Content uploaded by Donald M Anderson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Donald M Anderson on Apr 05, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005
238
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS
HARRNESS
HARRNESS
THE U.S. HAB COMMUNITY STEPS FORWARD
More than a decade ago, the U.S. approach to research on
harmful algal blooms (HABs) was uncoordinated and modest
in scale. Research groups were few and their work was piece-
meal and constrained by small budgets that fl uctuated with the
sporadic blooms that would occur. There were virtually no U.S.
government laboratories involved in HAB research. Funding
for academic scientists was largely available through competi-
tions with the entire oceanographic community since there
were no targeted funding programs for HABs. This situation
changed dramatically with the formulation of Marine Biotoxins
and Harmful Algal Blooms: A National Plan (Anderson et al.,
1993). This plan, the result of a workshop involving academic
and federal scientists, agency offi cials, and industry representa-
tives identifi ed major impediments to the goal of science-based
management of resources affected by HABs, and made recom-
mendations on the steps needed to remove those impediments.
The National Plan served as the foundation for the develop-
ment of a highly productive U.S. national program on HABs.
As a result of this program, the situation now is markedly dif-
ferent from that described above. A large group of individuals
and specialized teams throughout the country now conduct
research on HABs of all types. Research efforts, though not yet
fully comprehensive, cover many of the important disciplines
in HAB science. Funding has increased substantially, and a
number of HAB-specifi c funding programs now exist that pro-
vide support for both academic and federal scientists. Several
of these programs support multi-investigator studies of region-
al HAB phenomena over signifi cant scales using large, oceano-
graphic vessels and the most up-to-date measurement technol-
BY DONALD M. ANDERSON
AND JOHN S. RAMSDELL
A Framework for
HAB Research and
Monitoring in the
United States for
the Next Decade
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005
238
is article has been published in Oceanography, Volume 18, Number 2, a quarterly journal of e Oceanography S ociety.
Copyright 2005 by e Oceanography Society. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any portion of this article by photo-
copy machine, reposting, or other means without prior authorization of e Oceanography Society is strictly prohibited.
Send all correspondence to: info@tos.org or e Oceanography Society, PO Box 1931, Rockville, MD 20849-1931, USA.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005 239
ogies (e.g., Walsh and Steidinger, 2001; Townsend et al., 2001;
Marchetti et al., 2004; Trainer and Suddleson, this issue). The
HAB community has also become politically mature, delivering
a unifi ed message to legislators responsible for authorizations
and appropriations that directly affect the national program.
The 1993 National Plan is showing its age, however. Some
of its recommendations have been fulfi lled, while others re-
main partially or completely unaddressed. Concurrently, the
nature and extent of the U.S. HAB problem changed with the
emergence of several new poisoning syndromes, the expan-
sion of known problems into new areas, and the identifi cation
of a variety of new HAB impacts and affected resources. Fur-
thermore, while new scientifi c understanding taught us that
HABs and the toxins they produce are complex in their mode
of action and that the ecosystems in which they proliferate are
equally complex, decision-making and management systems
did not change to refl ect that complexity. Likewise, many new
tools to detect HAB cells and their toxins have been developed,
but are not fully tested or incorporated into existing research
and management programs. These and other considerations
led to the decision to revise and update the National Plan. Here
we describe the new national plan or framework, Harmful Algal
Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strat-
egy 2005-2015 (HARRNESS, 2005), which will guide U.S. HAB
research and monitoring well into the future (Figure 1). This
plan is clearly designed for the U.S. HAB problem and HAB
community, but the process under which it was developed and
the program elements on which it is based should be of interest
and value to those attempting to develop regional or national
programs elsewhere in the world.
Figure 1. e HARRNESS report
is available in hard copy through
the U.S. National Offi ce for Ma-
rine Biotoxins and Harmful Al-
gal Blooms at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, and
electronically at http://www.
whoi.edu/redtide/nationplan/
nationplan.html.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005 239
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005
240
THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP
THE NATIONAL PLAN
The revision of the U.S. National Plan
occurred against the backdrop of a surge
of Congressional interest to manage the
promise of the oceans and the threats
to them. The Oceans Act of 2000 au-
thorized a U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. The fi nal report of this Commis-
sion, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Cen-
tury (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
2004), calls for a new governance frame-
work, more investment in marine scienc-
es, and a new stewardship ethic to halt
a decline in the health (or condition) of
the oceans and the coasts. HARRNESS
builds on the Ocean Blueprint by elabo-
rating many of the themes that touch on
HABs and taking action to implement
a new framework of representation to
coordinate activities, target funding, and
achieve a vision of managing HABs in
the coming decade.
