Information updated 2000-APR-19

One of the goals of the HAMM conference was to produce a brief guidance document, drawing on the knowledge and experience of the participants, to assist the various economies in developing or improving their own HAB (harmful algal bloom) programs.

The Guidelines are intended for non-specialists in government or industry who need to decide whether or not to allocate resources to HAB issues. Thus they are intended to address the questions

Why should I worry about HABs?

What are they?

What can I do about them?

To be useful, the guidelines must be accessible to this audience: brief, succinct, clear. Due to the requirement for brevity, the Guidelines will be accompanied by a resource volume of supporting material, including an annotated bibliography.

The following is primarily the text produced by the Focus Groups at the HAMM Conference in Subic Bay, Philippines, 10 - 14 May 1999. Some has been developed further.

Seven focus groups, A through G, addressed the corresponding subject areas, with the understanding that the product would serve as the basis for further development, including the likelihood of reorganization and the addition of subject areas.

1. Scope of the Problem and Impacts
2. Monitoring Programme Structure and Design
3. Management Support Tools
4. Analytical methods and standards
5. Environmental control and mitigation strategies
6. Regulation and Trade
7. Surveillance for health effects

The need for a section on surveillance for health effects was recognized during the synthesis session at the end of the conference.

A.  Scope of the Problem and Impacts
Table of Contents

Allan Dionosio, Edmundo Fernandez, Leonardo Guzman, John Heisler, Porter Hoagland, Yuichi Kotani, Ewen Todd, Alexander Vershinin, Janet Young, Yuen Son-On

A.1  What is the general scope of impacts of HABs?

The IOC defines harmful algal blooms (HABs) to include all forms of marine algae that directly or indirectly have either toxic or noxious effects or result in hypoxic or anoxic conditions (Appendix A1). The term "bloom" may be misleading, particularly when used in reference to organisms that produce ciguatera. A better term may be just "harmful algae." However, the term "algae" does not include all of the planktonic or benthic forms of life that may be harmful. Further, the term might possibly include blooms that occur in fresh or brackish waters. A broader definition of these harmful marine organisms includes: (1) planktonic or benthic microalgae that produce toxins (e.g., the motile stage of Alexandrium, which is associated with PSP; the benthic Gambierdiscus, which produces ciguatera; or Gymnodinium breve, which results in fish kills due to the direct effects of the toxin); (2) other harmful dinoflagellates (e.g., Pfiesteria, which causes fish kills and may produce temporary memory loss in humans); (3) macroalgae that result in noxious smells or unaesthetic experiences (e.g., Pilayella, a seaweed that washes up on beaches; Cladophora, which produces jelly masses in the Black Sea); (4) cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) (e.g., Microcystis, which may produce gastrointestinal symptoms and accumulate in human or animal livers and cause jaundice or cause lesions through direct contact); and (5) nontoxic microorganisms that result in hypoxic conditions that may kill commercial or recreational fish or aquaculture species (e.g., Chaetoceros, a diatom which clogs and destroys the gills of commercially valuable fish, or Mesodinium, which results in hypoxic conditions that lead to fish kills).

There are additional organisms that result in toxic effects on humans. We consider these to be beyond the scope of HABs. There may be no existing institutional structure that deals with these other organisms. Examples of such other organisms include (1) scombroid (allergic reactions due to histamine levels in fish); (2) toxic fish (tetrodotoxin); (3) producers of palytoxin (e.g. a marine biotoxin that accumulates in crabs); and (4) producers of as yet undetermined toxins.

A.2   What specific kinds of impacts do they have?

The specific kinds of physical HAB impacts may be grouped into the following general categories:

Adverse effects on human health:

This category includes the physical effects of the human ingestion of seafood contaminated by harmful algae (e.g., the toxic effects of shellfish poisoning). The effects depend upon both the agent and the dose. The effects include mild illness (e.g., DSP), severe illness (e.g., the long lasting effects of ASP), or death (e.g., PSP). Some algae produce toxins that are carcinogenic as well (e.g., DSP).

Commercial fisheries:

This category includes the physical effects of the accumulation of toxins in shellfish resulting in temporary or permanent closure of shellfish beds to harvesting (e.g., any of the shellfish poisons). Also included are fish kills resulting from the effects of hypoxic conditions (e.g., cyanobacterial blooms in the Pechura Estuary on the Barents Sea or the effects of Phaeocystis on caged fish culture in Guangdong) or because of the direct effects of toxins (e.g., Gymnodinium spp.). Hypoxic conditions may also result in the displacement of fish, rendering them more costly to harvest (e.g., the Ceratium bloom in the New York Bight). Some algae at very high densities or at low levels (e.g. Chaetoceros) can damage or clog fish gills, resulting in the death of commercially important species. This category also includes the economic costs associated with the closure of a fishery or the need to dispose of contaminated product that has already been harvested. These economic costs may impact the downstream sectors, including seafood distributors, processors, and consumers ("from fish to fork"). A further concern is the formation of a "halo effect" in which consumers avoid both the affected seafood and other kinds of seafood because of a HAB occurrence (e.g., the Pfiesteria bloom in Maryland or the ASP outbreak in blue mussels in Prince Edward Island).

Subsistence fisheries:

This category includes the same types of effects as those noted for commercial fisheries. Accounting for the impacts from an economic standpoint may be problematic, because there may be no established markets. A further concern arises where the seafood is a staple of the diet of a local community (e.g., deaths due to the consumption of oysters and mussels due to PSP toxins in the Philippines or the continuing consumption of fish contaminated with ciguatoxin). Finally, subsistence fishermen may have limited alternative occupations in the event a closure is declared.

Recreational fisheries:

This category includes the same types of effects noted with respect to commercial fisheries. Examples include the closure of recreational shellfish beds due to shellfish poisoning (e.g., razor clams in Washington and Oregon) and lost recreational fishing opportunities due to fish kills (e.g., the 1987 North Carolina red tide event). The economic costs, however, may be difficult to measure if they occur outside of an established market. A complete account of these costs may require the application of specialized valuation methods in economics.

Tourism and coastal recreation:

HAB occurrences may result in beach closures (e.g., Gymnodinium bloom on the Gulf coast of Florida or noxious blooms in the Adriatic Sea) or decisions by tourists to avoid locations in which a HAB occurs. It is important to note that other tourist destinations may gain if tourists choose to switch their vacation destination from the HABs affected location to another location. Respiratory effects and dermal contact may also be significant.

Ecosystem and environment:

This category includes the effects of a HAB occurrence on preferred biological and physical characteristics of an ecosystem in general (e.g., the Gymnodinium bloom in southern Chile, the bloom of Chrysochromulina in Sweden, or the brown tide in the Peconic Estuary of New York) or on valued components of the ecosystem, such as the deaths of endangered species (e.g., potentially the deaths of humpback whales due to the ingestion of mackerel contaminated with PSP toxins or the deaths of manatees due to Gymnodinium blooms in the Gulf of Mexico). Accounting for the economic costs of such effects is difficult because of the absence of market data.

A.3  Are there economic impacts due to HABs?

It is possible to account for economic impacts associated with HABs that result in physical impacts in each of the four categories mentioned under question A2. Some of these costs may be difficult to measure, particularly when markets do not exist for the relevant type of impact. In some cases, such as the extensive shellfish resources of Alaska, the lack of evidence concerning the economic viability of a commercial fishery makes an estimate of economic impacts difficult to determine. Economic impacts include both the damages associated with the effect of HABs on uses of the marine and coastal environments and the costs associated with actions taken to mitigate such damages.

For the public health area, economic damages include pain and suffering, lost productivity, and death. Economic costs associated with actions to mitigate the damages include medical treatment, hospitalization costs, and transportation costs. For the commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing impacts, damages include lost value of sales of fish products, unemployment, lost opportunities for consumption of a staple in the diet, lost value of recreational or tourist experiences. The cost of actions taken to mitigate these damages include beach cleanups, the purchase of insurance, monitoring programs, fisheries management, shellfish depuration activities, and scientific research.

In certain situations, HABs may result in shift in the types of resources harvested. In southern Chile a shift to sea urchin fishery has increased the value of the harvest and is considered beneficial.

A.4  What is the range of organisms that can accumulate toxins?

[Add utilized resources and vectors in the food web]

The range of organisms that can accumulate toxins is quite broad. The range of organisms includes: (1) molluscan shellfish (filter feeders, such as clams, oysters, or mussels, and carnivores, such as whelks); (2) non-molluscan shellfish (crabs, lobsters, tunicates, barnacles); (3) fish (e.g., ciguatera in groupers and barracuda); and (4) zooplankton grazers (e.g., NEED EXAMPLE). With respect to accumulation, it is important to understand food chain linkages such as: PSP in Alexandrium to some species of zooplankton to mackerel and possibly to marine mammals; domoic acid in diatoms to anchovies to pelicans; and ciguatoxin in Gambierdiscus to herbivorous fish to carnivorous fish to humans.

