EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to fish lesions, kills, Pfiesteria-like
organisms, and possible threats to public health in the Mid-Atlantic
region, the White House asked Federal agencies to develop and
coordinate a long-term, national strategy for Federally-supported
research and monitoring on problems associated with harmful algal
blooms (HABs), particularly Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like
species.
There is growing concern that the crisis in
the mid-Atlantic is another of the increasing number of harmful
bloom events that have become a problem in U.S. coastal waters.
In previous work, scientists critically reviewed the problem
and developed a national plan to monitor, assess, control, and
mitigate impacts from HABs. This current strategy builds upon
an existing Federal plan outlined in the report, "Marine
Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan"(Anderson
et al. 1993), and eight focused objectives that are identified
below.
To protect human health and the environment,
immediate support is needed to:
o Isolate, identify, and characterize the microorganisms and their toxins;
o Develop assays for detection of cells and toxins and improved capabilities for morphological identification and enumeration;
o Better understand the impact of the organisms and their toxins on human health, marine ecosystems, and the economies of coastal areas; and
o Ensure the flow of timely, accurate,
and consistent information concerning HAB events to local managers,
professionals, and the general public.
To ensure that responsible agencies can respond
rapidly and if necessary, implement effective management and mitigation
measures, capabilities need to be in place to:
o Enable Federal and state agencies to respond rapidly through better support for monitoring, research, and assessment during Pfiesteria and other HAB events; and
o Maintain and update data bases and information
relevant to Pfiesteria and other HAB events that are easily
accessible, reliable and accurate.
To support management and mitigation efforts,
research must also begin immediately to:
o Develop capabilities to identify systems potentially supporting Pfiesteria, related species, and HABs through integration of the organism's ecology and physiology with ambient environmental conditions;
o Explore new and existing technological
means to prevent, control, or mitigate Pfiesteria, related
organisms, and other HAB species, such as improving farm and watershed-scale
Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate movement of nutrients,
sediments, pathogens, trace elements, and other specific organic
compounds to surface and ground water.
Efforts coordinated under this strategy will
complement and augment, as appropriate, state programs, and be
implemented through a mix of in-house research and monitoring
and research grants to universities and the states.
As an immediate response to toxic events,
we expect to provide a rapid response capability for toxic events,
toxin identification and assays for at least two Pfiesteria
strains, and promote increased public awareness and education.
Over the next few years, we expect to develop adequate case histories
and epidemiological surveys to identify symptoms associated with
exposure to Pfiesteria and its related species, develop
diagnostics for public exposure to these events, and make progress
in identifying modes of action of toxins, treatments, and therapies.
More detailed characterizations of the toxins will permit development
of assays for seafood and biomarkers for marine resources and
humans.
Over the long-term, research characterizing
watershed land use, surface and groundwater flows, chemical loadings,
and water quality can be linked with an improved understanding
of growth, ecology, and toxicity of Pfiesteria and its
related species. Through an integrated, multi-disciplinary program
of research, the National Strategy will provide three classes
of critical information 1) characterization of environmental conditions
likely to support the toxic species; 2) predictions of the onset
of conditions conducive to bloom formation, and 3) means to prevent,
control, or mitigate their impacts.
INTRODUCTION
Harmful algal blooms (HABs), including highly
toxic species, have increased in frequency, intensity, and severity
in U.S. coastal areas over the past several decades. Recent outbreaks
of fish lesions and fish kills linked to Pfiesteria or
related species in the estuaries of the Mid- and South Atlantic
States, as well as red tides and fish kills off the Texas coast,
are the most recent and visible examples of this growing threat
to U.S. coastal resources, coastal economies, and public health.
Fortunately, as a result of significant planning over the past
5 years, the U.S. research and monitoring communities are well-positioned
to address these concerns and those from likely HAB events in
the future.
Harmful algal blooms were formally identified
as a national concern in the 1993 report, "Marine Biotoxins
and Harmful Algae: A National Plan" (Anderson et al.
1993). This report, produced by research scientists and agency
representatives, provides a comprehensive research agenda required
to adequately manage HAB species in U.S. coastal waters, and serves
as the template for a national program to address impacts of Pfiesteria
and Pfiesteria-related species.
Anderson et al. (1993) identify eight specific
objectives that must be addressed to comprehensively evaluate,
model, and manage HABs and their impacts. In the following sections,
we develop a Pfiesteria-specific action agenda within the
framework of those important objectives. Fortunately, some portions
of the National Plan are being implemented through existing interagency
programs. For example, ECOHAB, a new interagency (NOAA, NSF,
EPA) program, is based on the community-consensus report, "ECOHAB.
The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, A National
Research Agenda" (Anderson 1995). This program was established
in FY 1997 to respond to several of the objectives outlined in
Anderson et al. (1993), those specifically focused on the ecology
and oceanography of HABs. The program is designed to provide information
on the linkages between environmental conditions that regulate
the growth and population dynamics of several harmful species.
ECOHAB is expected to contribute to the development of predictive
models that could be used to forecast bloom events. Nine projects
currently funded in ECOHAB provide critically needed information
on several U.S. coastal HAB species including toxic Gymnodinium
breve, Alexandrium tamarense, Aureococcus anophagefferens
and Pseudo-nitzschia species. This program could be easily
expanded to address the ecology and oceanography of other HABs,
including Pfiesteria and its related taxa.
Most recently, other objectives of the National
Plan were reviewed and further developed in the report, "Harmful
Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control,
and Mitigation" (Boesch et al. 1997). The report, developed
by a panel of HAB experts including scientists, managers, and
affected private-sector parties, outlines specific management
strategies for HABs and can be used as the template for much-needed
research to develop tools, methodologies, and techniques for reducing
or eliminating the impacts of these blooms. While the report
did not address Pfiesteria directly, the tools and techniques
that were outlined are clearly applicable.
Boesch et al. (1997) indicated that reductions
of excess nutrients in many coastal waters could well reduce some
HABs. Thus, it is appropriate for a national research and monitoring
strategy to consider all sources of excess nutrients and compounds
which may be contributing to the enrichment of the nation's watersheds,
potentially leading to outbreaks of HABs. This would include those
impacted by management practices for the agricultural community,
as well as non-point sources from urban, suburban and atmospheric
deposition. While it has not been clearly established that substances
from agriculture and other sources (inorganic and organic nutrients,
trace constituents of feed, etc.) are responsible for outbreaks
of Pfiesteria and other HABs, there is growing scientific
consensus that agriculture-based materials could be a contributing
factor. Therefore, there is a critical need to better understand,
and develop improved strategies for management of non-point source
loadings.
