implementing the research plan and the action strategy, which included a discussion of research needs (see the text box entitled "Identified Research and Policy Needs to Address Harmful Algal Blooms").⁶⁸ Both the 2016 and the 2018 reports discuss HABs (freshwater and marine) and hypoxia, with recommendations and actions that often may apply to HABs in both types of waterbodies. Under statute, the task force is required to periodically review and revise the action strategy, "as necessary."⁶⁹

In addition to chairing the task force and other HAB-related responsibilities, Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce (who historically has delegated to NOAA) or the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to lead several task force-related activities, including the following:

• Support, to the extent funds are available, coastal states, Indian tribes, and local governments with measures to protect environmental and public health from the impacts of HABs⁷⁰
• Provide, to the extent funds are available, for local and regional scientific assessments of hypoxia and HABs as requested by states, Indian tribes, and local governments, or for affected areas as identified by the Secretary of Commerce⁷¹
• Establish a research, development, demonstration, and technology transfer program on methods to prevent, control, and mitigate HABs⁷²

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force

Some federal interagency coordination of HAB-related activities focuses on certain regions, such as the Gulf of Mexico. In 1997, EPA established the interagency Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, also known as the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force.⁷³ According to its charter, the task force was created to "understand the causes and effects of eutrophication [the process of excessive plant and algal growth due to high levels of nutrients] in the Gulf of Mexico, to coordinate activities to reduce the size, severity and duration of this phenomenon, and to ameliorate its effects."⁷⁴ The task force includes representatives from federal agencies (including DOI, EPA, USACE, USDA, and NOAA), state agencies, and tribes. NOAA and EPA have continuously monitored the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone extent since 1985, and NOAA has developed operational hypoxia forecast models.⁷⁵ The Gulf of Mexico experiences a variety of HABs in addition to hypoxia.⁷⁶

In 2014, Congress directed the EPA Administrator, through the task force, to submit biennial reports to Congress on progress toward the goals of a 2008 Gulf of Mexico hypoxia action plan.⁷⁷ Action plan goals included activities to "accelerate the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus" and to "advance the science, track progress and raise awareness."⁷⁸ The most recent publicly available progress report is from 2017.⁷⁹ In the 2017 report, the task force described the actions it had implemented since 2008 and made recommendations moving forward. Recommendations included continuing to implement the 2008 action plan, revising the action plan's coastal goal and committing to accelerated and new actions to reduce nutrients, and tracking environmental results.⁸⁰

The federal agency members of the task force also periodically update and release a strategy on federally focused actions to implement the 2008 Gulf of Mexico hypoxia action plan. The strategy highlights the assistance federal members provide to task force states for developing and implementing their nutrient reduction strategies. The most recent strategy, released in 2016, continued to focus on federal actions related to seven areas: monitoring; decision-support tools; modeling; permitting and regulatory program support; outreach, education, and partnerships; financial and technical assistance; and other initiatives.⁸¹

U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms

Congress has directed the Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to "enhance communication and coordination among Federal agencies carrying out marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia activities and research" and to "work cooperatively and avoid duplication of effort with other offices, centers, and programs within [NOAA], other agencies on the Task Force, and States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations."⁸²

NOAA coordinates with federal and nonfederal entities partly through the U.S. National Office for Harmful Algal Blooms.⁸³ The office's primary objective is to "facilitate an open exchange of scientific information and advance the state of knowledge and research efforts" on both marine and freshwater HABs.⁸⁴ The office also provides governance and administrative support for the National HAB Committee,⁸⁵ described below.

In 2005, a group of federal and nonfederal experts at the Ecological Society of America identified the need for a National HAB Committee.⁸⁶ The committee's mission is "to facilitate coordination and communication of activities for the U.S. HAB community at a national level," among other functions.⁸⁷ The committee currently comprises individuals from federal and nonfederal entities, including representatives from CDC, EPA, National Institutes of Health, NOAA, National Science Foundation, USACE, and USGS, who serve as ex officio members.⁸⁸

International Coordination

Several regional coordination efforts may support the observation, monitoring, and prediction of HABs. These efforts include the Integrated Ocean Observing System and the Great Lakes Collaborative, among others.⁸⁹ Internationally, representatives from federal agencies have participated in several efforts related to HABs research. For instance, NOAA scientists have been part of proceedings of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission's Intergovernmental Panel on HABs (IOC IPHAB),⁹⁰ GlobalHAB,⁹¹ and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and its ICES-IOC Working Group on HAB Dynamics,⁹² among others.⁹³

Potential Issues for Congress

Congress may consider several issues under its legislative and oversight responsibilities to address recurring HABs. For example, Congress may consider whether to amend existing federal agency authorities or provide new authorities related to marine HABs, and/or whether to adjust appropriations for agencies to carry out programs under those authorities. Congress also may examine how effective current coordination activities are in addressing HABs, deliberate whether to alter existing coordinated efforts, or require new forms of coordination between federal or federal and nonfederal entities on marine HAB-related issues.