A.5  How does one decide when a management program is justified?

Determining the point at which a management program is justified depends upon the values and cultural characteristics of individual countries. The following may be important considerations in making such a decision:

• the extent to which the public health may be protected due to government intervention;
• the need for monitoring progams for export product certification;
• the likelihood of emergency situations (e.g., deaths due to shellfish poisoning; the large-scale displacement of an entire fishing community in Chile);
• the overall public policy goals of the relevant economy.
• the degree to which HAB associated damages are reduced due to the mitigating actions;
• fairness toward individuals or groups who are likely to be affected adversely;
• the cost of the program relative to the economic value of the resource at risk;
• the cost of the program relative to the cost of not having a program should an outbreak with serious economic or health consequences occur;
• the attitude of the public toward the intervention of government to protect cultures and the environment.

A.6  Is risk assessment a useful tool for managing HABs?

Risk analysis is an important tool for making decisions about where and when to take actions to mitigate the impacts of HABs, especially in situations where there may exist substantial uncertainties about damages and options for mitigating actions. Actual examples of risk analyses for HABs : the translocation of toxic algae in ballast water and the monitoring of shellfish for the presence of toxins in New Zealand. Risk analysis has a threefold purpose:

• to scientifically evaluate the probability of occurrence and severity of known or potential adverse health and other effects resulting from human exposure to HABs (risk assessment); to weigh policy alternatives in light of the results of risk assessment and, required, to select and implement appropriate control options (risk management); and
• to exchange information and opinion interactively among risk assessors, risk managers, and other interested parties or stakeholders including the public and the industry (risk communication).

Risk management can focus and structure a program for HAB management.

[Halo effect]

A risk assessment for the management of HABs should explicitly consider the probability of occurrence and severity of known or potential adverse effects resulting from human exposure to HABs, including considering:

• the dynamics of algal growth;
• types and concentration of toxins produced;
• accumulation of toxins by fish and shellfish;
• the human population affected by consumption of the affected product (dose-response data for specific toxins);
• the impact of closure of the area or lost trade because of contaminated products;
• destruction of the environment; and
• long-term social or economic effects.

A.7  How much should an economy with no history of HAB problems be doing?

HAB problems may be divided into two main categories:

• the likelihood of the occurrence of a HAB event where there is no history of such an occurrence, and
• the likelihood of illnesses or other damages due to the import of contaminated fish or shellfish.

It is important for an economy with no history of HAB problems to assess the extent to which a HAB event or trade related damages are likely to occur. The degree of danger may be estimated through a risk assessment. The following factors are important to consider:

• Proximity to other economies with a history of HAB occurrences;
• The value and utilization of the fishing or aquaculture industries
• Presence of environmental factors that may increase the likelihood of a HAB occurrence;
• Trade with other economies that have HAB occurrences, especially when ballast water discharges may be involved but also through the importation of shellfish or fish for stocking or aquacultural purposes;
• Trade with other economies that have HAB occurrences where imports of seafood might result in illnesses due to their consumption;
• Technical and economic capacity to take action;
• Impacts of human activities that modify the marine environment (such as pollution, construction activities, or erosion that alter nutrient availability, resulting in the growth of noxious algae, the occurrence of a bloom and onset of hypoxic conditions, toxic cyanobacterial blooms, or potentially other types of blooms). Another example is the alteration of habitat that enhances the growth of Gambierdiscus.

B.  Monitoring Programme Structure and Design
Table of Contents

B.1  Basic Components

• Data on environmental conditions related to toxicity/harmful effects to facilitate comprehensive understanding of underlying processes (e.g. oceanographic, seasonal influences, temporal and spatial effects).
• Explicit standards for end result eg toxicity level in shellfish. Should be performance based standards rather than prescriptive.
• Competent laboratories who use validated methods. Sampling personnel should be trained and there be calibration on use of technology and interpretation of results.
• Explicit standards for field samplingCommunication and enforcement strategy:
• good data management and dissemination.
• Surveillance methods, to ensure closures of areas are in effect.

B.2  Effective Management Structures

Programme should be documented with contingency plans, with different levels for different effects eg raised phytoplankton to identified human cases. Roles of all parties should be clearly defined for all from samplers to regulators. All parties should be familiar with plan and roles before crisis. Plan should contain a list of resources and references - both within country and internationally.

Known mitigation techniques and protocols should be listed eg fish farming movements.

B.3  Plankton as an Indicator of Toxicity

It would be helpful to establish a phytoplankton monitoring program to develop an understanding of the phytoplankton dynamics and toxicity in your specific areas of concern. Where links are found, it can form an important component of a regulatory programme. Know your environment. It can also be used as an early warning tool for protection of the fish culture industry.

It may be useful as a sentinel tool in a low risk area, situation or event and as a tool to understand baseline environment.

It can also be used to eliminate HABs as a cause of fish kills or other environmental problems where there are other causes.

B.4  Prudent Forms of Management Given a Lack of Historical Data

Should do an investigation

• assess environmental conditions

• literature search

• discuss with academia in area who may have further information or may help investigation

Need to establish baseline phytoplankton programme developed on risk assessment. Frequency of sampling depends on environment eg seasons, tropics/subtropics, etc.Consider potential hot-spots.

B.4  Programme for Sparsely Populated / Non-Commercial Areas

Consider risks for areas - eg seasonal populations? Tourist access?. If always low risk may choose no programme or simple very baseline study. Do not use resources unwisely!!

Cynical population where there is a policy of permanent closure (Forbes/Hall)

If programme cannot be afforded in an area, then area should be Prohibited for harvest.

B.5  Coordination of Efforts between Various Government Agencies

There should be a coordinating mechanism (task force / agency) that:

Coordinates all agencies with related management responsibilities;

Legal authority to act.

Good inter-agency communication and co-ordination skills.

Competent staff who understand issues.

Co-ordination in terms of research work on HABs, etc.

B.6  Co-ordination among Individual Governments within Biological Region

Need for information dissemination within biological region. Co-ordination will not work in most areas since HABs occur locally rather than regionally, thus need for simple communication only.

A good example of communication between countries is ASEAN red-alert network.

However, need to have need for similar market access standards and programmes. Also imperative to have standardization of training of personnel.

It is thought that there is currently good communication between scientific groups, but the problem is at political/public policy area where there is a need for common market standards.

B.7  Industry Involvement / Certification Programmes

All agreed that there are many advantages in having industry involved eg cost sharing, good education strategy, industry become knowledgeable and interested in issues.

However, it is important that government or independent government approved audit agency oversee industry and programme to ensure that all is done correctly and that there is no doubt about ability to certificate.

Industry involvement in management programs is important in ensuring that industry buys in.

(Teressa Borrell - e.g. New Zealand)

It can and should be a successful partnership.

C.  Management Support Tools
Table of Contents

C.1  Useful Management Tools

The co-ordination of policies which are clear about the short-term and long-term goals of the monitroing programmes.

The inclusion of industry from the beginning of the programme. This ensures that they are on side' and they will understand and be more willing to contribute to the problems.

Information sharing is also important, especially to reduce doubling-up of tasks, research by different agencies. Information sharing can be done in the form of workshops where, all agencies get together and discuss what they are doing. Co-ordination needs to be through a hierachical system, but problem solving needs to be done at the lower levels.

Contingency plans for people whose livelihood relies on potential affected products need to be in place. This could take the form of insurance or loans; income protection plans; company policies; or financial aid packages. These also need to be considered for the public who rely on shellfish as their primary food source.

Public education also needs to be co-ordinated into management plans.

Communications procedures with press and public (Bricelj / Hall)

C.2  The Use of Readily Observable Phenomena as Indicators of HABs

Generally if you can see an HAB, it's too late to do anything, except if it is outside of the area you are protecting, in which case it is a good indicator of a potetntial problem and time to increase monitoring. Fish kills are also too late to use as an indicator of HAB. Establishment of small pens in strategic locations may provide early warning (Rensel). In addition HAB reports in neighboring areas may give some early warning.

Some other phenomena may be useful as indictors, such as:

increases in nutrient loading as indicated by seaweed growth or sewage spills;

meterological such as weather forecasts (esp. Rainfall followed by long calm periods), wind, current, salinity, temperature; (The last two act as indicators of water column stablity.)

the history of an area could also be used as an indicator due to seasonality of blooms or other other indicators of potential HABs.

C.3  Collection of Information and Incorporation Into Management Programs

The network of communication is important. There should be quick, open communication channels among agencies and with industry.