It is clear that the U.S. has a well-developed
national HAB research and monitoring plan, as well as implementation
strategies for portions of that plan. We are therefore well positioned
to develop specific action plans, like this one for Pfiesteria-related
species, as well as for new species and crises that might impact
other regions of the country.
Recent National Response - An example of
a needed capability
Anderson et al. (1993) determined that a national
rapid response capability was needed to address growing concerns
from the threat of HABs in coastal waters, and consistent with
this approach, the recent events in the Chesapeake Bay resulted
in a strong Federal-state coordinated response effort to assure
public and environmental health safety. The seriousness of these
recent events elicited an immediate Federal and state program
where combined resources were focused on monitoring environmental
conditions and assessing immediate watershed land use and loadings
as potential contributing factors for fish lesions and kills in
Maryland's Eastern Shore region. More importantly, public health
and seafood safety teams were mobilized to ensure public safety,
document potential illnesses associated with the events, and assay
seafood for toxicity.
The rapid response team provided: 1) intensive
and frequent assays of water quality, fish lesion and mortality
abundances, and pathological examination of lesions; 2) medical
diagnoses and epidemiology; 3) detailed assessments of watershed
loads and land-use; 4) critical review of nutrient management
strategies; 5) evaluation of local case histories for those exposed
to impacted waters; and 6) development of symptomologies critical
for diagnosis, therapeutics, and recovery of exposed populations.
It is evident that this rapid response capability must be maintained
for a national response to HABs.
Despite the success of this Federal-state coordinated response, it was necessarily ad hoc such that, other than for direct public health response, full implementation of the objectives of Anderson et al. (1993) has not been achieved. That is, no formal mechanism currently exists to efficiently focus Federal and state capabilities . An appropriate response is given below under Objective 6.
FISH LESIONS, FISH KILLS, AND PFIESTERIA-LIKE
TOXICITIES: RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND A RAPID RESPONSE CAPABILITY
As discussed above and specifically outlined
in Anderson et al. (1993), previous experience with HABs indicates
that immediate monitoring and assessment of an event is but the
first step in a longer process needed to effectively control and
manage resource damage and threats to public health resulting
from the growth and development of potentially toxic algae and
other toxic microorganisms. We must also collect and analyze
appropriate new or existing data to: 1) define conditions favoring
these outbreaks; 2) minimize conditions favoring future events;
and/or 3) implement mitigation strategies to protect the health
of coastal human populations and the natural biota of these regions.
Because of the success of Federal responses
to the events in Maryland, a similar response is planned with
current resources to ensure that similar successes are possible
for future events. To maintain this national response capability,
the following are required: 1) continued interagency discussions
to ensure coordination of Federal activities specific for future
response efforts; 2) continued interagency discussions on the
appropriate means to formalize Federal-state assistance in the
future, including designing implementation plans for Federal-state
rapid response, monitoring and assessment capabilities for future
events; 3) expanded discussions for increased fiscal flexibility
for diverting existing resources to unexpected "crises"
that will likely occur in the future, to prevent unnecessary delays
in response and drastic abbreviation of existing programs; and
4) enhanced coordination of Federal outreach and communication
activities for subsequent HABs in coastal U.S. waters.
Our recent experience clearly shows us that
we need a more pro-active, coordinated effort for dealing with
these increasingly frequent HAB events. This effort is outlined
below as a national research and monitoring strategy to assess,
prevent, and mitigate the impacts of fish lesions, fish kills,
and threats to public safety from Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like
organisms and other toxic aquatic organisms in estuaries and coastal
waters of the U.S. Here, we focus on the Pfiesteria complex.
Strategies for other HABs are also needed to protect public safety
and fisheries resources nationwide, and subsequently may be developed.
TIME FRAMES AND FEDERAL-STATE RESPONSIBILITIES
The strategy has three key elements which
are expected to yield results and products immediately, within
1-2 years, and after more than two years, respectively. To better
monitor performance and results, annual assessments will report
progress for each of the elements. The first element, the rapid
response capability, provides individual states with Federal support
and Federal expertise to immediately respond to field events and
associated medical concerns. This immediate response would persist
for the duration of the event and illnesses. Another aspect of
this element, developing outreach programs to immediately distribute
this collected information to generate real-time advisories for
the public, research, and health communities, would be implemented
within one year. The second element of the strategy, the monitoring
and assessment partnership between Federal and state agencies,
would begin immediately and continue to document conditions during
and after each event to observe natural and human-derived changes
in controlling factors for the toxic species. Conceivably, this
could persist for 1-2 years and perhaps longer for more severe
events. The third element, research, would begin immediately,
largely through activities in Federal laboratories, academic institutions,
and the private sector. Those programs addressing toxins, cells,
and their identification and detection would likely provide results
after 1-2 years for the two current toxins and species. But with
the number of identified Pfiesteria-like organisms increasing,
longer term support will be required to identify, characterize,
and develop assays for additional toxins, life stages, and populations.
Identification of routes of exposure, modes of actions, thresholds
for response, and subsequent treatments will also begin immediately
but results would likely require several years or more of continuous
support. Case history data sets would be compiled within 1-2
years, but require continuous updating through time.
Research on environmental factors favoring
growth and toxicity of Pfiesteria-like populations also
requires a long-term commitment to achieve measurable results
in controlling and mitigating the impacts of Pfiesteria
and other HABs. For example, watershed characteristics, including
assessments of land use activities, flows of surface and groundwater,
and loadings of nutrients, organic residues, pathogens, veterinary
supplements, and trace elements, would begin immediately and could
require several years to compile and evaluate these observations.