A steering committee charged with
maintaining the utmost transparency
and community involvement guided the
development of HARRNESS. By offering
a variety of opportunities for stakehold-
ers to provide input, the new plan was
vetted by the broadest possible cross sec-
tion of the HAB community. This strat-
egy strengthened its use as a guide for
implementing national HAB programs.
The Steering Committee solicited com-
munity participation via a web-based
survey yielding more than a thousand
targeted comments. It also convened an
open-forum discussion of 200 partici-
pants at a national HAB symposium,
and conducted specialist analyses. For
the latter, subgroups within the Steering
Committee drafted four “white papers”
based on the web survey results and
community discussion, focusing on the
topics of toxins, bloom ecology and dy-
namics, food webs and fi sheries, and in-
frastructure. These synthesis documents
were subsequently submitted for critical
review by an advisory committee con-
sisting of a broad spectrum of program
managers, regulatory offi cials, scientists,
and industry representatives.
A noteworthy development during
this planning process was the decision to
include freshwater HAB problems in the
new national plan. Prior activities had
focused exclusively on marine HABs,
which included those in brackish waters,
but not the harmful blooms that occur
in freshwater systems. Recognizing that
the freshwater HAB problem is serious
and growing, and that many elements of
research on the causative organisms and
the toxins they produce are the same as
those undertaken for marine HABs, the
Steering Committee decided to expand
the focus in HARRNESS.
The Steering Committee then identi-
fi ed a panel of scientists and managers
to address 45 sub-specialties of expertise
at a fi ve-day workshop in Charleston,
South Carolina. Discussions commenced
with the Advisory Committee’s review of
four critical topics outlined in the white
papers, with public health and socioeco-
nomic impacts emerging as a stand alone
areas of focus. During the workshop,
HARRNESS was formulated as a unify-
ing strategy or framework to guide U.S.
HAB research over the next decade. The
fi nal draft was reviewed by the workshop
participants and the Advisory Committee
to insure that the ideas and needs of the
entire HAB community were captured.
HARRNESS is only a roadmap; it is a
concept of how the national HAB pro-
gram should be structured and operated.
To achieve a fully operational program,
an implementation plan is now required
to outline the programmatic, fi nancial,
and political steps needed to bring
HARRNESS to its full potential. Our
goal is to formulate these implementa-
tion steps with the assistance of agency
program managers and others who are
most familiar with the actions needed
to turn ideas into funded programs and
program elements.
COMMUNITY CONSENSUS FOR
HAB RESEARCH AND RESPONSE
The HAB research and response needs
of the U.S. scientifi c and management
communities are many. New tools and
new understanding are critically needed
to detect, analyze, predict, and manage
HAB outbreaks and the associated ill-
nesses or harm that they cause. Progress
in HAB research will require steady and
sustained advances in the development
of technologies and methodologies in a
cost effective fashion. This research will
also require a common infrastructure
to create and supply toxin standards,
reference materials, cultures, genetic in-
formation, and other commonly needed
items. Oversight and organizational sup-
port are needed in the form of a national
committee with rotating membership
and leadership. HARRNESS has been
designed to address all of these needs.
At the conceptual level, HARRNESS
is a proposed organization of initiatives
Donald M. Anderson (danderson@whoi.