Information should be stored in a central database, and the information should be reviewed regularly. Databases should be standarized (ie use the same programs) so that data can be easily compared between agencies. Data should also be regularly entered, esp. During bloom periods so co-ordination for this task may be needed.

Information on training and education programs should also be included within these databases. (Guzman)

Supply resources for periodic synthesis and analysis of data in the context of oceanographic or other underlying processes. Retrospective analysis is also a useful tool

C.4  Effective Training and Education Tools

General media (although they sometimes tend to exaggerate): TV, radio, newspaper, internet, signs at beaches, posters

Inclusion of information in school curriculum.

Visits to schools, training courses, workshops for public, fishermen and for farmers.

"Adopt-a-beach" campaigns.

Inclusion of volunteers and industry in monitoring programs, and having a role in education of public.

Important to address the medical community, especially with the symptoms and treatment / they can also provide information back to authorities on the occurrence of cases (La Barbera). In the training of many medical practitioners it is not normally included. (Oliviera)

At the level of a medical student, networking with Colleges of Physicians could have included in their curriculum;

For those doctors who are practicing , coordination could be with the local organization of doctors in the area / include in continuing education programs (Dr. Dionisio)

C.5  Incorporation of Other Monitoring Programs

Standard water quality programmes can be incorporated.

Also could include programs that look at sea surface temp., metereological.

Need to be careful not to overlap programs.

Need to keep beauracracy to a minimum.

Work towards having a standard for the environment.

Need to review work of all agencies involved in monitoring each year.

C.6  High and Appropriate Technology

These are available, and are good tools to use (such as remote sensing) but are not usually affordable, or specific enough for individual species. Even though these are not fully developed now, there is sufficient promise in a number of developing technologies, e.g. receptor assays, modelling, prediction etc., that some effort and resources should be devoted to that area.

Instead of high technology, should look to having more experts on phytoplankton identification.

C.7  Prediction as a Management Tool

This is still difficult, but models are starting to be produced.Could predict on a season basis, but not on a daily basis (apart from a few examples) toxins can be predicted better than HAB can be.

Predictions should be based on history, metereological data, and physical factors.

Short-term prediction from blooms developing in neighboring areas may be effective as an early-warning tool.

C.8  Policies for the Consumption of Fish Killed By HAB

There (wiggle words) are no reliable records of people becoming sick from fish killed by HAB.

Dependent on how have died: eg if not by a toxin, but by oxygen depletion then generally agreed that okay.

Need to be conservative, be aware of the halo effect, and need to be able to prosecute if necessary. Sustaining the confidence of consumers may be the most important factor in decisions on whether to sell fish for human consumption

If possible, undergo pre-emptive harvest; change processing method (eg canning rather than live); sell to domestic market only.

C.9  Risks to Humans from Direct Exposure

From Gymnodiniium mikimotoi and look-alikes; Gymnodinium breve; Pfiesteria psiciseda

Action takem should include closing beaches and rivers; education of public and media. Need to make clear that not all red tides cause problems.

C.10  Focussing Toxicity Monitoring so Most Effective

Seasonal monitoring - higher frequency during bloom season, detect in key areas, higher risk areas; be species-specific; target key phytoplankton, shellfish and fish species.

Use indicator species.

Don't pay people to collect samples, get farmers to collect.

Make requirements for certification so farmers need to submit sample, so reduce the collection and expense from agencies.

What are the reasonable methods of analysis to employ for toxin detection?

The current specific prescriptive methods are not in the interests of effective international trade of seafood products. The APEC Sub-Committee on Standards and Conformance has recommended the adoption of performance based methodology and this approach is recommended by the AEC representatives of this focus group.

Sample size has not been adequately addressed in current test methodologies which follow AOAC procedures for small mussels (approx. 5 g). One option for large shellfish is to pool viscera or hepatopancrease from a larger number of shellfish.

What are the recent trends in development of methods of analysis?

Recent trends are following the increasing need for rapid field tests that screen for toxins that the producer can use. Similarly there is an increasing need for rapid monitoring assays for regulatory purposes and an increasing need for more rapid and informative confirmatory methods. All of these can be used for research.

Is it worthwhile to invest and develop expertise in toxin detection methods that are likely to be useable in the near future but may not yet be certified?

It was recommended that there is a need for more validated methods. One route for validation is through AOAC- sanctioned collaborative trials. It was noted that AOAC International is a volunteer organization, which limits the number of methods that can be validated through this process. Sponsorship of collaborative trials is necessary to ensure APEC-wide participation. It was further noted that it is not necessary to have a full AOAC validated trial of methods that are to be used in monitoring programs.

Analytical methods need to revalidated when one moves to new tissue matrices to ensure accuracy.

Training and interlaboratory comparison trials are recommended for all APEC laboratories to ensure quality and conformity in testing programs.

The current prescriptive analytical methods are barriers to trade. This is a fundamental concern of APEC members. In the interest of public health and international trade, the development of performance based testing is essential. There is an urgent need to encourage member economies to develop and accept cost effective, validated methods for analysis of seafood toxins that can be used for regulation in monitoring programs without jeopardizing the trade of safe seafood.

Equivalency is a mechanism that can be effectively used to measure the performance of different member economy programs in meeting agreed levels for seafood safety.

Increasing costs of current prescriptive methods may eventually compromise public safety due to economic constraints.

What are the currently accepted action limits for the various toxins? Is there a reason for revising these? If so, to what levels and on what basis?

Ability of the group to fully consider action levels was limited because of the multidisciplinary nature of such assessments. Two classes of toxins were considered by the group.

PSP - 800 micrograms/kg action level appeared appropriate. It was noted that the level can be affected by the extraction procedure due to the conversion of C toxins congeners. Because the relative abundance of C toxin congeners differs regionally, some economics may have unfair trade restrictions. Lower action limit in Philippines based upon concern for higher susceptibility of 1) children and 2) subsistence on resource. An issue is whether the 800 micrograms/kg limit is reasonable to assure safety for the group with potential higher susceptibility.

Action level set for Canadian Atlantic composition of PSP toxin congeners. At the time it was set, much of current understanding of PSP toxins was lacking. However, action level has proven by time to be effective to promote shellfish safety without substantial negative impact on industry. For these reasons there was little incentive to recommend revision.

ASP probably reasonable

OTHER TOXINS - DSP - there is not enough toxicological and epidemiological data to establish action levels.

Ciguatoxin - Pacific - no legal action level but a suggested level of .1 to .01 ppb, depending on the number of safety factors employed, was suggested based on mouse bioassay results of fish responsible for food poisoning.

E.  Environmental control and mitigation strategies
Table of Contents

(updated 29 June 99, after comments from Betsy Slater, Jack Rensel, Jennifer Martin, Rafael Oliveri and Monica Bricelj)

Jack Rensel and Jennifer Martin (editors) with contribution also from Monica Bricelj, Edna Graneli, Betsy Salter, Rafael Olivieri, Hak G. Kim, Mario Sengco

E.1  Can we reduce the incidence and impact of HABs problems by reducing nutrient pollution?

In some cases, excessive loading of nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, into coastal waters has been linked to increased algal blooms or harmful algal blooms (HABs). Classic examples are repeatedly cited in the literature, usually including the Seto Inland Sea in Japan, Tolo Harbor in Hong Kong and the Baltic and North Seas in Europe. In all of these cases, it is not just HABs, but non-toxic forms of microalgae that may bloom in profusion, sometimes causing fish and invertebrate kills due to hypoxia.

For a separate class of HABs, such as many Gymnodinium breve, Pyrodinimum spp., Pseudo-nitzschia spp. and Alexandrium spp., there probably is no direct cause and effect between their occurrence or bloom development and nutrient pollution (eutrophication). Documented bloom dynamics including vertical migratory behavior, offshore initiation and occurrence in pristine environments which do not receive anthropogenic wastes discount the possibility of anthropogenic influence (e.g., Hallegraeff 1995; Martin, 1998). For example, many blooms of toxic Gymnodinium spp. or Gyrodinium aureolum may occur in subsurface waters, near the nutricline where nutrients are always available. Microflagellates such as the fish killer Heterosigma akashiwo can rapidly migrate to normally-nutrient rich depths at night to obtain nutrients, but prosper in surface waters deplete of N and P during the day. Several HAB species are vertical migrators; they are able to obtain nutrients in stratified systems, simply by penetrating the pycnocline/nutricline, where deep waters may be nutrient replete.

