55.2: AL 3 . ■ ■ I J ■. - ■ ■■■».»■■■.■..■■.■■■'■.■.■ <*J£Hltl IPS Status of U.S. Harmful Algal blooms: Progress towards a National Program ifcu. 1 Bl rmful algal blooms kill coastal wildlife and poison humans. iiraf dN$l -^" *».« National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ■ i Pennsylvania State University 1 ^raries OCT 0 7 1998 INTRODUCTION U.S. coastal waters periodically expe- rience extensive blooms of algae that im- pact living resources, local economies, and public health. This phenomenon is not unique to the U.S., but is global, with ex- panding problems in Scandinavia, western Europe, the Mediterranean, South America, Asia-Pacific islands, and other coastal na- tions. Increasingly frequent incidences and the serious impacts of some bloom events in the U.S. have led to an integrated, inter- agency HAB program that addresses needs for safeguarding public health, limiting bloom impacts on coastal resources, and developing the capability to predict when and where toxic blooms will occur. Among the thousands of species of microscopic algae at the base of the ma- rine food chain are a few dozen that pro- duce toxins. Algal species make their pres- ence known sometimes as a massive "bloom" of cells that may discolor the water (Figure 1). Other species, in dilute, incon- spicuous concentrations of cells, are no- ticed because they produce highly potent toxins that either kill marine organisms di- rectly, or transfer through the food chain, causing harm at multiple levels. Blooms of toxic algae were commonly called "red tides," since, in the case of some Figure 1. Dense microalgal blooms can color the water bright green, red, or brown, and shade bottom plants and animals. dinoflagellates, the tiny organisms may in- crease in abundance until they dominate the planktonic community and tint the water red- dish with their pigments. Because other blooms may tint the water bright green or adverse ef- fects can occur when some algal concentra- tions are low and the water is clear, the scien- tific community now uses the term "harmful algal bloom" or HAB. This descriptor applies not only to toxic microscopic algae but also to nontoxic macroalgae (seaweeds) which can grow out of control and cause such ecological impacts as displacing indigenous species, al- tering habitat suitability, and depleting oxygen (Figure 2). HAB impacts include human illness and death from ingesting contaminated shell- fish or fish, mass mortalities of wild and farmed fish, and alterations of marine food chains through adverse effects on eggs, young, and adult marine invertebrates (e.g., corals, sponges), sea turtles, seabirds, and mammals. Figure 2. Dense macroalgal blooms smother bottom plants and animals (e.g., corals and sponges) and may drift ashore. vOiiection ory Copy What is the problem? Fish lesions, fish kills, irritating health prob- lems for some Maryland Eastern Shore resi- dents, and depressed commercial fish sales from the Chesapeake dominated last summer's local news media, capturing the at-, -HABs- 1 tention of state and federal agency offi- cials. The cause — a microscopic, toxin- producing, single- celled dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria — was to- tally unexpected and appeared to catch politicians and agency officials off- guard. Public alarm resulted, partially be- cause of the belief that this invisible predator was now lurking in the Chesa- peake Bay. Although these toxic cells were alarming and alien to local residents, HAB events are common "Ambush Predator" One of several new species of "phan- r torn" dinoflagellates, Pfiesteria piscicida, has a complex life cycle (dif- ficult-to-detect cysts, amoebae, non- toxic flagellates and toxic zoospore stages). Af- fecting human health and fisheries in mid- and southeastern U.S. estuaries, unknown sub- stances freshly secreted by finfish stimulate P. piscida to produce several toxins that narcotize fish and cause the formation of open bleeding sores.1'4 In the laboratory, human exposure to aerosols from toxic cultures has been linked to short- and long-term neurotoxic symptoms. Fish- ermen and others exposed to estuarine waters have also complained of similar problems, ex- emplified in the worst cases as a loss of neurocognitive ability from aerosolized toxin. along U.S. shorelines. HABs are now found throughout the U.S. coastal system, from the Gulf of Maine through the Gulf of Mexico and north to Alaska. Blooms of algae have been identified in every coastal state and HAB species regularly threaten coastal living resources, restrict local harvests of fish and shellfish, divert public funds to monitoring programs, depress local recreational and service industries, and burden medical facilities. U.S. HABs are caused by a diverse group of organisms with serious impacts for humans and coastal ecosystems. When toxic algae are filtered from the water as food by shellfish such as clams, mussels, oysters, and scallops, shellfish tissues accumulate toxins.5 6 Typically, shellfish are only margin- ally affected, even though a single clam can sometimes accumulate sufficient toxin to kill a human. Shellfish poisoning syndromes have been given the names paralytic (PSP), diarrhetic (DSP), neurotoxic (NSP), and am- HABs- 2 nesic (ASP) on the basis of descriptive human symptoms. Except for ASP all are caused by biotoxins synthesized by marine dinoflagellates. ASP is produced by dia- toms that, until recently, were all thought to be free of toxins and generally harmless.7 A fifth human illness, ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP) is caused by biotoxins produced by di- noflagellates that grow on seaweeds and other sur- faces in coral reef commu- nities.8 Ciguatera toxins are transferred through the food chain from reef fishes that eat algae to the carni- vores that feed on them (e.g., barracuda). Similarly, the viscera of commercially important fish (e.g., herring or sardines) can contain PSP toxins, endanger- ing human health following consumption of whole fish. Whales, porpoises, manatees, seabirds, and other wildlife are victims as well, receiving toxins via contaminated zoop- lankton or fish (Figure 3).9 10 Impacts from other HABs occur when marine fauna are killed by algal species that release toxins and other compounds into the Figure 3. Toxins accumulated in tissues of small marine life that feed on HABs can kill large consumers like whales. Figure 4. Dense algal blooms may consume oxygen in the water column and cause massive mortalities of marine life. water, or that kill without toxins by physically damaging gills or by creating low oxygen conditions (Figure 4). Pfiesteria and related toxic species produce as yet unidentified toxins that have been implicated in tempo- rary short-term losses of neurocognitive abilities (short-term memory) in Maryland residents exposed to water or aerosol con- taining the organism. Large, prolonged blooms alter the distribution of light, leading to decreasing densities of valuable sub- merged aquatic vegetation in our coastal ar- -V land bay scallops). What are the trends and economic consequences of HABs? Documented episodes of PSP human in- toxication and mortalities on the West Coast extend back to 1 903 in California. PSP events were also common off Alaska, Oregon, Wash- ington, and Alaska, but extended into Puget Sound only recently. On the East Coast, how- ever, observations of PSP events prior to 1 972 were limited to eastern Maine. Now, PSP has spread throughout the rest of New England and to Georges Bank. As far back as the mid-16 century, NSP toxins, which poison human con- sumers of shellfish, have caused respiratory irritation in humans and mortalities in fish and other wildlife in western Florida and Texas coastal waters, and occasionally were carried by the Gulf Stream to North Carolina. For the first time, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana suffered an NSP outbreak in 1996. ASP tox- eas and degrading nursery habitats. Dense accumulations of some HABs also lead to local depres- sions in oxygen levels (hypoxia and anoxia) that can reduce fish and shellfish habitat (e.g., seagrass, coral and sponge) and in most severe condi- tions, kill endemic fish and shellfish commu- nities (Figure 4). Other HAB species can damage local shellfish and aquaculture fish stocks, resulting in se- vere economic hard- ship and, in some cases, collapse of the fishery (e.g., Long Is- --=.— Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning KyjJJ! B PSP syndrome is life-threatening and can 7 '[■': result in respiratory arrest within 24 hours "~~:-~- of consuming shellfish laced with toxins from feeding on algae in the genus Alexandrium. There is no antidote. PSP health risks are controlled by monitoring shellfish and rapidly closing toxic re- gions. PSP toxins can be transferred through the food chain, killing fish, birds, and marine mam- mals.1012 Before 1972, PSP on the U.S. Atlantic coast was restricted to eastern Maine. Now the entire New England coastline experiences periodic PSP outbreaks with extensive shellfish bed clo- sures and economic losses. Similarly, PSP ap- peared in Puget Sound in the late 1970's. PSP im- pacts more U.S. coastline than any other HAB.13 .