Linkage of these watershed attributes to the ecology, oceanography,
and toxicity of the toxic organisms is a critical step, and could
yield results for 3-5 years. Certain modifications (i.e., over
wintering crops, wetland conservation and re-establishment) to
land use practices have the potential to reduce the occurrence
of toxic events in our coastal waters. The identification and
evaluation of those practices that effectively manage watershed
inputs that result in the redirection or elimination of substances
potentially important in outbreaks of Pfiesteria could
require several years. These assessments of system 'recovery'
from practices contributing to the occurrence of toxic Pfiesteria
outbreaks will require complex integration of ecosystem characteristics,
toxic species abundances and fish distributions. Long range planning
for research within the Federal agencies, academic institutions,
and private industry will be required. It is readily apparent
that no 'quick-fix' solutions are available.
National Strategy: Research and Monitoring
Objectives
The following section provides a research
and monitoring approach to address the recently observed incidents
of Pfiesteria-related species and fish lesions and kills
in the Mid- and South Atlantic coastal area. Eight objectives
from the National Plan (Anderson et al. 1993) have been modified
to address the specific actions required to overcome a range of
impediments to prediction, mitigation, and control of crises like
the recent events and for HABs, in general, in coastal regions
of the U.S.
Objective 1. Isolate toxins and their
natural derivatives and characterize their chemical structures
and pharmacological action.
The need
- To determine dose-response relationships in fish, shellfish,
and humans, as well as to identify the modes of action of the
toxins on animals, we must identify, isolate, and characterize
toxins associated with HABs in U.S. waters.
Current efforts
- There is extensive, on-going research on HAB biotoxins at a
number of research institutions throughout the U.S. and worldwide.
The compounds responsible for illness and death in marine biota,
birds, and mammals have been identified and characterized for
paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP, saxitoxins and its congeners),
neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP, brevetoxins), diarrhetic
shellfish poisoning (DSP, okadaic acid), amnesiac shellfish poisoning
(ASP, domoic acid) and ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP, ciguatera).
Research continues to explore intracellular mechanisms of action
for each of these compounds. However, research has just begun
on compounds produced by Pfiesteria-like species. Through
collaborative research efforts between NOAA and NIEHS scientists
and researchers at North Carolina State University and the University
of Miami, significant progress has been made towards characterizing
individual toxins produced by several strains of Pfiesteria.
A fat-soluble dermonecrotic compound, likely responsible for
skin lesions and epidermal damage in fish, has been isolated from
one NC toxic species. At the same time, a water soluble fraction
with neurotoxin-like properties has been obtained from a second
fish-killing species isolated from the same area.
Required new effort
- The isolation, identification, and characterization of toxins
from some of the Pfiesteria-like species appears possible
in the very near future. However, there are currently a suite
of Pfiesteria species and related dinoflagellates that
resemble each other and may also produce toxins. To identify
toxins and develop modes of action for the compounds, it is critical
to develop unialgal cultures of each taxon so that toxins produced
can be associated with specific types of a harmful species. After
establishing unialgal clones (with and without associated bacterial
assemblages), it is critical: 1) to isolate, identify, and characterize
the toxins produced from each strain; and 2) to determine life
cycles and toxicities of life stages for each isolated strain
to further characterize Pfiesteria and its related species.
These goals and objectives can be accomplished through Federal
coordination of an integrated program that includes focused Federal
intramural and extramural programs.
Objective 2. Develop specific detection
methods based on the unique chemistry and/or pharmacology of individual
toxins and cell characteristics.
The need
- Identification of Pfiesteria, other HAB species, and
their associated toxins often occurs far from the field event
(i.e., in a laboratory, days to weeks after the event), hindering
government response to ensure immediate protection of public health.
Quick, inexpensive, and accurate methods and standards are critically
needed for field identification of toxins and HAB populations.
Similarly, rapid assessments of fish health are also essential
for immediate response to public concern for safe seafood.
Current efforts
- Development of specific assays for the major HAB toxins and
their algal sources has been on-going over the last decade. Assays
for some toxins and molecular probes for several HAB species are
now available. However, only recently has development of detection
methods for Pfiesteria-like cells and their toxins begun.
Assays for identifying the two toxins isolated from Pfiesteria
strains should soon be available and the development of cell-specific
probes for several strains is in progress. In addition to these
developments, there are also intensive efforts within FDA to
identify and characterize toxins and to provide for rapid verification
of seafood safety in shellfish and fish designated for public
consumption.
Required new effort
- Current efforts to characterize toxic fractions (Objective 1)
and to develop specific toxin assays in several Pfiesteria
and Pfiesteria-like strains must be intensified, expedited,
and corroborated through inter-laboratory comparisons. There
are at least four strains of Pfiesteria-like cells that
have the potential to produce a suite of water- and fat-soluble
toxins. The cells will likely have differing surface characteristics
and genome composition, requiring that research be expanded for
detection of all toxins, toxic strains (cell-specific probes for
surface characteristics or alternatively, cellular genomes) and
toxic life stages. These activities are entirely dependent upon
obtaining unialgal cultures, previously identified as a high priority
in (Objective 1 above). The subsequent development of detection
capabilities requires sophisticated molecular technologies, including
genetic markers, molecular probes, and bio-optical sensors. Further,
biomarkers indicative of toxin exposure must be identified for
all biota (including humans). There is also a need to develop
and apply immunological methods to detect and monitor antibodies
and antigens in affected fish.
Objective 3. Determine the source,
fate, consequences, and potential impacts of dinoflagellate toxins
in the ecosystem and on human health.
The need
- Although identified as a major need in the National Plan (Anderson
et al. 1993), little is known about the potential impacts of HAB
toxins on coastal food webs, ecosystems, and humans. To ensure
adequate protection, prevention, control, and mitigation of Pfiesteria
and other related toxic HAB organisms, we must identify and understand
the critical pathways of exposure potentially affecting living
marine resources and humans. Two of these paths of exposure to
humans are transfer of HAB toxins through coastal marine food
webs and direct contact.
There is some information on the effects of
several toxins on individual trophic levels (e.g., NSP in manatees,
PSP in zooplankton and fish) but in general, there are few studies
on transfer and impacts of toxins from one trophic level to another.
Impacts on top consumers are often only visible after the fact
(e.g., death of marine mammals and birds or as illness in human
populations in coastal areas). Most importantly, there is a critical
lack of knowledge about the potential impact of chronic (i.e.,
sustained, sublethal) exposures to toxins. Further, as there
are multiple causes of lesions in fish, we must also develop the
ability to distinguish among multiple causal factors contributing
to fish health problems, separating toxic organism effects from
other factors.