edu) is Senior Scientist, Biology Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, MA, USA. John S. Ramsdell is
Chief, Coastal Research Branch, Center for
Coastal Environmental Health and Biomo-
lecular Research, NOAA, National Ocean
Service, Charleston, SC, USA.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005 241
Facilitating
Partners Stakeholders
PROGRAM FOCI
Bloom Ecology and Dynamics
Toxins and eir Effects
Food Webs and Fisheries
Public Health and Socioeconomic Impacts
PROGRAM APPROACHES
Targeted Investigations
Regional Studies
Inter-regional Comparative Investigations
Mitigation and Control
INFRASTRUCTURE
Reference Materials
Data Management
Education and Outreach
Shared Facilities
National HAB Committee
HARRNESS
and programs that identify, evaluate, and
address current and evolving needs asso-
ciated with HABs and their impacts. Each
of four major areas of research focus de-
fi ned in HARRNESS (outlined below un-
der “Program Foci and Approaches”) will
be addressed by facilitating partners (fed-
eral, state, and local agencies) and stake-
holders (national organizations, industry,
and citizen groups). The approaches will
include small- and large-scale research
programs, inter-regional comparisons,
focused efforts on mitigation and con-
trol, as well as broad oversight and co-
ordination, including education and
outreach. Development of the necessary
support infrastructure will be key to the
success of HARRNESS, and will ensure
that the strategy is responsive to the di-
verse needs of scientists, managers, pub-
lic health coordinators, and educators.
The HARRNESS framework is shown
in Figure 2. HARRNESS will function
through a number of components or
program elements. This framework
highlights disciplinary priorities and
requirements, and lays out the differ-
ent pathways by which these priorities
may be achieved. Some, such as research
funding programs, are in place, but may
require enhancement and new direc-
tions. Other components are new and
will need to be established.
PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
The fi rst major program element pro-
vides for oversight and coordination
through a National HAB Committee
designed to represent the U.S. HAB com-
munity at a national level. The goals
and responsibilities of the National
HAB Committee, are to: (1) raise the
visibility and understanding of HAB is-
sues nationally; (2) garner support for
HARRNESS among users, researchers,
and agencies; (3) facilitate the imple-
mentation of HARRNESS; (4) interface
with related National and international
initiatives, such as Global Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
(GEOHAB), Integrated Ocean Observ-
ing System (IOOS), Global Ocean Ob-
serving System (GOOS), Consortium
of Universities for the Advancement of
Hydrologic Sciences, Inc. (CUAHSI), Na-
tional Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON) and Ocean Research Interac-
tive Observatory Networks (ORION);
and (5) form ad hoc technical advisory
committees, as needed, to address issues
or requests. This committee will have
rotating, interdisciplinary membership
made up of individuals with expertise
in priority research areas. The National
HAB Committee is to be: (1) community
based and geographically balanced; (2)
recognizable by government agencies;
(3) knowledgeable about organizational
and programmatic issues; and (4) scien-
tifi cally and technically credible.
Program Foci and Approaches
There are four program foci or theme ar-
eas within HARRNESS: Bloom Ecology
and Dynamics, Toxins and Their Effects,
Food Webs and Fisheries, and Public
Health and Socioeconomic Impacts (Fig-
ure 3). Each of the Program Foci shares
a need for a suite of Program Approach-
es—a set of management and research
activities that are directed at various
scales of the HAB problem. These in-
clude highly focused or targeted research
studies, regional and inter-regional scale
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of the HARRNESS program, showing the organizational and
oversight elements as well as the program foci, program approaches, and infrastructure.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005
242
"LOOM%COLOGYAND$YNAMICS
0URIFIEDTOXINSAREESSENTIALTOIMPLEMENTASSAYSANDCALIBRATEINSTRUMENTSUSEDTOMONITORTOXINSINWATEROR
SEAFOOD4OXINASSAYSANDDETECTIONMETHODSARETHEFRONTLINETOOLSFORRESEARCHERSANDMANAGERS4HE PRIORITY
AREASFOR THE NEAR FUTUREARE
%STABLISHMENTOFREFERENCE MATERIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