-. ' PSP events during last 10 years • 6-10 times • 2-5 times • 1 time o Sampled but not detected ins, which cause per- manent loss of short- term memory and in some cases death, now occur along the West Coast and off Alaska, but the organism re- sponsible for toxin pro- duction has also been identified from northern Gulf of Mexico and Mas- sachusetts waters. Ciguatera poisoning is the most prevalent HAB intoxication in tropical '« and subtropical U.S. , possessions, affecting ) as much as 50% of the U.S. Virgin Islands population, as well as jj many residents and J tourists of other tropical^ U.S. states and territo-ar/ Pre-1972 tera nal anoxia HI *¥ PR A< Post-1972 li kills r. ASP occasional anoxia DSP (scattered, unconfirme Atlantic dolphin mortalities? Whale mortalities (PSP in macker Florida Manatee mortalities poms (aesthetics) HI PR Figure 5. Since 1972, U.S. HAB distribution appears to be expanding and events occurring more commonly. ries.14 On this evidence, the experts conclude that HAB problems are increasing through- out U.S. coastal waters (Figure 5). The scale of HAB economic impacts is startling, and, if the trend continues, the fu- ture most likely holds economic hardships for many more local communities that de- pend on healthy fish and shellfish resources. The rapid geographic expansion in the past two decades is responsible for economic losses approximating $100 million per year. This estimate would significantly increase if shellfisheries that have never opened due to continuous toxin accumulation were in- cluded in computations. For example, PSP n shellfish along Alaska's 30,000 mile coast- line has prevented development of a commercial shellfishery in the state, estimated at $50 mil- lion annually.15 Domoic acid in- toxication of razor clams and Dungeness crabs in Washington and Oregon resulted in losses of $1 5-20 million in 1 991 , asso- ciated with collapse of the rec- reational and commercial fisher- ies and a huge tourist industry. Farmed fish have also been im- pacted as a result of mortalities caused by Chaetoceros convolutus and Heterosigma carterae, with 1987 losses of $0.5 and $4-5 million, respec- tively.1617 Along these same lines, a single PSP event in Maine in 1 980 reportedly cost the state $7 million18 and outbreaks have re- curred nearly every year since. Similarly, the bay scallop fishery in Long Island, yielding $2 mil- lion annually, has never recov- ered from blooms of the brown tide organism Aureococcus in 1985.19 Pfiesteria events in Au- gust, 1997 along Maryland's Eastern Shore resulted in an estimated $40 million loss in commercial sales for the Chesapeake region.20 In the Gulf of Mexico and along the western coast of Florida, G. breve blooms nearly every year, with esti- mated losses of $20 million per event.21 In coastal North Carolina, 400 km of shellfish area were closed from the same organism at a loss of $25 million in 1987-8822 and the shellfisheries of four states along the north- ern Gulf of Mexico (Florida, Alabama, Mis- sissippi and Louisiana) were closed in 1 996, exceeding $15 million in lost revenue.23 Noneconomic losses accompanying U.S. HAB events have also been dramatic. For example, 149 manatees, an endangered HABs- 4 species, were killed off western Florida in a 1996 G. breve bloom. Each year, fish, bottlenose dolphins, whales, sea turtles and birds succumb from encoun- ters with U.S. HABs (Figure 6). Such events often trigger public outcry and a de- mand for immediate remedial action. What causes HABs to increase? Although few would argue that the num- ber of toxic blooms, the economic losses from them, the types of resources affected, and the number of toxins and toxic species have all increased dramatically in recent years in the U.S. and around the world, opin- ions differ with respect to the reasons for this expansion.2426 We may have contrib- uted to the global HAB expansion by trans- porting toxic species in ship ballast water27 or by dramatically in- creasing aquaculture activities. Other "new" bloom events may re- flect indigenous popu- lations that were dis- covered because of better detection meth- ods and more observ- ers.29 The linkage to pollution, however, cannot be ignored. In- creased nutrient loads to coastal waters may stimulate background (i.e., relatively low level) populations of microscopic and mac- roscopic algae to ini- tiate a bloom. Some scientists even argue that the nutrients that humans supply to coastal waters are de- livered in proportions that differ from natu- Figure 6. Losses of wildlife from ingestion of HAB toxins are significant and include this dead pelican and these manatees rally occurring ratios, such that we may be al- tering algal species composition by favoring cer- tain groups (e.g., HABs) better adapted to al- tered nutrient supply ratios.30 Pfiesteria, for ex- ample, seems to thrive in polluted waters.31 A U.S. INTERAGENCY HAB PROGRAM Until recently, the U.S. had no national pro- gram or plan to attack problems associated with HABs and marine biotoxins, despite a long history of impacts, re- search, and local moni- toring. Research pro- grams were small, frag- mented, and uncoordi- nated, run by individual investigators and rarely have been sustained through time. There was little communication be- tween workers and no federal coordination of activities with respect to national priorities. Ii contrast, other countries'1 such as Canada,) France, and Japan es- tablished coordinated national research pro- grams that included fre- 1 quent meetings of inves^ tigators, sustained funds/ Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning NSP gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms from eating shellfish that have fed on toxic Gymnodinium breve dinoflagellates, can be debili- tating.22' 2S There is no antidote; full recovery usu- ally is within days. Monitoring programs generally prevent human exposure except in previously un- affected areas where officials may not be monitor- ing. During blooms, humans may be driven from coastal areas by asthma-like symptoms from rot- ting fish and toxic aerosols. Blooms occur annu- ally along Gulf of Mexico shores (e.g., 22 of the last 23 years off western Florida), can cover as much as 3x10* km,2 and can last as long as 18 months. In 1996, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ala- bama experienced their first bloom — 30 bottlenose dolphins were killed and the oyster industry suf- fered extensive economic loss. A 1997 Texas bloom killed over 14 million fish. Blooms are occa- sionally carried to North Carolina coastal waters. NSP events during last 1 0 years ® 6-10 times 9 2-5 times © 1 time o Sampled but not detected HABs- 5 - ing in high priority areas, and continual re- evaluation of progress and priorities for the future. This situation has begun to change in the U.S. If the effort is sustained, elements of a national program on HABs are being implemented at a scale that will surely have a significant impact on understanding these phenomena and our ability to manage their impacts. How has the U.S. responded to HAB events? Agency and academic research labora- tories have been active for the past several years, primarily focusing on HAB effects on fish habitat and nutrition. This research gen- erated a substantial expertise and knowledge for the diverse suite of HAB species in the U.S., but there was no coordinated approach to developing explanations for HAB problems nationwide. Convinced that HAB prevalences and impacts were increasing, U.S. researchers, agency representatives, and members of the private sector began a series of workshops at the start of this decade to plan a national response. Intense and productive workshops over the last 5 years yielded a compre- hensive national HAB program outlined in three separate reports. The first, a general approach to HABs outlined in the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) sponsored report Marine biotoxins and harmful algae: A national plan32 is the nation's foundation for HAB research, management, and policy. The second report — ECOHAB The ecol- ogy and oceanography of harmful algal blooms a national research agenda™ — is sponsored by NOAA and the National Sci- ence Foundation (NSF). It is a focused ex- pansion of National Plan objectives pertain- ing to the ecology, physiology and oceanog- raphy of bloom-forming species. This report is now the blueprint for ECOHAB, the first Miikttk -HABs- 6 Federal research program on the ecology and oceanography of HABs. ECOHAB is supported by DOC/NOAA, NSF, the U.S. En- vironmental Protection Agency (EPA), De- partment of Defense's Office of Naval Re- search (ONR), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ECOHAB research, focused on the mechanisms re- sponsible for HABs in U.S. coastal waters, will be used to develop predictive models for HAB events. Such models will help guide future regional and national agency re- sponses to protect citizens, businesses, and coastal living resources from HABs. The third portion of the U.S. HAB pro- gram is summarized in a report that focuses on processes, mechanisms, and technolo- gies that might be employed in the control of HABs and their impacts. NOAA and the Na- tional Fish and Wildlife Foundation supported development of Harmful algal blooms in coastal waters: Options for prevention, con- trol and mitigation.