Current efforts
- The transfer, fate, and impacts of toxins on marine food webs,
ecosystems, and humans is, though critically important, poorly
addressed in current Federal agencies' activities. Federally-sponsored
research in this area is limited and focused on the fate and effects
of toxins from toxic Pfiesteria-like species on other components
of the estuarine/marine ecosystem. Some collaborative research
between USDA and Maryland's Center of Marine Biotechnology will
target residence times and clearance rates of Pfiesteria
toxins from fish tissue. This is important, not only from the
perspective of seafood safety, but also from the perspective of
the possible transfer of toxins to livestock in toxin-rich fish
meal feed. Toxin accumulation in animals feeding on Pfiesteria
and other aquatic organisms which feed on it are also a priority
of FDA's Office of Seafood. Fish health is also a concern, and
there are a few investigations of fish health linkages to HABs
as in recent EPA and NOAA-Maryland histopathological evaluations
of fish from Pfiesteria-related kills and surrounding areas.
Research evaluating human health effects has
just begun. Preliminary health assessments of exposed populations
in Maryland have been initiated by Maryland-Federal (CDC, NIEHS)
medical assessment teams. Follow-up epidemiological studies will
be initiated in 1998. Animal studies, to determine dose relationships
to toxins and to investigate inhalation toxicology of a Pfiesteria
strain, have recently been funded through NIEHS. Additional efforts,
by NOAA and EPA, will examine effects on the central nervous system
and will include histological examinations of various organs and
tissues from model populations. Findings will be correlated with
human health outcomes.
Required new efforts
- There is a critical need to identify and characterize biochemical
components in fish secreta suspected in triggering ("inducing")
toxin production in Pfiesteria and the related species.
After a decade of work examining factors for control and regulation,
toxin induction still remains a mystery. Identification of the
triggering substance(s) and threshold levels for the substance(s)
must be determined. Additionally, it is critical that factors
inducing production of dermonecrotic compounds versus neurotoxins
in the Pfiesteria-like populations be identified.
The results of this type of information are
needed for public health advisories (states, NIEHS, CDC, EPA),
as well as to ensure public confidence in the safety of seafood
(FDA). Additional research is required on human and natural resource
responses to detect toxin exposure and on potential impacts of
toxins on the marine food web and coastal ecosystems. This strategic
approach places high priority on the acceleration of epidemiological
assessments of direct effects on human health. These assessments
must include identification of toxin exposure routes, mechanisms
of action, thresholds for biotoxin effects, levels of tolerance
in marine animals and humans, and mechanisms of susceptibility.
Critical to these endeavors is the validation of detection methods
for biological fluids, the development of exposure biomarkers
in humans and in coastal biota, and conducting epidemiological
surveys in areas subject to toxic HABs. Toxin accumulation and
persistence in seafood must also be emphasized in expanded research
efforts at the FDA.
The impact of HABs on coastal ecological systems
must be better understood. In response to the current crisis
over the long term, it is important to expand research to include
all species and life stages of taxa related to Pfiesteria,
as recent observations indicate impacts to humans and coastal
marine resources extend beyond the most studied species, Pfiesteria
piscicida. Due to the complexity of Pfiesteria piscicida's
life cycle (and similar complexity in related species) and the
paucity of information on the toxicity of this and other related
species, it will be impossible to address these difficult issues
in a short-term research program. Therefore, with this complex
array of species, strains and life stages, research on marine
ecosystems focused on food web transfers and direct exposure to
toxins must begin immediately and should include potential Federal
trust resources (e.g., migratory birds and marine mammals).
Objective 4. Develop the ability to
predict the occurrence and potential impacts of toxic outbreaks
of Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates on marine ecosystems and fish
health.
The need
- Successful control and mitigation of HABs and events such as
those observed recently in the Chesapeake Bay depend on developing
an efficient and reliable predictive capability. Developing this
capability requires an understanding of the natural ecology of
the HAB organism, its relationship to general environmental conditions,
and the specific "event-based" processes that lead to
expression of harmful toxicity, or alternatively to those conditions
that are conducive to the growth of non-toxic forms of potentially
harmful plankton including Pfiesteria.
Current efforts
- Although a few models have been developed that explain observed
distributions of several toxic species (e.g., coastal Alexandrium
populations in Maine, Gymnodinium breve in North Carolina),
it is not possible to predict the occurrence of toxic algal blooms.
The complex linkages between regional circulation, physical and
chemical oceanography, and the eco-physiology of each toxic species
have remained unexamined due to the large costs associated with
such studies. Research observations over the last few years (NOAA,
EPA, and USDA sponsored projects) and results from the recent
Federal-state monitoring effort in the Chesapeake Bay and Mid-
and Southeastern Atlantic events have implicated some general
conditions that favor toxicity from Pfiesteria and its
related species. These suggest the following: 1) generally eutrophic
conditions must prevail; 2) systems must be shallow and warm with
poor circulation; and 3) fish must be present. However, relationships
between these and other environmental factors regulating (or "triggering")
toxicity in this or related organisms remain poorly understood
not only locally but for the majority of the U.S. coastline.
Fish lesion assessments (i.e., pathology,
microbiology, and histology) are continuing in the affected regions
of the Chesapeake Bay system and are coordinated through the Federal-state
partnership at USGS and NOAA/MD laboratories. Additional research
at EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is evaluating
fish lesion pathology. Research to measure and predict the potential
contribution and transport of agricultural nutrients to surface
and ground water is currently underway at USDA, EPA, and USGS.
In addition, as part of EPA's Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
project and a related Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR) project in the mid-Atlantic area, the roles of nutrients,
sediments, and other estuarine conditions are being evaluated
as part of an overall assessment for the region. These efforts
will likely contribute to enhancing our ability to understand
HABs, including Pfiesteria.