Shallow and restricted nearshore coastal waters that are poorly flushed are most sensitive to algal problems from nutrient pollution. Although it is intuitive that there should be cause and effect connections between HABs and nutrient discharge, it has been difficult to document the linkages, even where very long-term nutrient and phytoplankton data are available such as the Baltic and North Seas in Europe (e.g., Hickel 1998). Macronutrient supply is only one of the important factors contributing to HABs. It has been known for many years that several types of HABs, including most dinoflagellates and microflagellates, often require a combination of chemical and physical factors (such as vertical stratification caused by warm weather or runoff) to attain bloom proportions. Without such conditions, blooms are less likely or not possible.

Not all coastal waters are nutrient sensitive, particularly physically active areas with strong estuarine circulation where ocean sources of nutrient are always abundant far beyond the point that would limit microalgal growth. Moreover, most of the world’s offshore oceans (NOTE: either use offshore waters or oceans here) are oligotrophic (nutrient poor, both in nitrogen and iron). Fisheries productivity in temperate waters is greatest in areas of deepwater upwelling that are laden with nutrients, such as along the east and west coasts of South and North America. Lack of nutrients from upwelling and resulting declines in phytoplankton and zooplankton have been directly linked to the decline of valuable fisheries in these areas, including salmon and forage fishes. Thus nutrients per se are not inherently a problem; rather it is the discharge of excess nutrients into sensitive, nutrient-limited areas that can potentially create problems.

Nutrient ratios, in addition to the quantity of nutrients discharged into coastal waters, are also important determinants of phytoplankton species composition (Takahashi and Fukazawa 1982, Riegman 1998) and the toxicity content (NOTE: use either cell toxicity or toxin content) of HABs (Graneli et al. 1998). Anthropogenic eutrophication usually involves an increase in N and/or P, but not of silicate, leading to dominance of dinoflagellates or microflagellates over diatoms (Smayda 1990). Imbalances or shifts in the N/P ratio have also been attributed a role in inte increased occurrence of HABs. This has occurred in the North Sea where a shift from P-limitation to N-limitation was associated with the occurrence of Phaecystis blooms ( Riegman et al. 1992), and in Tolo Harbor, Hong Kong, where a decrease in the N/P ratio was correlated with the increased occurrence of red tides (Yung et al. 1997). Low N/P ratios caused by duck farm wastes were associated with blooms of small chlorophytes (green algae) in southern Long Island, New York bays in the 1950s, which severely affected local shellfish (oyster) resources. In this case, control of duck waste discharges provided an effective solution to the problem.

While nutrient controls are becoming more commonly the focus for managing algal blooms and HABs, such efforts typically become a major initiative only when conditions in coastal waters become very poor e.g., large-scale cyanobacterial blooms in the Baltic (Bianchi 1999), or anoxia-producing blooms of non-toxic dinoflagellates in Tolo Harbor, Hong Kong (Hodgkiss and Ho 1992). Other examples (NOTE: of what?) occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound (NOTE: the previous sentence hould be eliminated or be backed by references). In the Baltic and Tolo Harbor cases, massive programs to reduce or redirect point sources of nutrients have recently been implemented, and monitoring is proceeding to compare to pre-control results. In U.S. coastal waters, point sources have largely been addressed and the focus has turned towards controlling nonpoint sources of nutrients.

In addition to treating industrial and municipal wastewater, effective control of nutrient overloading in coastal waters requires comprehensive plans to address a variety of non-point sources. These include runoff from agricultural and residential development, e.g., air deposition of various forms of nitrogen from vehicle exhaust or industrial smokestacks and even ammonia from hog farms. Direct or indirect stimulation of zoospores of Pfiesteria spp. (fish-killing dinoflagellates) by nutrient loading (e.g. swine effluents and point- source discharges of municipal sewage) in the southeastern U.S., was suggested by Burkholder and Glasgow (1997), based on laboratory and field studies.

Control of nitrate (and pesticides) runoff or groundwater contamination from agriculture and urban activities may be enhanced through the use of the long-chain polymer, polyacrlyamide (PAM) added to irrigation water. Over half the irrigated croplands of the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest US are periodically treated with this chemical that is simply added to the water supply once per season. Control results have been striking (USDA 1999). PAM use should not take the place of normal best management practices such as large buffer strips around riparian areas, soil testing to plan proper fertilizer application rates, and so on. It is just an example of emerging technologies that will help achieve improved water quality.

Nutrient speciation (e.g. availability of dissolved organic vs. inorganic N sources), and micronutrients (e.g. supply of trace metals such as Fe) have also been implicated in stimulating HABs, but evidence of their role remains controversial (Boyer and Brand 1998). Deforestation may promote the discharge of humic acids, which have been suggested to favor dinoflagellates over diatoms (Granéli and Moreira 1990). Improved understanding of these effects could potentially lead to control of some HAB species via changes in land-use practices.

E.2  Does mariculture increase the incidence or severity of harmful algal blooms?

Mariculture activities may increase the incidence and severity of some, but not all HABs, depending on the location, hydrographic conditions and rearing practices. The most obvious putative mechanism would be nutrient enrichment in nutrient deficient regions (e.g. by high-density fish or shrimp mariculture). This may lead to increased growth rate and populations of algae including HABs. Transport of microalgae with cultured stocks of animals is another factor to consider. In addition, differences between finfish and shellfish mariculture operations result in different risks for HABs.

Mariculture sources of nutrients have been implicated in localized effects on microalgal abundance in poorly flushed and nutrient-sensitive coastal waterways, but links to specific harmful algal blooms have not been demonstrated. It is difficult to monitor and model the distribution and flux of nutrients in coastal waters due to the effects of tidal currents, uptake by algae and conversion to other components of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. There are, however, some classic cases often cited that seem to involve mariculture as a contributor to cultural eutrophication under certain circumstances. For example, nutrients from extensive mariculture in Japanese inland seas in the 1970s may have enhanced HABs, but nutrients from sewage and non-point sources and land-use practices were much more prevalent at that time, obscuring any possible effect (NOTE: reference here?). Sewage treatment controls have been correlated with the decline of blooms since then. Mariculture in the Baltic Sea fits this same description, with land-sources of nutrients, especially agriculture, far outstripping aquaculture sources. Mariculture only accounted for 0.2% nitrogen and 0.6% of the phosphorus loading from mariculture (Ackefors and Enell 1990). Although the contribution may have been small, there were probably cumulative effects in each case. Suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs and are often the dominant phytoplankton grazers in shallow estuaries. They show reduced retention efficiency for small particles (< 3-6 µm), and can also exhibit high ingestion selectivity for particular algal species. Therefore, they have the potential to alter the structure and species composition of phytoplankton, e.g. by shifting the relative abundance of phytoplankton species towards smaller (picoplankter) species or by selectively ingesting non-toxic species.

As a result of the potential for mariculture to increase algal blooms or HABs, some economies have prohibited siting of fish pen mariculture in nutrient sensitive waters, such as in shallow or poorly-flushed backwaters of Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest US (SAIC 1986). Instead, mariculture is permitted in non-nutrient-limited coastal seas where other factors, such as light limitation due to mixing, are the controlling factor for all microalgae (Weston 1886, Rensel Associates 1991, Rosenthal et al. 1994, SAR 1998). These practices also tend to enhance assimilation of settleable wastes by the benthos (sea bottom invertebrates). Managers or governments in some other economies that have not moved their mariculture production from shallow, nutrient sensitive bays are aware of the problem (e.g., Hong Kong), but face large social and technical constraints to change. The general direction world-wide is to relocate mariculture to less sensitive or nutrient insensitive waters (e.g., British Columbia, Washington State, Norway), not only to reduce the impact of harmful algae but to avoid fish-killing blooms that may occur more frequently in previously utilized, bays, fjords and inlets.

For about 12 years, net-pen fish farmers in Washington State were required to hire consultants to collect up and downstream nutrient data around their facilities, using a prescribed Government-promulgated protocol. Early review of some of these data (Rensel 1989, Parametrix 1990) showed elevated concentrations of nutrients within the pens, but little or no increase by a distance of 30 m downstream of the pens, particularly for ammonium. Eventually, the monitoring requirement was dropped by Government as all commercial fish farms in that area are located in non-nutrient sensitive waters. Moreover, field measurements of nutrient production are of little use in modeling, as production of nutrients varies unpredictably over hourly and longer time scales by at least a factor of three over a normal daily cycle (Brett and Zala 1975). Such monitoring protocols also assume a "pipeline" approach that does not account for non-laminar flows and small-scale eddies common near mariculture farms. Accordingly, estimates of nutrient production from mariculture are more likely to be correct when based on controlled, laboratory conditions.

In British Columbia (Winsby et al. 1996 and references therein) nutrient production studies at commercial salmon farms showed no increase in ammonium on the (tidal) downstream side of the farm beyond 10 m, compared with ambient conditions. This may have been due to uptake by algae or other biota, or dilution. These studies suggested that even when the industry was located in nutrient-sensitive waters (during the 1980’s, in the inland waterways near Sechelt), the results showed sporadic and inconsistent effects from farm activities in the immediate area. Basin-wide changes in water quality parameters could not be attributed to salmon farming.