™ It too was derived from Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning ASP, so named because one of its most severe symptoms is the permanent loss of short-term memory, can be fatal. The ASP toxin, domoic acid, is produced by the diatoms, Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries and P. australis. First identified in east- ern Canada in 1987, 3 it has been a problem for the U.S. Pacific coast states since 1 991. 33 Domoic acid has been detected in shellfish on the east coast as well and toxic P. multiseries cells have been iso- lated from Gulf of Mexico water. Besides shellfish, it is now known that domoic acid also accumulates in fish and in crab viscera. ASP events during last 10 years 0 6-10 times 9 2-5 times * 1 time o Sampled but not detected Ciguatera Fish Poisoning CFP is a malady associated with dinoflagellate tox- ins that accumulated in tropical fish flesh. Although the most frequently reported non-bacterial illness associated with eating fish in the U.S. and its terri- tories, the number of CFP cases is probably far higher, because there is no confirmatory labora- tory test and reporting to the U.S. Center for Dis- ease Control is voluntary.28 CFP is produced pri- marily by epiphytic dinoflagellates (e.g., Gambierdiscus toxicus, Amphidinium carterae, Coolia monotis and several others in the genera Prorocentrum, Ostreopsis anc/Thecadinumj grow- ing on the surfaces of red and brown macroalgae in virtually all sub-tropical to tropical U.S. waters. When macroalgae are grazed by herbivorous fish, ciguatera precursors in the epiphytes are biotransformed into ciguatoxin in fish flesh. Ciguatoxin accumulates, persists over extended periods and, if consumed by humans, causes long- term, debilitating, but non-lethal illness.34' 35 CFP events during last 10 years • 6-10 times • 2-5 times • 1 time o Sampled but not detected objectives of the National Plan but defines an area that the U.S. had not yet dealt effec- tively with in its responses to HABs (i.e., man- agement and control). The U.S. is far behind many parts of the world in managing coastal waters to limit HAB impacts. For example, Japan, China, and Korea are exploring a suite of technologies and strategies (e.g., clayfloc- culation, algicidal bacteria) to directly elimi- nate blooms in their territorial waters.36 This report is now the basis of a new U.S. initia- tive to manage bloom development, persis- tence, and toxicity, thereby minimizing eco- nomic and ecologic impacts. These three reports are the U.S. frame- work for an integrated national HAB program. Guidance, direction, and support for the U.S. program is provided in biannual meetings of the Ad Hoc Interagency Task Force on Ma- rine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae, composed of agency representatives and academic re- searchers. Although individual Federal agen- cies maintain agency-specific HAB projects, NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP) is taking the lead in guiding initial portions of the national effort through coordination of the U.S. research program ECOHAB and is at- tempting to identify and interface HAB activi- ties across the agencies. In its infancy, this activity is receiving support from all agencies with initial cooperation and dialog evident among the ECOHAB partners, the Depart- ment of Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as well as the agencies responsible for public health and seafood safety, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the Center for Disease Control and Protection (CDCP) in Human Health Ser- vices. Additional input to the national program is also ensured through operation of the Na- tional Office of Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms, located in Woods Hole, Mas- sachusetts. This office, supported by NOAA and NSF, was established in response to a national need for timely HAB information and coordination. The office distributes national and international HAB information to re- searchers, managers, and public officials through its active web site. Further, the office assists the national effort by overseeing na- tional workshops and symposia on HAB-re- lated topics. Overseen by Dr. Donald Ander- son, a HAB research scientist and U.S. rep- resentative to many international organiza- tions, the National Office is critical to contin- ued HAB activities nationwide. How effective are current HAB efforts? Research on toxins, toxic species, new detection methods. Current research is fo- , cused on some of the most troublesome HABS HABs- 7 - species impacting coastal areas (Appendix 1). The initial interagency ECOHAB projects are in place and funded beginning in the fall of 1997. Two intensive, five-year multi-disci- plinary research programs are supported for toxic Alexandhum in the Gulf of Maine and Gymnodinium in the Gulf of Mexico, yielding predictive models for forecasting landfall of the HAB species. Seven other targeted stud- ies are also supported, addressing macro- algal blooms in Guam, trophic impacts of sev- eral U.S. HAB species (Alexandrium, Gyro- dinium, Prorocentrum, Pseudo-nitzschia), population genetics of brown tide populations from Long Island, bacterial control of toxic Gymnodinium, and nutrient require- ments of ASP-pro- ducing Pseudo- nitzschia. A second funding opportunity for new research on Pfiesteria and other HABs was published this spring with awards scheduled for this summer. Blooms of brown tide popula- tions that have deci- mated bay scallops and seagrasses in Long Island are being intensively examined through a Brown Tide Research Initiative (BTRI), supported by NOAA's COP. The NOAA Sea Grant Program is support- ing individual HAB projects throughout the U.S. that include toxic species such as Pfiesteria, Alexan- drium, and Proro- centrum. HABs- 8 Brown Tide Blooms BTBs, caused by golden-brown algae, recently ap- peared off southern New England and Texas. A mas- sive bloom of Aureococcus anophagefferens was first reported in the bays of eastern Long Island, New York, in June of 1985. Severe brown tides have occurred in most years since then and now are also in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, and Narragansett Bay, Rhode Is- land. After a drought that increased the salinity and severe freezes that killed millions offinfish in Laguna Madre, TX, an extensive bloom of a new species, Aureoumbra lagunensis, appeared in 1990 and each summer since. Both BTBs have had substantial eco- logical impacts (e.g., reductions in zooplankton graz- ing rates, decreased light penetration and reductions in the extent of seagrass beds). Submerged aquatic vegetation has been decimated in both regions due to BTB shading. Subtle ecosystem changes from long-term dominance of the Laguna Madre system in southern Texas are likely.37 BTBs have caused mass mortalities of blue mussels in Rhode Island.38 In Long Island Sound, BTBs have had a severe im- pact on commercially valuable shellfish, affecting more than 80% of New York's bay scallop harvest.39 Pfiesteria's toxins are being intensively investigated through NOAA and NIEHS sup- port of the Charleston Laboratory and the University of Miami's Marine and Freshwa- ter Biomedical Science Center. Identification, purification, and assay development are im- minent. FDA is conducting research on the culture of pfiesterioid organisms for charac- terization, toxin production, and development of detection methods. Nutrient requirements and trophic impacts of Pf/esfer/a-related spe- cies are part of an intramural research pro- gram at NOAAs Beaufort Laboratory. The linkages between proliferation of coastal HABs with land use and watershed charac- teristics are key com- ponents of intramural EPA, USDA, and USGS research pro- grams. The economic impacts of HABs, a critical indicator of so- cietal influences on the initiation of HAB events, are being summarized by the National Office of Ma- rine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms with support from NOAA Sea Grant. Epi- demiology, symptomo- logy, diagnoses, ther- apy, and advisory in- formation for humans exposed to marine biotoxins are major ini- tiatives within the CDCP And finally, de- velopment of toxin biomarkers, indicators, and exposure thresh- olds are expanding programs within the CDCP and NIEHS. National Plan ob- Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms Excessive growths of Anabaena, Aphanizomenon, and Microcystis, can lead to HCBs that exhibit se- vere neuro-, cyto- and hepatotoxicity in a variety of mammals (e.g., humans and farm animals), birds, fish and invertebrates (e.g., zooplankton). HCBs are national economic and environmental threats, occur- ring in large estuarine systems (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle-Pamlico Sound and Florida Bay) and the Great Lakes. For example, a persistent algal bloom dominated by a new HCB species, Synechococcus elongatus, appeared in 1991 in mid- north central Florida Bay, spread to central and west- ern areas, and persists more or less to this day. This HCB and the turbid waters and reduced light pen- etration it causes have been implicated in large-scale mortalities of seagrass and sponge