Required new efforts
- Although the few models that have been developed to explain
observed distributions of coastal Alexandrium populations
in Maine and Gymnodinium breve in North Carolina appear
promising, prediction of toxicity in the natural environment for
these two species nor any other is not yet possible. Direct linkages
between the environment and the physiology, ecology, and behavior
of toxic organisms are incompletely understood. For example,
even though there is some evidence indicating that agriculture-based
nutrients and other compounds could be important contributing
factors to the proliferation of one of the Pfiesteria-like
strains, it has not been clearly established that nutrient sources
or other environmental conditions (e.g., low pH, specific organic
compounds and trace metals, high dissolved organic compound concentrations)
are directly responsible for conditions encouraging these outbreaks.
Clearly, more work is required on the nutritional requirements
of Pfiesteria. Almost completely unknown is the impact
of veterinary pharmaceuticals on aquatic communities, and specifically
their role in stimulating the growth of HABs including Pfiesteria.
Therefore, there is a critical need to understand the physiological
ecology of this and other toxic species, by comparing their nutritional
responses and food web interactions under defined experimental
conditions with field responses under manipulated or naturally
variable conditions. We must quantify all factors contributing
to outbreaks of this and other toxic HAB species so as to identify
specific systems where outbreaks may occur. Further, identification
of critical factors limiting toxicity as well as those acute and
chronic conditions that may be responsible for poor fish health,
productivity, fecundity, and stock recruitment (toxic species
vs. anoxia/hypoxia, pesticides, etc.) will permit better management
of those factors contributing to toxic events.
With the recent emphasis on the potential
role of agricultural inputs in initiating toxic algal events in
coastal areas of the mid- and southeastern U.S., more focused
research must be undertaken to develop tools and methodologies
(such as remote sensing techniques) to measure and predict the
fate and transport of agricultural nutrients and other materials
in surface and ground water. These tools will also help to quantify
the contribution of these inputs to increases in the number and
frequency of outbreaks and toxicities of coastal nuisance species,
including Pfiesteria and other related taxa. Examination
of loadings from all major contributing sources, including both
point and non-point sources (e.g., sewage treatment facilities,
poultry, and other agricultural activities), must be undertaken
to identify or eliminate specific watershed land-use practices
contributing to HAB events in an effected coastal region. In
support of eliminating specific land-use practices, research to
improve models for TMDL (total maximum daily load) from non-point
sources is necessary.
Just as important, however, is the need to
determine how river, estuary, and basin characteristics (e.g.,
runoff, hydrology, residence time, meteorology, bathymetry) contribute
to the distribution of inputs relative to the nuisance organism,
and in the case of Pfiesteria and related species, the
distribution of fish prey. For example, the addition of a site
to the Delmarva National Water Quality Assessment Program site
in the Pocomoke watershed would provide necessary flow data perhaps
critical to event expression in the system. The suite of factors
critical to population growth will then indicate those systems
capable of supporting toxic Pfiesteria or HABs, while eliminating
others, for routine monitoring prior to toxicity development
and fish kills. This comprehensive approach, consistent with the
ECOHAB model, should be vigorously pursued with short- and long-term
support of competitive, peer-reviewed intra- and extramural research
programs. The current ECOHAB program, jointly funded by NOAA,
EPA, and NSF, provides a model for conducting the required research
to identify conditions responsible for toxicity in the recent
crisis on the eastern seaboard, supporting multi-disciplinary
studies linking circulation, bathymetry, and physiology and ecology
of several toxic species (including nutritional requirements for
growth) to predict bloom expression and toxicity in coastal U.S.
waters.
In addition to the integrated, multi-disciplinary
research program, there are several existing Federal monitoring
programs that with expansion, could substantially improve our
ability to understand and narrow the number of systems supporting
outbreaks of Pfiesteria-related species and other HABs
in the Mid- and Southern Atlantic. For example, sediment cores
from the region (collected by USGS), coupled with cell-specific
probes for Pfiesteria and its related species (Objective
2), could be used to establish historical linkages between these
populations and environmental conditions. In addition, EPA's
National Estuary Program has also identified nutrient over-enrichment
and HABs as priority problems in most of its 28 national estuaries.
Data from these systems could provide the basis for developing
and implementing future coastal resource management actions to
limit HAB expression. Two of these systems, the Delaware Inland
Bays and the Albermarle-Pamlico Sound, are sites with fish lesions,
kills, and large proliferations of Pfiesteria-like populations.
USDA watershed programs to identify areas susceptible to nutrient
losses should also be expanded, with results assisting the identification
of priority targets for application of Best Management Practices
to protect water quality (see Objective 5 below).
Objective 5. Apply research findings
toward developing options for effective management and mitigation
of HABs.
The need
- While health and environmental resource protection agencies
appropriately take conservative approaches (by immediately closing
affected areas) to protect public safety and to protect local
economies from unnecessarily restrictive or overly protective
sanctions, much more needs to be done to pro-actively manage,
prevent, control, and mitigate the impacts of HABs. To effectively
minimize economic losses attributable to HAB mitigation options,
accurate risk assessment approaches, including comparative risk
assessment and economic valuation, must be incorporated in the
environmental decision-making process.
Current efforts
- Extensive shellfish monitoring programs are well-established
in each state for PSP, NSP, DSP, and ASP toxins. There are also
numerous Federal programs that document nutrient loadings to coastal
systems. However, fewer programs are operating to determine
trends in nutrient cycling and availability. Both the coordinated
Federal-state rapid response approach for monitoring, assessment
and epidemiological surveys for the Chesapeake Bay region (described
above) and the recently funded EPA-North Carolina rapid response
program for the Neuse River, demonstrate the value of HAB rapid
response activities requested in the National Plan. Effective
now that they are in place, these programs were initially reactive
rather than pro-active. If continued, they can provide baseline
data that can be used to: 1) identify environmental factors favoring
toxic events and symptomologies of exposed populations; 2) develop
diagnoses and therapies for exposure, critical to public health
care providers; and 3) narrow the suite of environmental factors
coincident with the HAB events. As noted above, specification
of environmental conditions preceding or accompanying an HAB event
can be used to identify systems with similar characteristics,
thus substantially limiting the number of systems where intensive
monitoring programs might be required in future mitigative strategies.
Required new efforts
- The recent crisis in Maryland and Texas emphasize the immediate
need to critically review available techniques for ameliorating
impacts of toxic species on coastal environmental resources, local
economies, and public health. Historically, reducing impacts
of toxic species required the maintenance of expensive, continuous
shellfish and fish monitoring programs, closures of fisheries,
posting health warnings, and supporting toxin assays to determine
seafood safety, all costly to local economies.