Besides macronutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), micronutrients (trace metals and vitamins) associated with feed wastes and feces have been suggested as stimulants for algal blooms near mariculture facilities. In some cases these connections were speculative in nature, and in all cases appear to be restricted to poorly-flushed nearshore waters that were hypereutrophic or involved laboratory studies of very high micronutrient application rates (Rensel Associates and PTI Environmental 1991).

Investigators in Japan have found vitamin B12 to be a major growth-limiting factor for phytoplankton in the poorly-flushed and nutrient sensitive Seto Inland Sea at times (Nishijima and Hata 1989; Iwasaki 1989), but not always during prime phytoplankton growing seasons (Nakamura et al. 1989b). In that relatively shallow and enclosed sea, balanced supply and removal rates of vitamin B12 by bacteria and phytoplankton were documented, with contributions from rivers and sediments and degradation by light far less important in the total vitamin budget. It has been suggested that the balance could be upset by the introduction of large amounts of polluted river water or organic wastes, leading to a bloom of harmful phytoplankton that have a requirement for a higher than normal background concentration of vitamin B12 (Nishijima and Hata 1989).

In Scotland, the harmful dinoflagellate Gyrodinium aureolum, when exposed to very high concentrations of biotin (100 µg/L), was found to be toxic to Atlantic salmon. Cells grown with lower concentrations of biotin ¬similar to those likely to be found in mariculture waters of the Pacific Northwest (Cattell 1973)| had no adverse effect on the fish (Turner et al. 1987). Biotin is an essential vitamin used in fish feeds, and the researchers concluded that under extremely poor flushing conditions in the vicinity of fish cages, accumulation of biotin could occur and possibly lead to localized toxicity of G. aureolum. Dinoflagellate species that may be stimulated by biotin in British Columbia are not those associated with toxins or harmful effects in British Columbia (Winsby et al. 1996). The same authors also concluded that “there does not appear to be any significant links (NOTE: do not… links?) established between marine fish farming and HABs or general phytoplankton composition, biomass or productivity from many parts of the world, including British Columbia (Black 1993, Taylor and Horner 1994). Small, shallow, nearly-enclosed areas, such as some of those used in New Zealand, Scotland and Ireland, are much more likely to experience some effect than deep, well flushed systems such as those found in British Columbia, Chile or Norway.

In developing economies, limiting mariculture to main channels and less protected waters of coastal seas is not always achievable at present due to technological and economic/social restraints. Utilization of best management practices, such as use of pelletized feed (not raw feed) will greatly reduce waste discharge, while working to a goal of proper siting (NOTE: can’t follow the last phrase: “while working to a goal of proper siting” Sentence construction?).

Coral reef ecosystems are particularly susceptible to HABs as result of eutrophication caused by excess nutrient from anthropogenic sources. The reef building organisms in a coral reef have evolved to live in warm waters with very low nutrient concentrations. Typical nitrate and ammonium concentrations in coral reef waters are far below 0.5 uM; for phosphate they tend to be below 0.1 uM to undetectable. Massive phytoplankton and macroalgae blooms can develop with excess nutrient from point sources like sewage outflows, and non point sources like runoff and ground water seepage from urban and agricultural areas. These blooms affect the coral in various ways: they reduce the light available for the photosynthetic endosymbionts of the coral reef, therefore reducing the growth and maintenance of the reef; the fast growth rates of macroalgae smother slow growing corals and coralline algae and limit the amount of suitable sites for settlement of coral reef larvae; and the increase in algal biomass leads to an increase in the amount of organic matter in the system exacerbating the risk for anoxia. These conditions result in the destruction of the coral reef ecosystem, with negative impacts to local fisheries, recreation and even on occasions an increase in coastal erosion. In addition, the high macroalgal biomass augments the suitable surface area available for epiphytic dinoflagellates responsible for ciguatera poisoning. The systems can recover if the nutrients inputs are controlled; however, because of the relative slow growth rate of coral reef-building organisms the recovery can take many years. See Bell (1992) for an extensive and comprehensive publication on the topic of eutrophication of coral reefs.

There is a risk of transport of HABs with larvae or rearing water when stocks are transferred from one locality to another. In North America, finfish farmers are limited to transferring certified fish eggs, and only after certification by agencies and veterinarians that the stocks are disease free and have been treated with iodophors. Transfer of live fish and shellfish within states and provinces requires formal application and approval. These requirements are enforced not only by federal and state Fish and Wildlife and provincial agencies, but by the border patrol services of the US and Canada. The likelihood of freshwater harmful algae being transferred to marine waters along with stock transfers is minimal to none.

In some other APEC economies, however, movement of live fish or shellfish or their larvae over large distances is common and not well regulated, or regulated at all. This could be a source of new HAB introductions, but there can be other sources as well such as ballast water discharge, transport via ships’ hulls, physical oceanographic processes, extreme weather conditions, etc.

E.3  Can you make HABs go away? Are any of these cost-effective considering the environmental and social costs?

HAB blooms could theoretically be controlled, but the species certainly could be eliminated from the oceans and coastal waters entirely. The actions taken will depend upon the real or perceived risks to human health, economic productivity and natural resources and the costs of alternative corrective actions in a specific geo-political region. The question of benefits may outweigh the costs, except for exceptionally severe situations, where public political pressure on Government brings about pollution control and other measures to improve conditions or limit impacts of HABs

Shirota (1989) lists a number of possible methodologies for controlling HABs. Chemical, physical and biological methods are theoretically possible, but many are clearly unacceptable due to environmental side-effects and poor benefit/cost ratios. Some promising methods include flocculation and removal to the seabottom by application of specific kinds of clays. This method appears promising and has been used in broad-scale applications in South Korea and Japan (Shirota 1989, Bae et al 1999). Some limited research on effectiveness and environmental effects are currently ongoing in the US. Nutrient controls will reduce algal blooms and some HABs, as previously discussed. Grazing by suspension-feeding bivalves, which are capable of filtering large volumes of water per unit time, has been shown to play an important role in controlling phytoplankton biomass in shallow estuaries (e.g. Cloern 1982, Officer et al. 1982). Preliminary data suggest that bivalve could potentially control the initiation of brown tides of Aureococcus anophagefferens, by exerting grazing pressure at low cell densities of this alga, below the threshold that suppresses bivalve feeding rates (Caron and Lonsdale, 1999; Schaffner 1999). The role of top-down biological control of HABs by densely populated bivalve grazers in shallow, restricted coastal embayments and lagoons needs to be further evaluated, especially as stock enhancement of commercially valuable bivalve species for this purpose is likely to meet with high public acceptance. The practical feasibility of using macrofauna as biological control agents is also likely to be greater than that of using zooplankton.

Control by the application of cultured viruses and parasites that may specifically target certain HABs has recently been adressed (Suttle, 1995, Anderson 1997). Species-specific viruses, isolated from algal cells in the natural environment, are available for several phytoplankton species, including Aureococcus anophagefferens (Milligan and Cosper 1994). Although they can cause rapid algal mortality in laboratory cultures, and may be responsible for the decline of some blooms in nature, use of viruses as biological control agents has not yet been tested in the field. This method may hold more promise as a biological control mechanism at high bloom densities, than as a bloom prevention strategy, because effective viral infection typically requires high host cell densities. Insufficient information on viral-phytoplankton interactions, and environmental concerns by the public and regulatory agencies presently limit the potential application of this control method.

Many chemicals have been suggested for the control of HABs, including copper sulfate, hydrogen peroxide and ozone. These methods are too non-specific and may cause significant damage to other marine resources besides being of questionable benefit/cost value. The use of the naturally occurring chemical APONIN has been proposed for the control of some red tides (Martin and Taft, 1998; Taft and Martin 1986). However, there are some serious doubts about the usefulness of this method, and no field or mesocosm experiments have been conducted to verify its feasibility.

A variety of techniques are used by fish mariculturists to avoid or mitigate HABs, as discussed below.

E.4  Are there effective mitigation measures to reduce impacts on fish farms?

There are a variety of means to mitigate impacts on fish farms, but in many cases fish farmers are ill-prepared or not prepared at all when a major fish kill commences. Experience around the world has shown that fish farmers will generally prepare for future blooms only after experiencing a major bloom that leads to fish losses.