beds and even degradation of Florida Keys coral reefs. jectives specific to toxin identification, characterization, human health, and assay development are current activities of CDCP, NIEHS, and laboratories in NOAA and the FDA. The NIEHS Marine and Freshwater Bio- medical Science Centers have dedi- cated missions for marine biotoxin re- search within each university center in the NIEHS program receiving annual support. The Uni- versity of Miami NIEHS Marine and Freshwater Bio- medical Sciences Center is an interna- tionally respected resource for several toxins, including the brevetoxins, fatal to endangered manatees and sea turtles. The Center's staff is cur- rently focusing on identification of and as- say development for Pfiesteria toxins. NOAA's Charleston Laboratory and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center are in- vestigating toxin production and living re- source indicators to toxin exposure for sev- eral U.S. HAB species. NOAA's National Environmental Satellite and Data Informa- tion Service (NESDIS) is purchasing, pro- cessing, and providing ocean color satellite data and products in near-real time that should be helpful in detecting and monitor- ing HABs. In cooperation with COP, NESDIS is currently developing regionally specific ocean color algorithms and calibrating/vali- dating incoming and outgoing data streams for HAB detection (e.g., G. breve for the west Florida shelf and Alexandrium for the Gulf of Maine). CDCP and NIEHS were active partners in resolving public health issues for Maryland in 1997. Through such ef- forts, CDCP-state part- nerships expand epide- miological studies on marine biotoxins and develop case histories, diagnoses, therapies, and advisory information for public officials and the health community. Because of its man- date to ensure food safety, FDA maintains a strong research and re- sponse capability to de- tect, evaluate, and miti- gate toxic events which could affect food. FDA research on seafood tox- ins (freshwater and marine) is carried out at dedicated seafood laboratories located in Washington, D.C. Dauphin Island, Alabama, and Bothell, Washington. These laboratories culture toxic organisms, isolate, and charac- terize toxins, develop methods, supply toxin standards, and evaluate risks from toxin ex- posure. When outbreaks occur, these labora- tories analyze samples from cases of sus- pected seafood poisoning. Illnesses from shell- fish toxins (PSP and NSP) and ciguatera have been confirmed from several poisonings over the past two years. FDA laboratories aid states when emergency needs for environmental analyses arise that exceed state capabilities (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico NSP outbreaks of 1 996). FDA experts in seafood toxins work with , state and federal officials to determine the ex- § tent and hazard from environmental occu rences of familiar (e.g., PSP) or less familial \ HABs- 9 Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning DSP is considered by some scientists to be the most common and globally widespread phytoplankton- related seafood illness. DSP-producing species of phytoplankton such as Dinophysis acuminata and Prorocentrum lima occur throughout all temperate coastal waters of the U.S. The first confirmed inci- dence of DSP in North America occurred in 1990 and 1992 in Canada. DSP, attributable to P. lima, has been reported from northern Maine and from Georges Bank, but generally is not a problem in the U.S. wti- J toxic events (e.g., the response to the sus- pected Pfiesteria species events in Maryland last year). A major undertaking of the FDA Washington Seafood Laboratory is the train- ing of state and foreign officials to establish observer programs which provide early warn- ing of potential HAB events. FDA toxin ex- perts represent the U.S. in several interna- tional organizations (e.g., APEC, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperative) with goals for the global distribution of safe seafood. Monitoring and assessment capabili- ties. Other current HAB activities in the Fed- eral government address the National Plan objectives focusing on rapid response and assessment capabilities to toxic and HAB outbreaks. The unprecedented mass mortali- ties of fish, high incidence of fish with lesions, and public illness associated with toxic Pfiesteria- 1 ike populations in Maryland's Eastern Shore tributaries this past summer initiated an immediate Federal-state partner- ip^to vigorously monitor and assess wa- HABs- 10 tershed conditions, public health, and sea- food safety for the region. An immediate NOAA and EPA allocation of funds resulted in an enhanced and expanded water quality monitoring program by Maryland's Depart- ment of Natural Resources with cell identifi- cation and toxicity determined at North Caro- lina State University (Figure 7) and Florida Marine Research Institute laboratories. A NOAA vessel and captain were stationed on the river for the summer. The NOAA-State Cooperative Oxford Laboratory and USGS were instrumental in assessing pathology of lesioned and dead fish as well as coordinat- ing fish bioassays in the Pocomoke River. CDCP and NIEHS assisted Maryland's health teams in conducting public health sur- veys and clinical examinations of Pfiesteria- exposed and non-exposed individuals. NIEHS, USDA, NOAA's Sea Grant, and EPA supported workshops specific to Pfiesteria, its toxins, and impacts. The FDA immediately initiated short-term bioassays of Pfiesteria- exposed fish and shellfish to safeguard sea- food from the area. NOAA's Maryland Sea Grant office produced a web site for near real- time distribution of information from the tribu- taries, laboratories, and public officials. This immediate, multi-agency response, admittedly ad hoc, served to consolidate sup- port from individual agencies that a rapid re- sponse capability was a national need for comparable events in the future and became one of the primary recommendations for an interagency report to the White House pro- viding recommendations for future HAB pro- grams in the U.S. Seven agencies (Depart- ment of Interior [DOI], DOC/NOAA, CDCP, FDA, USDA, EPA, and NIEHS) participated to produce National harmful algal bloom re- search and monitoring strategy: An initial fo- cus on Pfiesteria, fish lesions, fish kills, and public health, providing the basis for plan- ning Federal activities and responses for similar events in the future. National Plan ob- jectives are focused and, with little revision, were the model for developing this HAB Strategy. The successes of the Federal-State partnership in rapidly responding to Maryland's P//'ester/'a-induced fish kills and public illnesses have also resulted in addi- tional support in FY98 to ensure a similar capability in the coming year. NOAA and EPA each received funding for assisting State programs for Pfiesteria monitoring and assessment beginning this spring. Fol- lowing a meeting with mid- and south At- lantic state representatives, Federal-State partnerships will be formed through distri- bution of Federal funds to individual states for supplemental program assistance and the expansion of selected program ele- ments. Access to databases and informa- tion communication. The identification of databases on bloom incidences, toxin oc- currence in shellfish, mass mortality events, epidemiology, and the dissemination of this information is a key National Plan objec- tive. As noted above, the National Office of Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms has a HAB-dedicated web site for distribu- tion of all national and international HAB material. Most Federal agencies also main- tain web sites for distributing agency-spe- cific information and in the last several years, electronic linkages to HAB web pages have been a focus of several Fed- eral organizations. For example, NOAAs Figure 7. This North Carolina State University researcher is one of a few HAB scientists studying toxic Pfiesteria cells. HAB Fish Kills Catastrophic losses of cultured and wild fish not only occur from many toxic algal species, but also from others that do not cause illnesses in humans. Blooms of the diatom, Chaetoceros convolutus, do not pro- duce a toxin but have caused massive fish kills. Chains of these cells armed with long setae and short secondary spines become lodged in fish gills and cause blood hypoxia as a result of mucous produc- tion. Blooms of the flagellate, Heterosigma carterae, have caused even more extensive farmed-fish mor- talities in British Columbia and Washington state with substantial economic losses for this industry. Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia Sea Grant Offices encouraged the public to use their HAB web sites and provided additional advisory information during the recent Pfiesteria outbreaks. These Sea Grant Offices as well as others in Mississippi and New York have featured newsletters dedicated to HABs to inform the research communities and edu- cate the public on HAB threats in local regions. NIEHS Centers also distribute results through web sites. Further, community participation in HAB workshops is also increasing, largely through NOAA, NIEHS, USDA, NSF, and EPA support. The same agencies are identifying HAB-related databases, another National Plan objective, for community access and revision. Future HAB activity support. Congres-, sional appropriations in FY 1998 and the ( President's proposal for 1999 will strengthen and enhance critical capabilities to provide comprehensive research, monitoring, assess- ment, planning, as well as scientific and tech- , nical support to states and communities (Fig- j ure 7). One of the greatest threats to U.S. coastal areas — nonpoint source pollution, in-| HABs-11 Federal FY 98-99 Support for U.S. HAB Activities National Plan Objectives NOAA CDC FDA EPA NSF NIEHS USDA DOI 1. Isolate, characterize toxins — FY1998 400K 500K 400K 400K 300K FY 1999 resources 400K 500K 400K 250K 300K 200K 2. HAB detection methods— FY 1998 300K 1500K 400K 400K 150K 32K 100K FY 1998 resources 300K 1500K 300K 400K 150K 300K 300K 3. Toxin effects on ecosystems/humans — FY 1998 700K 5000K 700K 650K 120K 350K 40K FY 1999 resources 1700K 5000K 700K 950K 350K 500K 4. Forecasting capabilities — FY 1998 2200K 400K 300K 682K FY1 999 resources 3400K 400K 500K 572K 5. Manaqement and mitigation — FY 1998 500K 700K 700K FY 1999 resources 1000K 700K 500K 1000K 6. Rapid response to HABs—FY 1998 500K 2000K 700K 800K 100K FY 1999 resources 2200K 2000K 700K 100K 7. Communication, outreach, education — FY 1998 300K 1000K 500K 2K FY 1999 resources 300K 1000K 500K 10K 8. Databases— FY 1998 400K 400K 100K 100K FY 1999 resources 800K 400K 100K 100K TOTAL FY 1998 5.30M 10.00M 4.20M 3.52M 1.05M 0.65M 0.72M 0.30M TOTAL FY 1999 10.10M 10.00M 4.20M 2.61M 0.82M 0.65M 2.00M 0.50M Table 1. Federal agency FY 1998 funding and proposed FY 1999 support for harmful algal bloom research, monitoring and assessment activities in U.S. coastal waters. creasingly frequent outbreaks of harmful al- gal blooms, and other symptoms of degraded coastal ecosystems that adversely impact coastal economies — will be efficiently and ef- fectively addressed. Agency partners will continue participating in the multiagency Na- tional Pfiesteria Research and Monitoring Strategy and ECOHAB, as well as provide grants to states, universities, and communi- ties to conduct monitoring and rapid assess- ments in response to Pfiesteria and other HAB outbreaks. What is the future for a U.S. Inter- agency HAB Program? Although this summary of current activi- ties suggests that the U.S. has a strong and active national HAB program, the program is just beginning. Commitment to multi- agency coordination of HAB activities by in- dividual agencies has occurred only during the last five years, after each realized that no single agency possessed either the funds or expertise to respond to the suite of HAB needs. The initial partnerships among NOAA line offices for publication of the National Plan have since expanded to 3-agency sponsor- ship of ECOHAB research projects, then 7 agencies helped draft the National Strategy in response to the recent Pfiesteria crisis. With such interagency commitment, an inte- grated, interagency Algal Bloom Program may become a reality in the near future. With the goal of developing a predictive modeling capability for HABs in all U.S. coastal waters (i.e., HAB predictions like coastal weather forecasts), ECOHAB re- search must rigorously investigate and then model growth and toxin dynamics of the 7-8 toxic species and regions along the entire U.S. coast. Five-year ECOHAB research projects have just begun on two toxic spe- cies and regions, Alexandrium in the Gulf of Maine and Gymnodinium in the Gulf of Mexico. The remainder of the coastline and other HAB species need investigation. Re- search is needed on brown tide populations in Long Island Sound and off Texas, Pfiesteria in mid- and south Atlantic states, macroalgal blooms in Florida's and Hawaii's coral reefs, ciguatera dinoflagellates in sub-tropical and tropical U.S. possessions, Pseudo-nitzschia in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico and along the west coast, and Chaetoceros and Heterosigma in the northwest. These efforts will be the focus of future ECOHAB research HABs- 12 activities. A critical area in need of major support that was identified in the National Plan and the recent National Strategy for Pfiesteria is better understanding of toxin impacts, both acute and chronic, on coastal resources and humans. This includes identification of the toxins and toxic cells in water and tissues; development of rapid, reliable, and inexpen- sive assays for their field detection; identifi- cation of biomarkers for monitoring HAB tox- ins in wildlife and humans; and establishment of exposure thresholds for toxicity. Addition- ally, development of the medical expertise specific to toxins, toxicology, and treatment should be addressed. Although some of this effort is already underway at the NIEHS Cen- ters for research, the CDCP, a USGS labo- ratory, an FDA laboratory, and two NOAA laboratories, an expanded intra- and extra- mural program is needed to gain baseline information quickly on such complex topics. Reducing HAB impacts is a major em- phasis for the emerging national HAB pro- gram. The National Plan objective to pursue prevention, control and mitigation options for our increasing HAB problem is a critical need. As HABs continue to increase, we must refocus our goals and research exper- tise toward developing techniques for detect- Figure 8. Enhanced color satellite imagery is one of several tools being refined to detect and track HABs. ing and ameliorating the impacts of these natu- ral disasters (Figure 8). Finally, there are strong indications that human activities in watersheds of coastal tribu- taries may be directly linked to the increasing prevalence and impacts of several HAB spe- cies. This implies that coastal eutrophication (excess nutrient loads), increased frequency of HAB events, and reduced oxygen levels in water (e.g., hypoxia and anoxia in the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico) may all be inter- related. There has been an increasing empha- sis and coordination among DOC/NOAA, EPA, USDA, and DOI to enhance research capaci- ties in these areas. This comprehensive na- tional approach to nutrient inputs and coastal ecosystem responses resulted in a major fo- cus of the recent Clean Water Action Plan be- ing the reduction of excess nutrients from nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly in coastal areas. SUMMARY The U.S. has in place a national HAB pro- gram arising from the framework provided by the three focused HAB reports prepared dur- ing the past five years. These reports are the basis for 1) the integrated, multi-agency na- tional research program, ECOHAB, 2) a fo- cused partnership between CDCP and NIEHS to significantly expand our capacity to respond to human health concerns from marine biotoxins produced by coastal HABs, and 3) a developing interagency HAB management program. The Federal government has initi- ated a rapid assessment capability to assist states and regions impacted by unexpected^ HAB outbreaks. Attention to linkages between human activities on the land and bloom out- breaks in receiving waters is a renewed focus for several agencies (i.e., DOC/NOAA, EPA, USDA, and DOI). The U.S. HAB science com- munity is vigorously responding to the need | for toxin and HAB detection methods to pro if vide field assays for most of our algal toxins* HABs-13 -$/■ in the near future. Safe seafood for our soci- ety is ensured through the continuous toxin monitoring and bioassay operations coordi- nated by the FDA. Although much remains to be done there is a firm base provided by our national ex- pertise and technologies. The future is full of new challenges in HAB research, monitor- ing, assessment, and prediction. The Fed- eral agencies are committed to sustaining their national effort to ensure healthy living resources, seafood safety, and sustained economic development in regions impacted by HABs. CITATIONS 1. Steidinger, K.A., E.W. Truby, J.K. Garrett, and J.M. Burkholder. 1 995. The morphol- ogy and cytology of a newly discovered toxic dinoflagellate, pp. 83-88. In: P. Lassus, G. Arzul, E. Erard-LeDenn, P. Genlien, and C. Marcaillou-LeBaut (eds.). Harmful Marine Algal Blooms, Lavoisier, Intercept, Ltd. 2. Burkholder, J.M., E.J. Noga, C.H. Hobbs, and H.B. Glasgow Jr. 1992. New "phan- tom" dinoflagellate is the causative agent of major estuarine fish kills. Nature 358:407-410. 3. Burkholder, J.M., H.B. Glasgow, Jr., and K.A. Steidinger. 1995. Stage transforma- tions in the complex life cycle of an icthyotoxic "ambush-predator" di- noflagellate, pp. 567-572. In: P. Lassus, G. Arzul, E. Erard-LeDenn, P. Genlien, and C. Marcaillou-LeBaut (eds.). Harm- ful Marine Algal Blooms, Lavoisier, Inter- cept, Ltd. 4. Glasgow, H. B. Jr., J.M. Burkholder, D.E. Schmechel, PA. Tester, and PA. Rublee. 1995. Insidious effects of a toxic di- noflagellate on fish survival and human health. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 46:101-122. Steidinger, K.A. and D.G. Baden. 1984. HABs- 14 Toxic marine dinoflagellates, pp. 201- 261. In: Dinoflagellates, D.L. Spector (ed.) Academic Press, New York. 6. Ahmed, FE. (ed). 1991 . Seafood Safety. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 432 pp. 7. Bates, S.S., C.J. Bird, A.S.W. deFreitas, R. Foxall, M. Gilgan, L.A. Hanic, G.R. Johnson, A.W. McCulloch, P. Odense, R. Pocklington, M.A. Quilliam, PG. Sim, J.C. Smith, D.V. Subba Rao, E.C.D. Todd, J. A. Walter, and J.L.C. Wright. 1989. Pennate diatom Nitzschia pungens as the primary source of domoic acid, a toxin in shellfish from eastern Prince Edward Island, Canada. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 46:1203-1215. 8. Anderson, D.M. and PS. Lobel. 1987. The continuing enigma of ciguatera. Biol. Bull. 172:89-107. 9. Geraci, J.R., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early, J.H. Prescott, and C.A. Mayo. 1989. Hump- back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by dinoflagellate toxin. Canad. J. Fish, and Aquat. Sci 46: 1 895- 1898. 10. Anderson, D.M. and A.W. White. 1992. Marine biotoxins at the top of the food chain. Oceans 35:55-61. 1 1 . Shumway, S.E. 1 995. Phycotoxin-related shellfish poisoning: Bivalve molluscs are not the only vectors. Reviews in Fisher- ies Science 3:1-31. 12. Shumway, S.E., S. Sherman-Caswell and J.W. Hurst. (1988). Paralytic Shell- fish Poisoning in Maine: Monitoring a monster. J. Shellfish Res. 7:643-652. 13. Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, PA. Testor, and T.E. Whitledge. 1997. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 10. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 46 pp. + appendix. 14. Anderson, D.M. (ed.). 1995. ECOHAB, The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms: A National Re- search Agenda. Woods Hole Oceano- graphic Institution, Woods Hole MA. 66 pp. 15. Neve, R.A. and RB. Reichardt. 1984. Alaska's shellfish industry, pp. 53-58 . In: E.P. Ragelis (ed.), Seafood Toxins. Amer. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. Wash- ington, D.C. 16. Rensel, J.E., R.A. Horner, and J.R. Postel. 1989. Effects of phytoplankton blooms on salmon aquaculture in Puget Sound, Washington: Initial research. Northw. Environ. J. 5:53-69. 17. Horner, R.A., J.R. Postel, and J.E. Rensel. 1991. Noxious phytoplankton blooms and marine salmon culture in Puget Sound, Washington. In: J.R. Forbes (ed.), Pacific Coast Research on Toxic Marine Algae. Canadian Tech- nical Report on Hydrographic Ocean Science 135:59-61. 18. Shumway, S.E. 1988. A review of the effects of algal blooms on shellfish and aquaculture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 21:65-104. 19. Kahn, J. and M. Rochel. 1988. Mea- suring the economic effects of brown tides. Journal of Shellfish Research 7:677-682. 20. L. Callinowski, personal communica- tion. 21 . Habas, E.J. and C.K. Gilbert. 1 974. The economic effects of the 1971 Florida red tide and the damage it presages for future occurrences. Environmental Letters 6: 139-147. 22. Tester, P.A., R.P. Stumpf, F.M. Vukovich, PK. Fowler, and J.T. Turner. 1991. An expatriate red tide bloom: Transport, distribution, and persistence. Limnology and Oceanography 36: 1053-1061. 23. C. Moncrief, personal communication. 24. Anderson, D. M. 1989. Toxic algal blooms and red tides: a global perspective, In: Red Tides: Biology Environmental Science and Toxicology, edited by T Okaichi, D. M. Anderson and T. Nemoto, pp. 11-16, Elsevier, New York. 25. Smayda, T.J. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: evidence for a global epidemic, pp. 29-40. In: E. Graneli, B. Sundstrom, L. Edler, and D.M. Anderson (eds.) Toxic Marine Phytoplank- ton. Elsevier. 26. Hallegraeff, G.M. 1 993. A review of harm- ful algal blooms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia 32:79-99 27. Hallegraeff, G.M. and C.J. Bolch. 1992. Transport of diatom and dinoflagellate rest- ing spores via ship's ballast water: impli- cations for plankton biogeography and aquaculture. J. Plankton Res. 14:1067- 1084. 28. Baden, D.G., T.J. Mende, M. A. Poli and R.E. Block. 1 984. Toxins from Florida's red tide dinoflagellate, Ptychodiscus brevis. p. 359-367. In: E. Ragelis (ed.) Seafood Tox- ins. Amer. Chem. Soc. Symposium Series. Washington, D.C. 29. Anderson, D.M., Kulis, D.M., Doucette, G.J., Gallagher, J.C., Balech, E. 1 994. Bio- geography of toxic dinoflagellates in the genus Alexandrium from the northeastern United States and Canada. Marine Biol- ogy 120:467-478. 30. Smayda, T.J. 1989. Primary production and the global epidemic of phytoplankton blooms in the sea: a linkage? pp. 21 3-228. In: E. M. Cosper, E. J. Carpenter and M. Bricelj (eds.). Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recur- rent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms. Springer-Verlag, New York. 31. Burkholder, J.M. and H. B. Glasgow. (In press). The toxic ambush-predator di- noflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida: behav- ior, impacts, and environmental controls.^ HABs-15 I In: D. M. Anderson, A.D. Cembella, and G. M. Hallegraeff (eds.). Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. 32. Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. 1993. Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Techni- cal Report WHOI-93-02, NMFS and NOAACOP, Woods Hole, MA. 44 pp. 29. 33. Garrison D.L., S.M. Conrad, P.P. Eilers, and E.M. Waldron. 1 992. Confirmation of domoic acid production by Pseudo- nitzschia australis (Bacillariophyceae) cultures. J. Phycol. 28:604-607. 34. Ragelis, E.P 1984. Ciguatera seafood poisoning: overview, pp. 25-36. In: E.P. Ragelis (ed.). Seafood Toxins, Amer. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 262, Wash- ington, D.C.. 35. Juranovic, L. R. and D. L. Park. 1991. Foodborne toxins of marine origin: ciguatera. Rev. Environ. Toxicol. 117: 51- 94. 36. Anderson, D.M. (1997). Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388:51 3-51 4. 37. Buskey, I.J., S. Stewart, J. Peterson, and C. Collumb. 1 996. Effects of a persistent "brown tide" on zooplankton populations in the Laguna Madre of south Texas, pp. 659-666. /n/T.J. Smayda and Y. Shimizu (eds.). Toxic Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 38. Sieburth, J.McN., P.W. Johnson & P.E. Hargraves. 1 988. Ultrastructure and ecol- ogy of Aureococcus anophageffe-rens gen. et sp. nov. (Chrysophyceae): the dominant picoplankter during a bloom in Narragansett Bay. J. Phycol. 24:416-425. Cosper, E.M., W.C. Dennison, E.J. Car- penter, V.M. Bricelj, J.G. Mitchell, and S.H. Kuenstner. 1987. Recurrent and persistent brown tide blooms perturb coastal marine ecosystem. Estuaries 10:284-290. 40. Turner, J.T and PA. Tester. 1997. Toxic HABs- 16 marine phytoplankton, zooplankton graz- ers, and pelagic food webs. Limnology and Oceanography 42(5): 1203-1 21 4. APPENDIX 1 Federal HAB-related Projects/Pro- grams. Numerous projects/programs related to HABs are underway in Federal offices and laboratories; descriptions of primary HAB ef- forts follow. DOC/NOAA Coastal Ocean Program (COP) is co- ordinating the competitive, federal, inter- agency research program, ECOHAB, imple- mented to determine environmental factors and cellular mechanisms responsible for HAB events in U.S. coastal waters. This part- nership of DOC/NOAA, NSF, EPA, USDAand ONR, is focused on identification of those factors favoring growth and accumulation of HAB species in order to develop predictive models for forecasting bloom events. ECOHAB's multi-disciplinary, long-term projects link circulation of specific systems with the ecophysiol- ogy of individual taxa, yielding a biophysical description of bloom formation, termination and toxicology. Pres- ently, two regional blooms are being ex- amined (Gulf of Maine and the Gulf of Mexico), leaving ap- proximately two-thirds of the U.S. coastline and the associated al- Figure 9. The basis for a U.S. gal blooms to be ad- HAB coastal research program. dressed in future ECOHAB projects. COP, in partnership with EPA, also drafted the Na- tional Strategy. Further, COP sponsored the comprehensive report on prevention, control and mitigation of HABs, developed this Con- gressional report, and provides financial sup- port for the National HAB Office and the In- ternational Oceanographic Commission's (IOC) HA News (an international newsletter on HABs). COP represents the U.S. on the IOC Intergovernmental Panel on Harmful Al- gal Blooms and the APEC Marine Resource Conservation Working Group, and actively works in establishing bilateral HAB agree- ments with its international partners. Sea Grant Program. With its role in marine research, education, advisory ser- vices and public outreach, Sea Grant exper- tise and its network of local experts plays a major role during HAB events. Sea Grant has long supported individual investigators study- ing local HAB problems (e.g., research first identifying Pfiesteria in North Carolina) and this support has built the foundation for sev- eral of the large regional HAB field projects. A series of articles recently published by Maryland Sea Grant (e.g., In Harm's Way? The Threat of Toxic Algae; Harmful Algal Blooms on the Move; and The Trouble with Toxics in the Bay) explained to readers the latest information on algal blooms, particu- larly those in the Chesapeake Bay region and the role of the complex of Pfiesteria-Wke or- ganisms in fish mortalities in the Pocomoke River. Sea Grant programs in Maine, Mas- sachusetts, New York, Florida, Texas, Wash- ington, North Carolina, and Alaska have re- leased similar materials on HABs from those areas of the