The recent report, "Harmful Algal
Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control, and
Mitigation" (Boesch et al. 1997), strongly supports a
re-examination of nutrient control strategies in coastal ecosystems
as these measures to reduce pollution (including excess nutrients)
could yield positive results in terms of reductions of some HABs
and their impacts. Results from research related to Objective
4, identifying nutrient and other inputs that support growth of
Pfiesteria and HABs, permit management of some inputs with
the potential to stimulate HAB events, thereby reducing their
impacts. For example, Federal support to develop and improve
basin-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate
transport of nutrients and other chemicals to waters are important.
This could include development of specific techniques for managing
these inputs (such as the role of vegetation and feed-lot and
manure application practices in reducing non-point source nutrients)
to reduce event occurrence.
Research on the science and economics of managing
animal wastes, including composting, feed composition, and ability
of soils to retain phosphorus, is also needed. Several specific
examples of programs that might be expanded include EPA's assessment
of loadings from animal feed operations through the permitting
process of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System,
using field collected monitoring data for establishing inputs
and limits. USDA research programs to develop BMPs to reduce
or eliminate movement of nutrients, pathogens, sediments, and
agricultural chemicals to surface and groundwater might also be
enlarged. These could lead to development of methods and practices
to reduce nutrient losses to the environment during handling,
storage, and field application of manures. The control of air
deposition of nutrients or other chemicals that may facilitate
outbreaks of Pfiesteria or HABs should also be intensively
examined (EPA, NOAA Programs) as there is increasing evidence
that air-borne materials can dramatically alter water quality
and productivity of receiving waters. With the array of toxic
species, coastal systems and watershed uses in the U.S., we can
expect that there will likely be unique treatment capabilities
for each nuisance organism and coastal environment.
In addition to control of watershed inputs
(e.g., nutrients, organics, food supplements, sediments, pesticides,
herbicides, etc.), there are several other areas that will likely
increase our ability to reduce harmful events and their impacts.
These include 1) formal development of health care responses
for individuals exposed to HAB toxins and 2) accurate risk assessment
studies that contain economic evaluation as a key element. The
first effort would include adoption of standardized medical examinations
and testing procedures toward generation of comparable data sets
across jurisdictions, ultimately reducing public illness and
health expenses. The second effort would provide potentially
useful measures for estimating bloom impacts and benefits of
controlling the harmful events.
Objective 6. Provide for rapid response
to, and long-term monitoring of, toxic and otherwise harmful marine
algal outbreaks.
The need
- As described above, and recommended in the National Plan, rapid
response capabilities are essential for an effective U.S. HAB
program. These events currently are unpredictable, and often
ephemeral, and factors contributing to their occurrence are poorly
understood. A rapid response capability can provide: 1) limits
on the extent of the event, thereby easing anxiety in locally
impacted communities and impacts to local economies; and 2) an
understanding of base conditions for bloom development or toxicity
expression. To respond rapidly to an HAB event, a collaborative
agency effort is needed to measure and characterize water quality,
flow, and other critical environmental conditions, as well as
to adequately assess biological impacts during and following an
outbreak.
Current efforts
- With some Federal assistance, state and local governments have
most frequently responded to HAB catastrophes involving large
animals inhabiting coastal ecosystems such as whales, dolphins,
birds, and manatees. The recent crisis in Maryland, however,
resulted in an immediate and highly effective Federal (NOAA, EPA,
NIEHS, USDA, CDC)-state partnership, following a coordinated,
integrated rapid response team approach. This approach expanded
monitoring of water quality, plankton, fish lesions and their
pathologies, and fish bioassays, as well as measures of ambient
toxicity and watershed inputs. In addition, USGS re-examined
watershed loadings for impacted areas. Federal agencies also
provided immediate assistance to Maryland in medical identification
and epidemiology. This rapid response approach resulted in immediate
sampling and data analysis in support of critical real-time management
decisions (e.g., river closures, advisories) and provided an event-focused,
medical analysis of river-induced illness of local users. This
effort proved invaluable to easing regional concerns about the
events. In addition, EPA is currently funding North Carolina
to develop a similar rapid response plan, built around an extensive
monitoring program for fish kills in the Lower Neuse River estuary.
Required new efforts
- Federal agencies have the skills and equipment to assist states
in rapid response monitoring and assessment activities. Because
of the increasingly frequent appearance of harmful algae in our
nation's coastal waters, a specific set of Federal resources,
technical skills, and response strategies must be maintained and
supported, to prepare an interagency rapid response team for future
events. Additional Federal assistance to state monitoring programs
will be necessary to enhance both long-term and event monitoring
(including identifications of harmful species) and assessment
capabilities. Through enhanced support to FDA, further development
of the field observer network will increase our rapid response
capability.
Objective 7. Develop information, communication,
educational, and public health materials and on-site training
strategies.
The need
- While some HABs have been occurring in coastal waters for years,
others (such as Pfiesteria-like populations in the Mid-
and Southeastern U.S.) are new and novel. In many cases, resource
and human health managers, as well as the general public, are
unfamiliar with symptoms of toxin exposure, and are often not
prepared to respond rapidly and effectively in crisis situations.
It is essential that we provide current and accurate information,
for both professionals and the public, to minimize unfounded public
and local government fears and to assist in near-time critical
environmental resource management decision making.
Current efforts
- Outreach (e.g., web sites, newsletters, and fact sheets), specific
to events in the Chesapeake and North Carolina, is an integral
part of on-going activities within NOAA, EPA, USDA, and NIEHS.
For example, NIEHS has specific guidelines for its Center Program,
requiring immediate distribution of research results to research
and medical communities. To identify research needs and to address
important issues, NIEHS, CDC, USDA, and EPA have also recently
held workshops to evaluate the state of the science associated
with Pfiesteria, its related species, and other toxic HAB
species, and to evaluate the threat of HABS to human health and
natural ecosystems. In addition, the National Office for Marine
Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms (funded by NSF and NOAA) at
the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution maintains a HAB web page
that contains useful information on toxin syndromes, newsworthy
events, and reference material.
