Photo Credit: An August 2019 aerial image of harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie, taken during a flight to assist in improvements to the NOAA Harmful Algal Bloom Forecast. (Image credit: Courtesy of Zachary Haslick/Aerial Associates Photography Inc)

When NOAA released their 2025 harmful algal bloom forecast for Lake Erie in late June, news outlets across the region picked up the story. The headlines varied—some emphasized the “mild to moderate” prediction, others focused on economic impacts, and still others highlighted the ongoing struggle with nutrient management. Yet all three major news sources shared the same simple bar chart from NOAA showing bloom severity over the years, with 2025’s prediction marked as an orange bar indicating a range of 2-4 on the severity index.

(Graph downloaded from NOAA Website)

What’s fascinating isn’t just the data itself, but how different experts interpret the same visual story. Each perspective reveals something important about our approach to lake health—and what might be missing from the conversation entirely.

NOAA’s Perspective: Tools and Management

NOAA’s interpretation focuses on the forecast as a management tool. “Harmful algal bloom forecasts are critically important for communities around Lake Erie to plan and prepare, and are a key part of NOAA’s scientific service to the nation,” said Nicole LeBoeuf, director of NOAA’s National Ocean Service.

Their approach emphasizes the practical applications: helping water treatment plant operators, informing beach closures, and supporting local authorities in making management decisions. NOAA also makes a crucial point that often gets lost in discussions about bloom size: “The size of a HAB is not necessarily an indication of how toxic it is. Each algal bloom is unique in terms of size, toxicity and ultimately its impact on local communities.”

The economic context is significant too. HABs harm local economies by preventing people from fishing, swimming, boating and visiting the shoreline, with annual economic impacts estimated at over $70 million for the Lake Erie region

University of Michigan’s Context: The Alarming Trend Behind “Moderate”

University of Michigan researchers, led by Gregory J. Dick from the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research, look at the same chart and see cause for serious concern. Their perspective adds crucial historical context that changes how we should interpret a “moderate” forecast.

“2014, when toxins from algae blooms contaminated the water supply in Toledo, Ohio, was considered a moderate year, too,” Dick points out. This reminder is sobering—the year that left 400,000 people without safe drinking water for three days was also classified as moderate on the severity index.

More troubling are the longer-term trends that don’t show up in annual predictions. Scientific studies of western Lake Erie show that the potential cyanobacterial growth rate has increased by up to 30% and the length of the bloom season has expanded by up to a month from 1995 to 2022, especially in warmer, shallow waters.

The researchers also note timing changes that signal deeper problems. In 2025, NOAA detected these toxins in Lake Erie on April 28, earlier than ever before. The 2022 bloom in Lake Erie persisted into November, which is rare if not unprecedented.

This perspective suggests that while individual bloom predictions matter, the overall trajectory is toward longer, potentially more dangerous bloom seasons regardless of their peak intensity.

MLive’s Economic and Policy Angle: Progress and Frustration

MLive’s coverage focuses on the policy and economic dimensions, highlighting both progress and persistent challenges in nutrient management.

The good news: “This is the lowest concentration that we’ve seen, you know, really since before 2000,” said Nate Manning, interim director of the National Center for Water Quality Research at Heidelberg University, referring to dissolved phosphorus concentrations.

The challenging news: Michigan, Ohio and Ontario have an agreement to reduce phosphorus loading into the lake by 40 percent over 2008 levels by this year. They are well behind that goal.

MLive’s reporting captures the complexity of nutrient management: total phosphorus entering the lake is up, but concentrations of dissolved and bioavailable phosphorus are on the downswing. This nuanced picture shows that progress is possible but inconsistent.

What’s Missing from All Three Perspectives

While each source brings valuable insights to interpreting NOAA’s forecast chart, they focus (necessarily) on managing and predicting blooms rather than addressing the fundamental nutrient cycles that create them.

Traditional approaches often treat symptoms rather than root causes. Chemical treatments may provide quick visual results, but as organic matter decays, it releases more nutrients back into the water system, perpetuating the cycle. Even well-intentioned efforts struggle because they don’t address the biological processes that could actually consume excess nutrients.

This is where innovation in biological treatment becomes crucial. For nearly two decades, companies like EverBlue Lakes have been developing automated biological treatment systems that work with natural processes rather than against them. Our key insight missing from conventional forecasting is that lakes need continuous, biological intervention to break the nutrient cycle that fuels harmful algae growth.

For lake communities looking at that same NOAA chart, the message should be clear: moderate predictions are welcome news for this season, but they’re also a reminder that sustainable lake health requires addressing the underlying nutrient cycles that make harmful algae blooms possible in the first place.

Ready to learn more? Contact Everblue Lakes today to learn more about solving the water quality crisis in your own backyard. Or read more of our resources for lakefront homeowners.