World-wide experience indicates that there is no single best method to mitigate HAB impacts for fish farms, but a few systems have proven somewhat effective (Rensel 1995). In some cases, towing the pens from the area of a HAB has been a preferred and effective method ¬e.g. reduced salmon and trout losses were realized by towing of pens into brackish waters and fjords along the Norwegian coast during the Scandinavian Chrysolchromulina polylepis 1988 bloom (Lindahl and Dahl 1990)| (NOTE: Edna may have a better, more detailed reference than this one, but it’ll do the job if not), if a suitable refuge area is available, but there are significant, associated risks and this may not be an option in many regions. Isolating the fish from the bloom with perimeter skirts or displacing cells from the pens with coarse-bubble aeration or air-lift pumping of deep water has been utilized with some success. Farmers have also tried sinking cages, deep cages, pre-emptive harvest, remote indicator-pens, indicator fish, instrument alarm systems, cessation of feeding and proper site selection to avoid HAB fish kills. Chemicals, ozonation, filtration, and simple aeration for toxic or harmful blooms have severe limitations or may not cost-effective.

New types of culture facilities including sinkable-offshore pens and bag culture may offer advantages, although these systems are not fullproof. New combinations of techniques such as perimeter skirting with plastic barriers, improved aeration with venturi nozzles or paddlewheels and clay treatment within the pens to remove HABs offer promise for some situations or locations. Prevention and mitigation of HAB-caused fish kills requires a monitoring program, either with government assistance or through co-operative efforts of the fish farmers.

E.5  Are there effective measures to mitigate the impacts of toxic HABs on shellfish?

Selection of shellfish species for aquaculture that accumulate relatively low levels of toxins and show rapid depuration can minimize the effects of toxin outbreaks (see Bricelj and Shumway 1998 for a comparative review of the capacity for accumulation and elimination of PSP toxins in bivalves worldwide). For example, mussels (Mytilus edulis) and softshell clams (Mya arenaria) depurate domoic acid fairly rapidly, whereas Pacific razor clams (Siliqua patula) and Atlantic sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) show prolonged retention of this toxin.

Similarly, marketing of organs/tissues that rarely accumulate toxins to levels exceeding the safety limit can minimize impacts. Detailed knowledge of the anatomical compartmentalization of toxins can be used to develop and meet the demand for specialized markets. This information must be determined on a species- and toxin-specific basis. For example, muscle tissues (adductor muscle and foot) of most bivalve species accumulate very low levels of PSP toxins. This is the basis for the marketing of sea scallop adductor muscles in North America and could, where the information is available, be exploited for the commercialization of other product ¬e.g. the foot of the Stimpson surfclam, Mactromeris polynyma, for the Japanese sushi market, or the foot of the carnivorous gastropod, Argobuccinum ranelliformes, (palo palo) consumed in southern Chile in areas affected by PSP (Compagnon et al. 1998)| Where toxins are exclusively accumulated in viscera or hepatopancreas (e.g. domoic acid in Dungeness crabs), evisceration of marketed product may offer a solution. Some level of mitigation may also be achieved by influencing consumer handling practices of contaminated product, especially in areas where illegal harvesting continues to occur despite enforcement efforts, but this requires an intense and targeted public education effort.

Movement of contaminated stocks for depuration provides an alternate mitigation measure (see #7). However, transfer of stocks between non-contiguous bodies of water is often restricted by local regulations. Depuration rates vary greatly among bivalve species and toxin groups. In general, the times required to attain the regulatory level increase with the initial toxicity attained, and are greater that the 48 hrs. required for depuration of bacterial pathogens. Depuration of domoic acid in species that accumulate this toxin only in the viscera (e.g. mussels) may hold the greatest promise as the rates of detoxification are relatively rapid (ca. 40 to 70% toxin loss per day). Manipulation of environmental conditions (temperature and food levels) can be useful to accelerate toxin depuration in some cases. The cost-effectiveness of depurating toxic bivalves in land-based systems needs further evaluation and may be a consideration for high-value product. Vertical displacement of stocks grown in suspended culture during toxic blooms may offer some possibilities for mitigation in deep waters where the distribution of toxic algae is predictable and highly stratified. This strategy is expected to be highly site- and alga- specific. Chemical methods to detoxify contaminated shellfish, such as ozonation, have so far proved ineffective (White et al. 1985). Other chemical and bacteriological methods allowing toxin inactivation, degradation or enzymatic transformation to non-toxic or less toxic derivatives, or biotechnological approaches involving genetic manipulation of stocks need to be investigated in future.

Seafood processing (industrial canning) has been used to reduce PSP toxin levels of some species (e.g. Mediterranean cockles, Acanthocardia tuberculatum, in Spain) to regulatory levels (Burdaspal et al. 1998). This method is only applicable when the initial toxicity is relatively low (typically < 300 µg STXeq/100g).

Overall, mitigation strategies once shellfish product is contaminated, are as yet relatively limited, and therefore management of shellfish toxins is still very dependent on monitoring to provide early warning capabilities and risk assessment.

E.6  What are the real versus perceived risks of dispersing harmful algal species in shipping live seafood and other marine organisms?

There are risks, but they vary in severity from low to high. Low risks occur when government control of live fish or shellfish is active. High risks occur in some economies where there is virtually no control of imported, live seafood. Collection of wild seed stock (e.g., juvenile fish) and shipping in live tanks, as practiced in some areas of the western Pacific is an example of a high-risk situation, not only for HABs but for fish disease and exotic species transfer of plants and other animals. There is also concern with the aquarium industry and the general public transferring stock.

Viable cells of thecated toxic dinoflagellates can be released in large quantities from feces of bivalves occurring in areas affected by toxic blooms (e.g. Bricelj and Shumway 1998). These may serve as an algal inoculum and pose a risk if shellfish are relayed from toxic areas to unaffected areas for toxin depuration. Holding of animals in contained, land-based systems for a period (a few days) sufficient for gut evacuation is recommended prior to transfer to the field. Viable cells of some toxic species, e.g. Heterocapsa circularisquama were also found in shipments of pearl oysters from Japan (Honjo et al. 1998).

E.7  Does ballast water disperse harmful algal species? What precautions are appropriate in accordance with the level of risk?

Ballast water handling practices may be a significant contributor to the spread of HABs, as ballast water is considered to be a major transport mechanism for nonindigenous species in general. There is extensive evidence of introduction of exotic invertebrates, but very limited studies exist for HAB species actually being transported to, and becoming established in a new area. In Australia, control of ballast water discharge has been instituted to address HAB introduction. Some tropical ports seem less prone to introduction, compared to sub-tropical or temperate waters. However, the risks are high enough for habitats of special significance and valuable mariculture areas (e.g., central Chile for finfish) to ban ballast water discharges, or require ballast water mitigation procedures such as open sea exchange or on-shore treatment (Hallegraeff 1995). Other transport mechanisms may also contribute to the spread of HABs, such as transfer of cells within fouling on the hulls of ships and normal or unusual oceanic currents.

Control strategies have been assessed for ballast water treatment, and there may be some viable, affordable options including use of ship engine heat exchangers to kill cells and cysts. Viable management options include monitoring of blooms in major ports, to alert ship companies and receiving ports of the risks of HABs during loading of ballast water. Nevertheless, experts agree that this problem needs immediate attention and authorities in some countries have begun to respond.

E.  References Cited

1. Ackefors, H. and M. Enell. 1990. Discharge of nutrients from Swedish fish farming to adjacent sea areas. Ambio. 19:28-35.

2. Anderson, D.M., 1997. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388: 513-514.

3. Bae, H.M., S.J. Yoon and H.G. Kim. 1999. Control of HABs by yellow loess dispersion. Abstract and presentation to the 1st Annual Conference on Harmful Algal Management and Mitigation 10-14 May 1999, Subic Bay, Philippines. APEC, IOC and other sponsors.

4. Black, E.A. 1993. Fish farms as the initiator of algae blooms. Fish. Aquacult. Interactions Bullpen, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Victoria, B.C.

5. Bell, P. R. F. 1992. Eutrophication and coral reefs-some examples in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Water Research, 26: 553-568.

6. Boyer, G.L. and L.E. Brand, 1998. Trace elements and harmful algal blooms. Pp. 489-508 In: Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms. D.M. Anderson, A.D. Cembella and G.M. Hallegraeff (eds.). NATO ASI Series, Vol. G41, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

7. Brett, J.R. and C.A. Zala. 1975. Daily patterns of nitrogen excretion and oxygen consumption of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) under controlled conditions. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:2479-2486.

8. Bricelj, V.M. and S.E. Shumway, 1998. Paralytic shellfish toxins in bivalve molluscs: occurrence, transfer kinetics, and biotransformation. Reviews in Fisheries Research 6(4): 315-383.