country. Sea Grant workshops in Maryland and North Carolina on Pfiesteria problems were instrumental in easing public concerns over the threat from this harmful dinoflagellate. NOAA laboratories (at Charleston, Beaufort, Oxford, Great Lakes, and Seattle) conduct research on coastal HABs and their impacts. Charleston's HAB research focuses on structural chemistry, biochemistry, toxicol- ogy and phycology of PSP, NSP, ASP, DSP, ciguatera and Pfiesteria toxins. Highlights in- clude toxin purification and methods for de- tecting toxins in seafood and environmental samples (e.g., cell-based receptor and re- porter gene assays), and research on mo- lecular mechanisms controlling growth in di- noflagellates, the role of bacteria in bloom dynamics and toxin produc- tion and effects of algal toxins on re- productive health of fisheries spe- cies. Beaufort, with Figure 10. NOAAs Charleston expertise in CUltur- Laboratory scientist identifies HABs ing toxic phytoplankton and assessing the ramifications of biotoxins in marine food webs,40 has been actively involved in G. breve research since 1987 and now Pfiesteria. Highlights include a new tech- nique for brevetoxin determination (sensitive capillary electrophoresis with laser detec- tion), a feasibility study on the use of phy- toplankton pigments and absorption spectra as potential biomarkers for G. breve, calibrat- ing data and calculating algorithms for the Sea WiFS ocean-color satellite sensor for monitoring HABs. Oxford Lab is a center of expertise for invertebrate pathology and ma- rine fish diseases with numerous publications (e.g., a Manual on Histologic Techniques, a standard for processing fish and shellfish, and the Registry of Marine Pathology cata- loguing fish diseases. Oxford Lab has been monitoring and studying the recent outbreak of fish lesions and mortalities in Chesapeake Bay. The Great Lakes Environmental Re- search Laboratory (GLERL) conducts re- search on the status and causes of eutrophi- cation, which can lead to HABs in coastal ecosystems, and the recent occurrence of HABs in the Great Lakes. Highlights include ) long-term nutrient dynamics and modeling studies on key Great Lakes ecosystems and video documentation of zebra mussel ability to selectively feed on nontoxic algal cells while rejecting toxic HAB cells. GLERL in vestigators participate in HAB-related re HABs-17 search in the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., nutrient inputs to the Gulf of Mexico from the Missis- sippi outflow and the relationship to hypoxia) and are also involved in the ECOHAB: Florida project in the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., determin- ing the autecology of G. breve). Northwest Fisheries Science Center biotoxin research is focused and integrates methodology, food web interactions, species susceptibility and coastal ecosystem health. Recent highlights include development of new receptor bind- ings and DNA probes for toxin and toxic al- gae detection, studies of toxin transfer through the food web, and culture studies to determine effects of nutrients on toxin pro- duction. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) is presently cooperat- ing with NOAA and others in supporting re- search concerning toxic algal blooms as one of the cosponsors of the ECOHAB Program. Figure 11. EMAP scientists test water quality in U.S. estuaries. Further, EPA has been NOAA's primary partner in re- .„ | sponding to recent White an advisor to ECOHAB because of its strong commitment and interest to remote detec- tion of surface pigment, as found in some HABs. With the successful orbiting and op- eration of SeaWifs and long-term commit- ment to determining surface distributions of phytoplankton biomass and productivity in space and time, NASA's partnership is timely and beneficial to the national HAB effort. DOI-USGS U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as part of its contribution to the Chesapeake Bay Program, is conducting field sampling, labo- ratory analyses and building a Geographical Information System data base on the rela- tionship between nutrient inputs in the wa- tershed and Chesapeake Bay water quality. USGS's Biological Resources Division has begun investigations to determine factors contributing to fish lesions (e.g., the complex of Pfiestera-Wke organisms) in selected tribu- taries of the Chesapeake Bay. Scientists from the USGS Center for Marine and Coastal Ge- ology in Woods Hole, MA, are actively in- volved in the ECOHAB-Gulf of Maine re- gional study, providing mooring equipment and expertise, and developing coupled physi- cal/biological models of Alexandrium dynam- ics in the large region between the Cana- dian border and Massachusetts. HHS-CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as the Nation's disease prevention agency, has a monitoring, advisory and public communication role regarding human health concerns and harmful algal blooms. As an example, CDC recently collaborated with officials from state health departments (i.e., Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia and the District of Columbia) and held a September 1997 Workshop on the Public Health Response to Pfiesteha. The CDC brought together representatives of state health partments and the relevant federal -HABs- 20 agencies (e.g., Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Environmen- Figure 13. This CDC scientist is iso- tal Protection lat'n9 HAB toxins in human tissues. Agency) with the goal of planning a coordinated, comprehensive multi-state public health program to provide scientifically valid information on health effects of Pfiesteria exposure. The recent Congressional allocation of $10 million will provide funds necessary for state-specific surveys to be implemented and compiled for detailing symptoms of HAB exposures. NIH-NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) addresses potential human health impacts of Pfiesteria and other HABs through response, research, and prevention. NIEHS responded immedi- ately to the public health threat posed by Pfiesteria by assisting state health departments in their efforts to address this problem and by enabling scientists to interact more effectively. NIEHS research includes both basic studies to identify and characterize relevant toxins and their associated biological effects as well as clinical and epidemiological research to define more accurately exposure and health effects. NIEHS prevention efforts include support of assay development for improved identification and early detection and monitoring of the organism and toxin. In August 1997, NIEHS received a request from Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes to help investigate fish kills in the Pocomoke River of southeastern Maryland. Representatives from NIEHS and CDC, visited the a workshop on "Hazardous Marine/Freshwater Microbes and Toxins," where researchers, regulators, federal representatives, and state health and environmental officials met and discussed their current understanding of a variety of hazardous toxins. This workshop was the first that enabled Pfiesteria and other marine toxin researchers to meet, exchange information, and identify research gaps. As part of its Center Program, NIEHS supports a network of Marine and Fresh- water Biomedical Sciences (MFBS) Cen- ters across the country. Two of these are active in the area of Pfiesteria and HAB research. The University of Miami MFBS Center, long noted for its work in marine toxins, is engaged in isolating and charac- terizing Pfiesteria toxins. The Duke Univer- sity MFBS Center has focused on under- standing possible biological effects arising from exposure to Pfiesteria-\atien waters. The NIEHS intramural program has provided assistance to scientists from North Carolina State University, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service in Charleston, South Carolina, and NIEHS to collaborate on isolating Pfiesteria toxin. To stimulate prevention research, NIEHS recently awarded $400,000 to a consortium composed of leading investiga- tors in both basic and clinical research re- lated to Pfiesteria. This award will bring together researchers at the NIEHS MFBS Center at the University of Miami, headed by Dan Baden, Ph.D., and at the Univer- sity of Maryland School of Medicine, headed by Glenn Morris, M.D., M.P.H., to examine the potential public health impact of this organism collaboratively. This project plans to purify and characterize toxins, ex- amine their Figure 14. This NIEHS scientist centri fuges HAB cells for toxicology studies. effects in model sys- tems, de- velop a ge- netic assay for identifica- tion and de- tection of Pfiesteria, obtain information on risk factors and exposure levels for human health effects, and clarify putative neurologic effects. This multidisciplinary approach is an inte- grated effort to examine systematically the key research questions that must be answered in order to improve our understanding of both the environmental and public health conse- quences of Pfiesteria. Results from this and related research will lead to development of diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative strat- egies. FDA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for ensuring safe seafood