0URIFICATIONOF TOXINREFERENCEMATERIALS
)NSTRUMENTANALYSISANDBIOLOGICALASSAYS
"IOSYNTHESISANDMETABOLISMOFTHETOXINS
)NTEGRATEDTOXINEFFECTSANDMECHANISMSOFSUSCEPTIBILITY
4OXINSAND4HEIR%FFECTS
7HILE IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT HARMFUL ALGAE AND THEIR TOXINS CAN HAVE LARGE IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS THERE IS
MUCH YET TO BE LEARNED CONCERNING THE TRANSFER AND PERVASIVENESS OF TOXINS IN FOOD WEBS AND HOW TROPHIC
STRUCTUREMAYBEIMPACTEDBY SUCHEVENTS4HEPRIORITY AREASFORTHENEAR FUTUREARE
)MPACTSOF(!"SONFOODWEBS
)MPACTSOF(!"SONAQUACULTUREANDWILDHARVEST
#APACITYFORFORECASTING(!"S
4OPDOWNCONTROLANDCHANGESINTROPHICSTRUCTUREBY(!"S
$ETRIMENTALEFFECTSOF (!"SONHIGHERVERTEBRATES
&OOD7EBSAND&ISHERIES
4HEDEMANDFORSEAFOODASPARTOFHEALTHYDIETSANDTHEGLOBALIZATIONOFTRADEPOTENTIALLYEXPANDTHEGEOGRAPHIC
BOUNDARIESFORHUMANEXPOSUREANDILLNESS4HEECONOMICANDPUBLICHEALTHIMPACTSOF(!"SCANBEPROFOUND
4HEPRIORITY AREAS FOR THE NEARFUTUREARE
3OCIOECONOMICIMPACTSOF(!"S
3EAFOODSAFETYIMPACTS
0UBLICHEALTHIMPACTS
2ECREATIONALAND DRINKINGWATERIMPACTS
0UBLIC(EALTHAND3OCIOECONOMIC)MPACTS
-UCHPROGRESSHASBEENMADEOVERTHEPASTSEVERALYEARSINMANYASPECTSOFBLOOMECOLOGY
ANDDYNAMICS9ETTHEUNDERSTANDINGOFTHEINTERACTIONSOF(!"SWITHGRAZERSTHESUBLETHAL
EFFECTS OF (!"S ON COMMUNITY DYNAMICS AND THE APPLICATION OF THESE DATA IN DEVELOPING PREDICTIVE
MODELSIS JUSTBEGINNING4HEPRIORITYAREAS FOR THENEARFUTUREARE
/RGANISMDETECTIONANDASSESSMENT OFHARMFULSTATUS
(ARMFULALGALGENETICSANDPHYSIOLOGY
#OMMUNITYECOLOGYANDECOSYSTEMDYNAMICS
0REVENTIONCONTROLANDMITIGATION
Figure 3. e four program foci or theme areas within HARRNESS.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005 243
investigations, and policy-making and
resource management activities towards
mitigation and control.
Infrastructure
Progress will be facilitated through the
development of activities and services
required by multiple program foci. To-
ward this end, several critical commu-
nity-wide activities must be established:
(1) provision and quality assurance of
reference materials of various types (e.g.,
preserved specimens, live cultures, mo-
lecular probes, certifi ed toxin standards);
(2) access to data management and data
visualization tools; (3) a national educa-
tion and outreach effort; and (4) shared
facilities (e.g., culture collections, a na-
tional web page). In this latter context,
the U.S. HAB community has devel-
oped many regional capacities to collect
HAB and HAB-related information, but
sustained support for these facilities is
required. Furthermore, some labora-
tories have specifi c expertise for one or
two types of techniques, species and/or
toxins. When appropriately marshaled
or coordinated, these laboratories could
serve as national resources as well as
training centers for the transfer of cer-
tain technologies and development of
new experts in the fi eld. They also pro-
vide emergency response capabilities.
IMPLEMENTATION:
THE NEXT STEP FORWARD
To meet the needs and recommenda-
tions of the HAB community and the
proposed HARRNESS plan, a combina-
tion of existing programs, restructured
programs, and new programs and activi-
ties will be required. Funding programs
evolve with time, as do the problems
they are designed to address, and new
partners are needed to address emerg-
ing topic areas. A few examples of pos-
sible modifi cation and development of
the U.S. HAB program are given here,
recognizing that these are suggestions
and that alternative mechanisms may
be developed that accomplish the same
goals. One prime example is the highly
successful Ecology and Oceanography of
Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) pro-
gram, which has gradually broadened
the focus outlined in its initial science
plan of a decade ago (ECOHAB, 1995).
The original emphasis was exclusively
the ecology and oceanography of HABs
through the funding of large-scale re-
gional and small-scale studies. However,
the program has evolved to support
targeted research on food webs and
fi sheries, toxins and detection methods,
prevention, control and mitigation, and
socioeconomics. Re-evaluation of the
direction and priorities of this program
within the context of other HAB-re-
lated programs and needs would seem
to be worthwhile. If it chooses to retain
its ecology and oceanography focus,
ECOHAB might consider a change that
emphasizes “comparative systems,” as
outlined in the international GEOHAB
program (GEOHAB, 1998, 2001).