9. Burdaspal, P.A., Bustos, J., Legarda, T.M., j. Olmedo, Vigo, M. González and Buerenguer, J.A., 1998. Commercial processing of Acanthocardia tuberculatum L. naturally contaminated with PSP. Evaluation after one year industrial experience. In: Reguera B., Blanco J., Fernandez M. L. and Wyatt T. 1998. Xunta de Galicia and IOC- UNESCO, pp. 241-244.

10. Burkholder, J.M. and H.B. Glasgow, 1997. Pfiesteria piscida and other Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates: behavior, impacts, and environmental controls. Limonl. Oceanogr. 42(5) Part 2: 1052-1075.

11. Caron, D. and D. Lonsdale, 1999. Brown Tide Research Initiative (BTRI): latest BTRI results and new brown tide initiatives. http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/pages/publications.htm

12. Cloern, J.E., 1982. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in South San Francisco Bay? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9: 191-202.

13. Compagnon, D., Lembeye, G., Marcos, N., Ruiz-Tagle, N. and Lagos, N., 1998. Accumulation of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins in the bivalve Aulacomya ater and two carnivorous gastropods Concholepas concholepas and Argobuccinum ranelliformes during an Alexandrium catenella bloom in southern Chile. J. Shellfish Res. 17(1): 67-73.

14. Graneli E., Johansson N. and Panosso R. 1998. Celular toxin contents in relation to nutrient conditions for different groups of phycotoxins. In: Harmful Algae. In: Reguera B., Blanco J., Fernandez M. L. and Wyatt T. 1998. Xunta de Galicia and IOC- UNESCO, pp. 321-324.

15. Granéli, E. and M.O. Moreira, 1990. Effects of river water of different origin on the growth of marine dinoflagellates and diatoms in laboratory cultures. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 136: 89-106.

16. Hallegraeff, G.M., D.M. Anderson and A.D. Cembella. 1995. Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. IOC Manuals and Guides No.33. UNESCO, 551 pp.

17. Hallegraeff, G.M. 1995. Harmful algal blooms: a global overview. pp. 1-18, In: UNESCO Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. D. Anderson, G. Hallegaeff and A. Cembella (eds). UNESCO monograph on Oceanographic Methodology.

18. Hallegraeff, G.M., J.P. Valentine, P.A. Marshall, and C.J. Bolch. 1997. Temperature tolerances of toxic dinoflagellate cysts: application to the treatment of ships’ ballast water. Aquat. Ecol. 31: 47-52. Hawaii Department of Health. 1991. Fish Poisoning in Hawaii. Epidemiology Branch. 6 pp.

19. Hickell, W. 1998. Temporal variability of micro- and nanoplankton in the German Bight in relation to hydrographic structure and nutrient change. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55:600-609.

20. Hodgkiss IJ and K.C. Ho. 1997. Are changes in N:P ratios in coastal waters the key to increased red tide blooms? Hydrobiologia 852: 141-147.

21. Honjo, T., N. Imada, Y. Oshima, Y. Maema, K. Nagai, Y. Matsuyama and T. Uchida, 1998. Potential transfer of Heterocapsa circularisquama with pearl oyster consignements. Pp. 224-226 In: Harmful Algae, B. Reguera, J. Blanco, M.L. Fernández and T. Wyatt (eds.), Xunta de Galicia and IOC of UNESCO.

22. Iwasaki, H. 1989. Recent progress of red tide studies in Japan: an overview. pp. 3-9. In: Red Tides, Biology, Environmental Science, and Toxicology. T. Okaichi, D.M. Anderson, and T. Nemoto (eds). Elsevier, New York, NY.

23. Lindahl, O. and E. Dahl, 1990. On the development of the Chrysochromulina polylepis bloom in the Skagerrak in May-June 1988. Pp. 189-194 In: Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, E. Granéli, B. Sundström, L. Edler and D.M. Anderson (eds.), Elsevier Publ., New York.

24. Martin. J.L. and M.M. LeGresley. 1998. Does aquaculture impact harmful algal blooms in the southwest Bay of Fundy? In M.D.B. Burt and P.G. Wells (Eds.) Coastal Monitoring and the Bay of Fundy. Proceedings of the Maritime Atlantic Ecozone Science Workshop, held in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Nov. 11-15, 1997. pp. 24-27.

25. Martin, D. F. and W. H.Taft (1998). Management of the Florida red tide-revisited. Florida Scientist. 61(1):10-16.

26. Milligan, K.L.D. and E.M. Cosper, 1994. Isolation of a virus capable of lysing the brown tide microalga, Aureococcus anophagefferens. Science 266: 805-807.

27. Nishijima, T., and T. Hata. 1989. The dynamics of vitamin B12 and its relation to the outbreak of Chattonella red tides in Harima Nada, the Seto Inland Sea. pp. 257-260. In: Red Tides, Biology, Environmental Science, and Toxicology. T. Okaichi, D.M. Anderson, and T. Nemoto (eds). Elsevier, New York, NY.

28. Officer, C.B., T.J. Smyda and T.J. Mann, 1982. Benthic filter feeding: a natural eutrophication control. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9: 203-210.

29. Parametrix. 1990. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Fish culture in floating net-pens. Prepared for the Washington Department of Fisheries in cooperation with Battelle Northwest Laboratories and Rensel Associates. Olympia Washington. 161 pp.

30. Rensel, J.E. 1989. Phytoplankton and nutrient studies near salmon net-pens at Squaxin Island, Washington. in technical appendices of the State of Washington's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Fish culture in floating net-pens. Produced for the Washington Department of Fisheries. 312 pp. and appendices.

31. Rensel, J.E. 1995. Management of finfish aquaculture resources In: UNESCO Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. D. Anderson, G. Hallegaeff and A. Cembella (eds). UNESCO monograph on Oceanographic Methodology.

32. Rensel Associates and PTI Environmental Services. 1991. Nutrients and Phytoplankton in Puget Sound. Prepared for U.S. EPA. Region X Report 910/9-91-002. Seattle. 130 pp.

33. Riegman, R., 1998. Species composition of harmful algal blooms in relation to macronutrient dynamics. Pp. 475-488 In: Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms. D.M. Anderson, A.D. Cembella and G.M. Hallegraeff (eds.). NATO ASI Series, Vol. G41, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

34. Riegman, R., A.A.M. Noordelos and G.C. Cadée, 1992. Phaeocystis blooms and eutrophication of the continental coastal zones of the North Sea. Mar. Biol. 112: 479-484.

35. Rosenthal, H., V. Hilge and A. Kamstra (editors). 1994. Special Issue: Proceedings of the Workshop on Fish Farm Effluent. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 10: 215-390.

36. SAR 1998. Salmon Aquaculture Review. Province of British Columbia, Environmental Assessment Office. http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca

37. Schaffner, R.A., 1999. The role of suspension feeding bivalves in the initiation and control of Aureococcus anophafferens blooms. M.S. Thesis, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook.

38. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 1986. Recommended interim guidelines for the management of salmon net-pen culture in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Washington Department of Ecology and other Wash. state natural resource agencies, Olympia. Dept. of Ecology contract No. C-0087110. 48 pp.

39. Suttle, C., 1995. Viruses as biological control agents for blooms of marine phytoplankton. Pp. 71-76 In: Proceedings of the Brown Tide Summit, A. NcElroy (ed.), New York Sea Grant Institute Publ. No. NYSGI-W-95-001.

40. Takahashi, M., and N. Fukazawa. 1982. A mechanism of red tide formation. Effect of selective nutrient stimulation on the growth of different phytoplankton species in natural water. Mar. Biol. 70:267-273.

41. Taft, W. H. and D. F. Martin (1986). The potential for managing a red tide. Journal of Environmental Sci. Health A21:107-127.

42. Taylor, F.J.R. and R. Horner. 1994. Red tides and other problems with harmful algal blooms in the Pacific Northwest coastal waters. In: Wilson, R.C.H., Beamish, R.J., Aitkens and Bell, J. (Eds). Review of the marine environment and biota of the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1948:175-186.

43. Turner, M.F., A.M. Bullock, P. Tett, and R.J. Roberts. 1987. Toxicity of Gyrodinium aureolum: some initial findings. Rapp. T.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 187:98-102.

44. USDA 1999. PAM Research Project, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. http://kimberly.ars.usda.gov/pamPage.ssi and http://kimberly.ars.usda.gov/Pampub.ssi for dozens of research papers.

45. Weston, D.P. 1986. The environmental effects of floating mariculture in Puget Sound. College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences. University of Washington for Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Ecology. 148 pp.

46. White, A.W., Martin, J.L., Legresley, M. and W.J. Blogoslawski, 1985. Inability of ozonation to detoxify paralytic shellfish toxins in soft-shell clams. In: D.M. Anderson, W. White and D.G. Baden (eds.). Toxic Dinoflagellates, Elsevier, New York, pp. 473-478.