for con- sumption and, therefore, has well-established programs of research, management, and pub- lic information regarding HABs as they relate to toxicity in seafood. There are ongoing re- search programs dealing with PSP, NSP, ASP, DSP, and ciguatera. Prior to 1997, the possi- bility that Pfiesteria had seafood safety impli- cations was being addressed by closely fol- lowing research being done in other laborato- ries. With the dramatic intensification of this issue, research has been started in-house with collaboration from other laboratories to clarify whether or not toxins from Pfiesteria can ac- cumulate in seafood and cause illness in hu- man consumers. In general, FDA research laboratories culture toxic marine organisms, then isolate and characterize the toxins they produce. With a continuing supply of the tox- ins thus assured, FDA labs develop detection methods for the toxins and examine their tox- icity to provide a basis for regulatory policy. FDA researchers also address the broader is- sue of effective management strategy, and are* currently exploring the utility of networks of field 7 observers who take phytoplankton samples J and gather relevant environmental information. Such networks are now in place with FDA co- ordination in California, Maine, and Massachi setts, and show great promise as a strategy for reducing the cost and improving the reli-Jj ability of marine biotoxin monitoring programs'^ SGpfc. iff HABs-21 Figure 15. FDA-trained volunteers check plankton samples for HABs. The FDA supports established monitor- ing programs world- wide through the pro- duction and distribu- tion of reference standards, expert as- sistance, and quality assurance checks of laboratories. Marine biotoxin monitoring in the U.S. is conducted primarily through co- operative programs with the states under the guidance of the FDA. The FDA provides pub- lic information and education through its Sea- food Hotline telephone service, a web page that includes discussion of marine biotoxin issues, and tradition channels such as the print media and public information special- ists. USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The strong linkages between land-use, nu- trient loads and watershed conditions are major concerns for this agency (Figure 16) and have led to USDA's advisory role in ECOHAB. There is an intensive watershed assessment program, providing water qual- ity data critical for HAB prediction. Future ef- forts will identify agricultural activities likely favoring HAB expression, leading to applica- tion of best management practices (BMPs) for these critical activities. NOPP National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP). This congressionally mandated part- nership of 12 federal agencies promotes its goals of assuring national security, advanc- ing economic development, protecting qual- ity of life, and strengthening science educa- tion and communication through improved knowledge of the ocean by coordinating and strengthening partnerships among Federal agencies, academia, industry, and other members of the oceanographic scientific HABs- 22 community. Regarding HAB problems, NOPP recently supported a 2-year project, Gulf of Mexico Ocean Monitoring System, to gener- ate continual surface ocean current veloci- ties in the Gulf. This effort, a collaboration between the Dynalysis Corporation, several Federal agencies and the university research community, will generate critically needed surface current distributions that are likely re- sponsible for distributing G. breve, a toxic HAB that has plagued local coastal re- sources, economies, and public health in Florida and the northern Gulf States, along the coastline of the southern United States. Figure 16. USDA scientists study land-use links to HABs and advise farmers on nutrient abatement measures. PHOTO CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are pleased to thank the following contributors for their high quality and expres- sive photographs on various aspects of U.5. HAI3s. Without their contributed body of work, we could hardly have prepared such a striking format to help us draw public atten- tion to this subject of national concern. The authors on behalf of their federal agencies thank you one and all. Cover photos of manatees were provided by the Department of Environmental Protection's Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI); title page photo of a fish kill from FMRI; page 1 title background photo of a fish kill from J. Burkholder; Figure 1 from NOAA slide files; Figure 2 from B. Lapointe; "ambush predator" photo of menhaden with lesions from J. Burkholder; Figure 3 from G. Early; Figure 4 from FMRI; Figure 6 dead pelican photo from T. Work and dead manatees with ice lying on top of the carcasses from FMRI; brown tide blooms photo from T. Whitledge; harmful cyanobacterial blooms photo of ship sailing through turbid waters from FMRI; diarrhetic shellfish poisoning photo of a plate of mussels from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's HAB web page; Figure 7from J. Burkholder; HAB fish kills from J. Rimes; Figures 0 and 10 from RTestor; Figure 11 from J. Hyland; Figure 13 from M. McGeehin; Figure 14 from A. Dearry; Figure 15 from S. Hall; Figure 16 from NOAA slide files; inside cover HAB graphic drawn and pro- vided by D. Anderson. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document was prepared in response to a request by the House Committee on Appropriations. In its Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 1998, the Committee "urged NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program to continue its efforts to establish a National Harmful Bloom program that will expand the current geographic scope of studies on the ecology and oceanography of harmful algal blooms (ECOHAB) to additional geographic areas and conduct research on the means to prevent, control, and mitigate blooms and their effects." Because the Depart- ment of Commerce (DOC) efforts through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration (NOAA) are cooperative with other Federal agencies, the Committee requested a report "outlining interagency efforts and progress." Here is that report. Harmful algal blooms are an increasing worldwide threat with significant impacts on U.S. coastal regions. A harmful algal bloom (HAB) in local waters can have serious conse- quences, depending on the species, that range from killing fish and other wildlife to making shellfish poisonous and perhaps deadly to consumers. Recently, blooms have occurred in new coastal areas and new species have also appeared, catching watermen, residents, and local officials off-guard (e.g., LlPfiesteria hysteria" in mid-Atlantic coastal waters). Massive mortalities of wild fish due to coastal HABs. Severe economic losses of farmed fish due to HABs. About five years ago, DOC/NOAA supported a workshop that resulted in a National Plan (Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan) and set in place a process that would eventually evolve into an interagency national program to understand and ameliorate the impacts of coastal HABs. DOC/NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) spon- sored a second report [ECOHAB: The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms a National Research Agenda). This National Research Agenda is the blueprint for ECOHAB, the first Federal research program on the ecology and oceanography of HABs. ECOHAB research is currently supported by the DOC/NOAA, NSF, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Naval Research, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Recently, DOC/NOAA and the National Fish and Wild- life Foundation sponsored the development of a third strategic report [Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control, and Mitigation), blue-printing needs for a national management strategy for HABs. The Ad Hoc Interagency Task Force on Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae, comprised of agency representatives and academic research- ers, guides, directs, and supports the U.S. HAB program. The National Office of Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, distributes HAB infor- mation and assists the national effort. This report summarizes the status of U.S. coastal HABs, collective federal HAB efforts, and outlines interagency U.S. cooperation to better guide HAB research, prevention, control, and mitigation. 6TATU5 OF U.S. HARMFUL ALGAL ELOOMS: PROGRESS TOWARDS A NATIONAL PROGRAM * *$\te^?ub\\m - Doffine D. Tu fgeon, Kevin G. SellnerTandJPonald Scavia,, • N%t?fotf??l j^B^ferv&ervrce, "Nartarafei Oceani«*and Atmospheric Admmi,g?tration, ■-ibytion#froffT John Heisler imd Kay^Austin, U.5. Envfiragnjriental Protect igrni&giency™ MichajgJ*MCT9£ehin,,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention^ Alan DeafryT National I nstittijteljpf EnvTP&n mental Health Service ' fc Sherwood Hall, Food and Drug Administration navid Garrison, National 5dT8lTcj^99undatjon '*JW' Jogn^jivelafld, Office of Naval Research 4 ^ # „ Janet Campbell, National A"e"fonautics and Space Administration Michael Mac?1!U5. Geological Survey, Departmen*-of Interior Robert J, WrighlTAgricultural Research 5ervice, U .S*J2s&Brtment^rfiiAa ricu Itu re