Two relatively new programs (the
Centers for Oceans and Human Health
[COHH] initiative of the National Insti-
tutes of Environmental Health Sciences
[NIEHS] and the National Science Foun-
dation [NSF], and the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration’s
[NOAA] Oceans and Human Health
Initiative [OHHI]) are being enthusiasti-
cally received by the scientifi c, manage-
ment, and public health communities.
They fi ll an important niche by creating
linkages between members of the ocean
sciences and biomedical communities
to help both groups address the pub-
lic health aspects of HABs. Although it
is too soon to evaluate the effi cacy of
these programs established in 2003 and
2004, respectively, it is noteworthy that
program resources are sparsely divided
among a small number of critical sci-
entifi c domains. The COHH focuses on
HABs, infectious diseases, and marine
natural products, whereas OHHI centers
include studies of these subjects in addi-
tion to chemical pollutants, coastal wa-
ter quality, beach safety, seafood quality,
sentinel species as indicators of both po-
tential human health risks, and human
impacts on marine systems. With this in
mind, some of the future goals of HAR-
RNESS are to: (1) increase the number
of COHH centers through the NIEHS/
NSF program; (2) expand NIEHS/NSF
HAB research funding to allow individ-
ual investigators to obtain independent
funding to work with existing centers or
on OHH issues without any center affi li-
ation; and (3) enhance coordination be-
tween NOAA OHHI centers, the NOAA
extramural OHHI research program, the
NIEHS/NSF COHH program, and other
HAB research programs.
Even with such actions, several of
HARRNESS’s recommendations are not
adequately addressed by existing pro-
grams. As a result, the HAB community
needs to work with Congressional staff
and agency program managers to create
new programs, and to modify existing
ones, where appropriate. For example,
a separate program on HABs and food-
web impacts could focus resources on
this important topic area in a way that
is not presently possible through ECO-
HAB. Chemistry and toxicology of
HABs, the underlying basis to the ad-
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005
244
verse consequences of HABs, receives
only piecemeal funding through sup-
port of other HAB efforts and requires
focused attention and a targeted funding
initiative. Likewise, the practical aspects
of HAB prevention, control, and mitiga-
tion are also presently, but inadequately,
included in ECOHAB. Recognizing this
latter need, Congress has mandated
a separate program for HAB Preven-
tion, Control, and Management in the
legislation reauthorizing the Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA). The
strong Congressional support behind
this program element is further seen
in a section of HABHRCA that directs
NOAA to “identify innovative response
measures for the prevention, control,
and mitigation of harmful algal blooms
and identify steps needed for their devel-
opment and implementation.”
With the exception of the Great Lakes,
which fall under NOAA’s jurisdiction,
freshwater systems that are impacted
by HABs have not been comprehen-
sively addressed in ECOHAB, MERHAB
(Monitoring and Event Response for
Harmful Algal Blooms), or the Ocean
and Human Health (OHH) HAB pro-
grams. A freshwater component to ECO-
HAB has been mandated in the newly
reauthorized HABHRCA. Freshwater
HABs are an important focus within
HARRNESS, and therefore targeted (and
separate) funding initiatives on freshwa-
ter HABs are needed.
The program oversight, research foci,
and infrastructure of HARRNESS will
require coordinated efforts and strong
community involvement if full pro-
gram implementation is to be achieved.
To move the process forward, the Na-
tional HAB Committee will be charged
with preparation and distribution of an
implementation plan for HARRNESS.
The HARRNESS Implementation Plan
will prioritize the recommendations of
HARRNESS and specify the steps and as-
sociated funding mechanisms needed to
accomplish these goals. It will be a chal-
lenge to not only sustain the interest and
commitments of those agencies and pro-
gram managers already involved with the
Figure 4. With HARRNESS fully implemented, the vision for research and manage-
ment in 2015 includes expanded monitoring with automated and rapid technologies
and improved models for predicting bloom events.