Required new efforts
- At a minimum, strategies to strengthen outreach activities must
be developed and coordinated at the Federal and state level, to
ensure prompt distribution of information. The activities would
minimize public and local government concerns to local HAB events,
provide public health advisories, guide seafood safety advisories,
and identify regional hot spots impacted by HABs. Therefore,
existing communication, outreach, and education efforts should
be reviewed, integrated, and made accessible across agencies to
ensure an adequate flow of information and materials to agency
partners/constituents and to facilitate an awareness of recent
research findings. Specific needs include training of health
care providers, implementing phone inquiry systems for impacted
areas, and developing electronic information services (including
web sites) for distributing information. Additionally, agencies
should take advantage of local, regional, and national media (e.g.,
public television, radio) to reach the public, especially seafood
consumers. Training programs for health care providers as well
as for scientific personnel in sample collection, cell identification,
and toxin assays must be established through state and Federal
laboratories.
Objective 8. Identify and improve access
to databases documenting bloom incidence, toxin occurrence in
shellfish, mass mortality events, and epidemiology.
The need
- Access to accurate, reliable, and quality-assured data and information
is critical to assess environmental factors contributing to or
coincident with HAB formation in marine ecosystems. These data
also provide the basis for research programs to determine impacts
of HAB events on coastal resources. Epidemiological data provide
case histories for those exposed to toxins (critical to identifying
various routes of exposure and preventive strategies to reduce
exposures and symptomologies) and for developing potentially life-saving
treatments and therapies. Finally, the data are essential in
publication of up-to-the-minute advisories for health care providers
and the public.
Current efforts
- A number of data bases are readily available covering a suite
of environmental parameters (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Office, STORET,
NODC, USDA land use, GULFNET, ECOHAB projects, FWS National Wild
Fish Health Survey, EPA Index of Watershed Indicators, National
Agriculture Library).
Required new efforts
- Relevant and accurate data documenting the symptomology of Pfiesteria-related
illnesses are currently unavailable. However, the need to fill
this important information gap is acknowledged as a national goal
at both the Federal (CDC and NIEHS), and at the state (Maryland
and North Carolina) level. With CDC participation, case history
data will be made available. To provide more information on the
status of fish health in impacted systems such as the Eastern
Shore of Chesapeake Bay, data bases need to be expanded through
more intensive monitoring of tidal portions of tributaries.
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED ACTIONS
From a review of Federal intramural and extramural
programs, it is clear that implementing the objectives modified
from the original National Plan (Anderson et al. 1993) will address
the specific problems of fish lesions, fish kills, and toxicities
of Pfiesteria-like populations observed in Mid- and South
Atlantic states. The objectives summarized below identify research
and monitoring areas critical for more effective response, increased
understanding of effects on ecosystems and public health, and
for better control and mitigation of these impacts.
To protect human health and the environment,
immediate support is needed to:
o Isolate, identify, and characterize
the microorganisms and their toxins;
o Develop assays for detection of cells
and toxins and improved capabilities for morphological identification
and enumeration;
o Better understand the impact of the organisms
and their toxins on human health, marine ecosystems, and the economies
of coastal areas; and
o Ensure the flow of timely, accurate,
and consistent information concerning HAB events to local managers,
professionals, and the general public.
To ensure that responsible agencies can respond
rapidly and if necessary, implement effective management and mitigation
measures, capabilities need to be in place to:
o Enable Federal and state agencies to
respond rapidly through better support for monitoring, research,
and assessment during Pfiesteria and other HAB events;
and
o Maintain and update data bases and information
relevant to Pfiesteria and other HAB events that are easily
accessible, reliable, and accurate.
To support management and mitigation efforts,
research must also begin immediately to:
o Develop capabilities to identify systems
potentially supporting Pfiesteria, related species, and
HABs through integration of the organism's ecology and physiology
with ambient environmental conditions (hydrology, nutrient and
other anthropogenic loads, and bathymetry);
o Explore new and existing technological
means to prevent, control, or mitigate Pfiesteria, related
organisms, and other HAB species, such as improving farm and watershed-scale
Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate movement of nutrients,
sediments, pathogens, trace elements, and other specific organic
compounds to surface and ground water.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
While this strategy has been reviewed by representatives
from the academic community, Maryland state agencies, scientific
advisors to the Maryland Department of the Environment, and the
Pfiesteria Commission (established by the Governor of Maryland),
it represents the Federal response strategy for research and monitoring.
Though distinct from specific state programs and approaches,
it is intended to complement and augment those efforts where appropriate.
Expertise to implement the objectives resides
in the academic community and in state agencies, as well as in
Federal laboratories and programs. Thus, implementation of programs
coordinated under this strategy will rely on an appropriate mix
of in-house and external research and monitoring programs, largely
based on results of competitive, peer-review processes. The
results of these research and monitoring programs will be used
in generating effective environmental policy decisions.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
Short-term -- These activities, in the short-term,
will provide a rapid response capability for toxic events for
each state through Federal support and coordination of needed
Federal expertise with state field and medical teams and a Federal
capability to immediately support state monitoring and assessment
programs for affected areas and populations. Additionally, toxin
identification is likely for at least two strains in the near
future, with assays for these toxins not far behind. Characterization
of other toxins and related Pfiesteria-like cells and development
of additional assays for these new biotoxins and populations will
also move forward rapidly; however, definitive results will likely
not be seen for several years. Increased public awareness and
education will be immediate gains with an extensive but coordinated
Federal outreach program.
Intermediate -- Ensuring public health during
and after toxic events is a high priority in this Strategy. At
time scales of 1-2 years, case history compilation and epidemiological
surveys will also permit identification of symptoms associated
with exposure to Pfiesteria and its related species and
development of diagnostics for public exposure to these events.
Thereafter, in conjunction with research results on modes of
action of toxins, treatments and therapies for exposure will be
described. Further, detailed characterization of toxins will
also permit development of toxin assays for seafood, ensuring
public safety in systems where Pfiesteria and similar populations
are found.