Federal Marine HAB Expenditures

According to GAO, "federal agencies do not generally receive appropriations dedicated specifically for HAB-related activities, [therefore] the extent and nature of their HAB-related expenditures are not readily available to Congress or the general public."⁹⁴ Congress may be interested in better understanding spending on federal marine HAB activities, which could require an annual report or crosscut budget on the subject. For example, in the past, Congress has directed the Office of Management and Budget to submit interagency crosscut budgets with certain information about Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes restoration.⁹⁵ If considered in regard to marine HABs, Congress could direct a federal agency to collect information on activities of interest and associated spending within the agency or across federal agencies.

Federal Performance and Coordination on Marine HAB-Related Activities

As described above, Congress has directed federal agencies to work together in certain ways and has proposed additional coordinated activities in the 116^th and 117^th Congresses.⁹⁶ Congress may be interested in the performance of existing coordination efforts. Few, if any, evaluations of federal interagency coordination exist. For instance, the 2016 GAO report on federal HAB coordination did not evaluate agency performance or provide recommendations. An evaluation may help Congress consider potential questions such as (1) whether federal HAB-related activities are duplicative or appropriately coordinated across agencies; (2) how well federal agencies are providing appropriate information and services to nonfederal stakeholders; (3) whether and how information on marine HABs from nonfederal stakeholders is incorporated into federal agency activities; and (4) whether nonfederal entities need additional financial and technical support from federal agencies, among other questions.

New and Existing Federal Marine HAB Authorities

Congress has primarily tasked NOAA and EPA with specific marine HAB activities (see Table 3). Other agencies support HAB-related efforts under other authorities. Congress may consider whether to change existing federal agency authorities or direct additional federal agencies to fulfill specific roles in marine HAB activities. For example, in the 116^th Congress, some Members proposed legislation that would have directed federal entities to support research on certain marine HAB-related topics (i.e., interactions between HABs and other environmental stressors).⁹⁷ Other bills would have directed federal entities to modify their operations, support demonstration programs, or develop plans to address HABs in certain locations.⁹⁸

As noted, various stakeholders, such as experts from federal agencies and academic institutions, have identified multiple research and policy needs to address HABs.⁹⁹ In some cases, Congress has enacted or proposed legislation that directs federal agency activities to support some of the stakeholder recommendations. For example, Congress directed NOAA in FY2020 to update the estimated annual economic impacts from HABs in the United States.¹⁰⁰ In the 117^th Congress, some Members have reintroduced legislation that would direct NOAA to report to Congress baseline information, trends, and climate change effects on the number, duration, size, location, and causes of HABs, among other phenomena, on a biennial basis.¹⁰¹ Congress may consider establishing new authorities or amending existing authorities (and funding) to support other stakeholder-identified needs, such as establishing a national HAB observing network in coastal and Great Lakes regions.

New and Existing Federal Marine HAB Funding

Congress also may consider whether to change appropriations amounts or support new types of funding mechanisms for marine HAB activities at federal agencies, depending on an updated assessment of past expenditures, an assessment of federal agency performance, or other information. The funding could support existing marine HAB activities; needs identified by the federal and nonfederal scientific community; emerging issues, such as HAB events of national significance, or other priorities.

As noted, through recent report language accompanying appropriations bills, Congress has directed several agencies to use FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 appropriations to support HAB-related activities.¹⁰² Several Members in the 116^th Congress also introduced legislation that would have provided appropriations for additional HAB-related work at federal agencies (e.g., research into the mechanisms that result in HAB toxins and the impacts of HABs on human health).¹⁰³ Other bills in the 116^th Congress would have authorized appropriations to fund efforts at nonfederal entities.¹⁰⁴ Some Members in the 116^th Congress also proposed the establishment of other funding mechanisms for marine HABs activities, including public-private innovation prizes and revolving loan funds, among others.¹⁰⁵ Some of the legislation proposed in the 116^th Congress has been reintroduced in the 117^th Congress.¹⁰⁶

Additional Considerations

Congress has directed federal agencies to carry out certain marine HAB-related activities in annual appropriations bills. Provisions included in appropriations bills are presumed temporary unless a provision explicitly indicates futurity or is of "general character bearing no relation to the object of the appropriation."¹⁰⁷ Congress, as it has in the past, may provide further policy guidance within report or explanatory statement language associated with a bill; however, these provisions are nonbinding. To direct federal activities related to marine HABs in the long term, Members may deliberate whether to introduce and enact provisions previously included only in appropriations bills or as language accompanying appropriations bills.

Appendix. Harmful Algal Blooms: Related FY2021 Appropriations Provisions and Federal Strategy Recommendations and Progress