Oceanography Vol.18, No.2, June 2005 245
national HAB program as it exists, but to
bring new partners into the program as
well. This is one area where the experi-
ence gained in creating and shepherding
programs such as ECOHAB, MERHAB,
and OHH through Congress and the
federal agencies over the last decade will
be invaluable. The U.S. HAB community
has learned how to justify and defend its
programs within the federal government,
and this political involvement will surely
be needed as HARRNESS moves forward.
THE BENEFITS OF HARRNESS
IMPLEMENTATION
HARRNESS implementation will yield
many benefi ts for the public health and
management communities as well as re-
search scientists. It is recognized that full
implementation will require foresighted
coordination among funding agencies
and a sustained and carefully targeted in-
fusion of funds. The benefi ts from HAR-
RNESS relate to specifi c aspects of the
currently impaired ecological health of
our aquatic ecosystems and threatened
public health, and these will be achieved
through the cross linking of science and
management. With HARRNESS fully
implemented, the environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of the HAB
problem a decade from now will be dis-
cernibly different from today (Figure 4).
The program is ambitious and the chal-
lenge signifi cant, but the success of the
1993 National Plan shows us that coordi-
nated planning and program support by
a unifi ed scientifi c community can lead
to great progress and major benefi ts to
society and science.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several hundred scientists and manag-
ers, from a wide array of different fi elds,
contributed to the extensive knowledge
base on which this science strategy is
based. Thanks are due to the entire U.S.
HAB research and monitoring com-
munity for identifying critical needs
and formulating the vision needed to
advance research and monitoring on
algal toxins and harmful algal blooms.
Special acknowledgement is due to the
National Plan Scientifi c Steering Com-
mittee for many critical discussions,
and Patricia Glibert, Rhonda Kranz,
and Jane Hawkey for distilling and de-
signing much of the information and
the graphics used for this article. Fund-
ing to support the development of the
National Plan was provided by the Na-
tional Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
(CSCOR and CCEHBR). The National
Ocean Service (NOS) does not approve,
recommend, or endorse any proprietary
product or material mentioned in this
publication. No reference shall be made
to NOS, or to this publication furnished
by NOS, in any advertising or sales pro-
motion which would indicate or imply
that NOS approves, recommends, or
endorses any proprietary product or
proprietary material mentioned herein
or which has as its purpose any intent to
cause directly or indirectly the advertised
product to be used or purchased because
of NOS publication. This is contribution
No. 11290 from the Woods Hole Ocean-
ographic Institution.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph.
1993. Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A
National Plan. Technical Report WHOI-93-02.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, MA.
ECOHAB. 1995. The Ecology and Oceanography
of Harmful Algal Blooms: A National Research
Agenda. Anderson, D.M, ed. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA,
66 pp.
GEOHAB. 1998. The Global Ecology and Oceanog-
raphy of Harmful Algae Blooms. A Plan for Co-
ordinated Scientifi c Research and Co-operation
to Develop International Capabilities for Assess-
ment, Prediction and Mitigation. Asian Natural
Environmental Science Center, the University of
Tokyo, Japan, 43 pp.
GEOHAB. 2001. Global Ecology and Oceanography
of Harmful Algal Blooms, Science Plan. P. Glibert
and G. Pitcher, eds. SCOR and IOC, Baltimore
and Paris, 86 pp.
HARNESS. 2005. Harmful Algal Research and Re-
sponse: A National Environmental Science Strat-
egy 2005-2015, Ramsdell, J.S., D.M. Anderson,
and P.M. Glibert, eds. Ecological Society of
America, Washington D.C., 82 pp.
Marchetti, A., V.L. Trainer, and P.J. Harrison. 2004.
Environmental conditions and phytoplank-
ton dynamics associated with Pseudo-nitzschia
abundance and domoic acid in the Juan de Fuca
eddy. Marine Ecology Progress Series 281:1-12.
Townsend, D.W., N.R. Pettigrew, and A.C. Thomas.
2001. Offshore blooms of the red tide dinofl a-
gellate, Alexandrium sp., in the Gulf of Maine.
Continental Shelf Research 21:347-369.
Walsh, J.J., and K.A. Steidinger. 2001. Saharan dust
and Florida red tides: The cyanophyte con-
nection. Journal of Geophysical Research 106
(C6):11597-11612.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.
The program is ambitious and the challenge significant,
but the success of the 1993 National Plan shows us
that coordinated planning and program support by
a unified scientific community can lead to great
progress and major benefits to society and science.