47. Winsby, M., B. Sander, D. Archibald, M. Daykin, P. Nix, F.J.R. Taylor and D. Munday. 1996. The Environmental Effects of Salmon Net Pen Culture in British Columbia. Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria B.C. by Hatfield Consultants and EVS Environmental.

48. Yung, Y.K., C.K. Wong, M.J. Broom, J.A. Ogden, S.C. M. Chan, and Y. Leung. 1997. Long-term changes in hydrography, nutrients, and phytoplankton in Tolo Harbour, Hong Kong. Hydrobiologia 352:107-115.

F.  Regulation and Trade
Table of Contents

Contributors: Phil Busby, Paul Anderson, Fwu-Chyn Hsueh, Nigel Harrison, Shin Okubo, Anant Saraya, Don Anderson, Marisa Luisa Fernandez

F.1  How do current regulatory requirements impact on trade?

Yes

Multiple standards/regulations are being used in different economies. Consequently there are situations where trade is impacted, or impossible, when a source economy is not prepared to comply with the standards/regulations of an importing economy. For example HACCP requirements for bringing shellfish into US markets are not commonly implemented by exporting countries, however there are many instances where the determination of equvialency is a mechanism for overcoming these types of barriers.

Even within some economies, there may be different standards/regulations relating to import, export, and domestic markets. Import regulations should be comparable to domestic regulations in order to limit the potential trade barrier.

There should be a more intensive effort to use Mutual Recognition Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding and other such mechanisms for solving problems created by inconsistent regulation.

As the basic policy of the World Trade Organization is the progressive elimination of the barriers that in the past protected domestic markets, standards or regulations might be used as non tariff barriers. Regulations shall not be applied in a manner which constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade (GATT Agreements, WTO). GATT Agreements encourage the harmonization of regulations to eliminate risks to public health and reduce obstacles to trade.

F.2  Are regulations and effective monitoring programs a cost or good business practice?

The various economies represented have different situations with regard to financial responsibility for monitoring programs. In some cases the industry funds these programs, while in others, the government funds these programs. Monitoring efforts are generally targetted at harvest areas where harvest levels warrant the effort and expense of conducting a monitoring program. Each economy should be able to select the requirements for monitoring based upon historical incidence of marine biotoxin in each harvest area. Importing economies need to accept the data and determinations generated by an exporting economy provided the data is based upon accepted methods or methods which are determined to be equivalent.

Some regulatory requirements (HACCP, ISO) are costs to industry/economies in terms of education, implementation and development of plans, but ultimately are good business practice as these programs are intended to create a level playing field.

Labeling, tagging, and record keeping are burdensome but very important requirements for recall and traceability and these types of requirements allow international market access.

A monitoring program is always costly, however its cost-effectiveness depends on the goals. If long-term goals are included, it can be highly cost-effective. A continuous and accurate flow of information enables the guarantees of quarantine periods in affected areas. Databases generated information leads to better management of resources and make research projects possible. Information in the database can improve the monitoring program and the indices of prediction of the appearance of, and evolution of toxic events and processes of intoxification and detoxification in different species. Such monitoring programs can also allow the possibility detecting environmental changes and determination of correct measures to adopt (Marino et al.1998, Harmful Algae, authors?)

F.3  Is there value in considering the adoption of standardized or complimentary regulations among APEC economies, and how should this be done?

There is value in creating basic guidelines with which each economy should try to implement their own regulations which maintain equivalency with the critical elements required for protection of public health.

Each economy has its own means of developing regulation, and own cultural norms and these need to be respected by other APEC economies while developing regulation and trade agreements.

By creating a guideline (such as a Model Ordinance type document) economies could create complementary regulations which, by following some standard formats, could better facilitate international trade. Whereas it may not be possible to match the form of such standards/regulation, the function of these standards should follow the guidlines.

GATT Agreements on sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures acknowledge the right of country members to establish regulations and standards for health protection whenever they are based on scientific principles and do not discriminate between countries where equivalent conditions prevail. Different regulations should be accepted whenever the achievement of the appropriate level of sanitary protection is demonstrated. Based on GATT Agreements, trade relationships shall be carried out based on the principles of HARMONIZATION, EQUIVALENCE AND TRANSPARENCY.

F.4 How can importing economies improve confidence in the management programs and certification of product safety of an exporting economy?

This is extremely difficult if product is coming from an economy without any agreements or standardized/complimentary regulations.

Even with standardized/complimentary programs and regulations, there may still be incidents where there is inadequate controls and public health may be compromised and/or an economy may be "delisted" as a supplier. For example this occurs in the EU when test criteria are either not met or not evaluated, or illnesses occurred; additionally at the bilateral level the USFDA and ISSC "delists" suppliers when agreements are violated.

It is important for suppliers to maintain it's reputation in order to ensure that their trading status is not compromised, there is a USFDA generated "Block List" which specifies companies which are repeat offenders that can be referred to by importing countries which would influence their willingness to do business with a particular supplier. Similarly, the ISSC participants utilize the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List (ICSSL) to ensure that source companies are currently certified under NSSP criteria.

Within regional trading partnerships there should be regional reference labs, experts or other intermediaries that can assist with solving disputes. For example, in the EU there is a Regional Reference Laboratory; and in the US the ISSC provides the forum for negotiating disputes between states and other trading partners. APEC is currently trying to formulate a policy in this regard which might involve an approved list of experts and expert laboratories to mediate disputes without the need for single regional laboratory.

F.5  How can an exporting economy develop confidence that, if they are forthright in divulging information on shellfish toxicity in their shellfish products, importing economies will respond properly?

There is ample evidence internationally that many countries with significant shellfish biotoxin problems are able to maintain strong export industries because they are forthright in divulging the potential for algal biotoxins in their product as well as the nature and effectiveness of their management program. Those countries which are not open about the ability of their testing programs to intercept dangerous products are not viewed as desirable trading partners. It is equally important to notify the receiving countries that "recalls" of contaminated product are being implemented in order to demonstrate a suitable level of oversight and responsibility. There exist guidelines in various programs (eg. ISSC, APEC, EU?) which outline the protocols for conducting recalls which specifically indicate the actions to be taken by the importing and exporting economies.

G.  Surveillance for Health Effects
Table of Contents

To effectively manage HAB issues, it is important to know quickly who or what is being affected by HAB toxins.

In all cases - humans, wildlife, livestock - signs or symptoms of affliction are important as indicators of toxic bloom events. In the case of human consumers, illness from toxic seafood is particularly important as an indication existing control systems are not working, or that a control system is needed. We strive to avoid having human consumers be the indicator organism. But if people do get sick, it is very important that we know about it promptly so that appropriate measures can be taken, and data can be captured from the episode to help in guiding policy.

Illness may occur from consumption or environmental exposure. Blooms of Gymnodinium breve along the west coast of Florida are frequently signalled by large numbers of dead fish, killed by direct exposure to ichthyotoxins from the cells in the water, and by asthmatic symptoms among people near the beaches who inhale windborne particles of dried spray, also containing brevetoxins from lysed cells. While shellfish frequently become toxic as a result of such blooms, human illnesses are rare because shellfish quarantines, guided in part by these indicators, generally protect consumers.

Domestic animals, livestock, and wildlife have repeatedly provided warning of toxic episodes through changes in behavior, illness, or death. The first indication of domoic acid in seafood along the California coast in 1991 was the unusual behavior of brown pellicans. Deaths among cormorants in northeast England were one of the first indications of a major PSP episode in 1968. Two household cats signalled an outbreak of shellfish toxicity in New Zealand in 1993. Barnyard poultry have repeatedly fallen prey to the devastating effects of dicarded bivalve viscera, not known to be toxic until the chickens keeled over.

On the other hand, the absence of effects doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem: For toxicity to be evident, there generally needs to be a vector that accumulates the toxins and is in turn consumed. There may not happen to be a suitable vector, or consumer. If there is persistent toxicity in seafood the local consumer populations, both human and animal, may well have adapted and know to avoid the toxic species. Toxic effects are therefore most reliable as an indicator of an increase in toxicity, or an occurrence without recent precedent.

Useful steps:

1. Ensure that a reporting system is in place so that information can get quickly to those who need it. Ensure that it and the need for the information are well publicized.

2. Train physicians and veterinarians, during their initial studies, through professional societies and journals, and through continuing education programs, to recognize the signs and symptoms of HAB intoxications, to treat victims appropriately, to report observations, and to capture clinical samples.

3. Educate and inform the public so that they are aware of the issue, know the importance of reporting observations quickly, and know where and how to send reports.

4. Establish a system for collecting specimens (food, urine, serum) related to illnesses when they occur, and either analyzing them or getting them to laboratories where they can be analyzed.