Longer-term -- Cataloging watershed characteristics,
including land-use and characterization of anthropogenic additives,
surface and groundwater flows and loads, water quality, residence
times and bathymetry, will also begin immediately, yielding data
sets within 1-2 years. However, linking these environmental characteristics
with growth, ecology, and toxicity of Pfiesteria and its
related populations will require a longer term commitment to an
integrated, multi-disciplinary research program that includes
collaboration between Federal laboratories, academic institutions,
and the private sector. Results, several years in the future,
will include a means to narrow the number of coastal environments
likely supporting the toxic species as well as providing specific
management actions in each watershed that will permit some control
of toxicity in these systems.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway and J. D Joseph.
1993. Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. WHOI
Technical Report-93-02, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Mass. 44 pp.
Anderson, D.M. 1995. ECOHAB: The Ecology
and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, A National Research
Agenda. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.
66 pp.
Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, 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. APPENDIX I.
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| NOAA | NIEHS | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||||
| 1. Isolate, characterize toxins | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Pfiesteria, Pritchard Pond isolate, water soluble toxin | ||||||||
| Pfiesteria, Noga isolate, lipid soluble toxin | ||||||||
| Identification of Pfiesteria toxins | ||||||||
| Develop/characterize each potentially toxic strain of Pfiesteria and the Pfiesteria-complex | ||||||||
| Determine toxicity of each strain and begin the isolation and identification of toxins produced | ||||||||
| Determine life cycles and toxicities of life stages for each isolated strain | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O - Outreach
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| NOAA | NIEHS | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||||
| 2. Detection methods | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Pfiesteria, Pritchard Pond water soluble toxin | ||||||||
| Pfiesteria, Noga isolate, lipid soluble toxin | ||||||||
| Probe development to differentiate Pfiesteria - like organisms | ||||||||
| Toxins, toxicity assays for seafood | ||||||||
| Fish lesion pathology | ||||||||
| Refine methods to detect toxins | ||||||||
| Develop methods for field detection of Pfiesteria-like cells | ||||||||
| Field test & apply cellular probes that have been under development | ||||||||
| Develop biomarkers of lethal and sublethal neurotoxicity for fish and/or humans | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O - Outreach
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| EPA | NOAA | NIEHS | CDC | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||
| 3. Toxins in marine foodwebs, fisheries & humans | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Pfiesteria effects on fish & shellfish | ||||||||
| Animal models, epidemiological studies, dose/response & biomarker development for humans & ecosystems | ||||||||
| Medical surveys, case history development | ||||||||
| Pfiesteria effects on human health | ||||||||
| Neurobehavioral effects of dinoflagellates in rats | ||||||||
| Biotoxin impacts on marine organisms: Direct & indirect effects; thresholds; hazard identification methods | ||||||||
| Biotoxin impacts on humans: Direct & indirect effects; thresholds | ||||||||
| Biotoxins: Pathways & transformation | ||||||||
| Human symptomologies & epidemiology | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O - Outreach
TYPE* | ||||||||
| EPA | NOAA | NIEHS | CDC | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||
| 4. Forecasting capabilities
(including ecology) | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Support State efforts to identify potential hot-spots. | ||||||||
| Pfiesteria, nutrient relationships | ||||||||
| Anthropogenic loading & Pfiesteria | ||||||||
| Pilot study linking land, water, air, biota, and people in Mid-Atlantic | ||||||||
| Plankton Observer Network | ||||||||
| EPA National Estuary Program | ||||||||
| Determine factors causing toxic blooms: Link physics, hydrology, ecology & physiology of species | ||||||||
| Develop model for identifying specific systems optimal for growth | ||||||||
| Delmarva National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) | ||||||||
| Role of veterinary pharmaceuticals in bloom formation | ||||||||
| Plankton Observer Networks | ||||||||
| Develop ability to distinguish among causes of fish health problems | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O - Outreach
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| EPA | NOAA | NIEHS | CDC | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||
| 5. Develop management &
mitigation options | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| EPA National Nutrient Strategy | ||||||||
| Animal Feeding Operations | ||||||||
| EPA National Estuary Program | ||||||||
| Non-Point Source Programs | ||||||||
| Non-point source control: Improve Animal Feeding Operations, Total Maximum Daily Load, and air deposition models | ||||||||
| Research on prevention, control & mitigation strategies, including hydrological/biological conditions | ||||||||
| Development of water quality criteria for nutrients | ||||||||
| Develop health care responses for human toxin exposure and risk assessment studies on bloom impacts/benefits of control | ||||||||
| Evaluation of economic impacts to support cost-benefit analyses of mitigation strategies | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O - Outreach
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| EPA | NOAA | NIEHS | CDC | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||
| 6. Rapid response to HABs | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Support to States for developing and implementing rapid response plans (watershed loads, water quality, plankton, lesions, fish kills, toxicity assays) |
| |||||||
| Federal assistance to medical & health programs on Pfiesteria in Maryland and North Carolina | ||||||||
| Providing an interagency Rapid Response Team capability for all future events in U.S. coastal waters | ||||||||
| Federal assistance to state monitoring programs | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O -
Outreach
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| EPA | NOAA | NIEHS | CDC | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||
| 7. Communication, outreach,
education | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Websites, Newsletters, Fact Sheets | ||||||||
| Workshop on Pfiesteria and marine toxins | ||||||||
| Research results distributed to research and medical communities | ||||||||
| Workshop: Comprehensive public health approach to Pfiesteria | ||||||||
| Training workshops on isolation of Pfiesteria toxin, biomarker for exposure, probes | ||||||||
| Develop and implement a public outreach strategy to ensure effective dissemination and public access to information related to Pfiesteria, other HAB and fish kills | ||||||||
| Develop public health advisories, guidance on seafood safety and identification of regional 'hot-spots' | ||||||||
| Conduct conferences addressing scientific and lay communities to communicate recent research findings. | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O - Outreach
|
TYPE* | ||||||||
| EPA | NOAA | NIEHS | CDC | USDA | DOI | FDA | ||
| 8. Databases | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Federal-Maryland epidemiology | ||||||||
| NOAA-EPA Chesapeake Bay Program long-term water quality, plankton | ||||||||
| STOrage RETrieval (STORET), National Oceanographic Data Center, National Wild Fish Health | ||||||||
| Nutrient loads, poultry operations, conservation for Delmarva, Chesapeake and Pocomoke | ||||||||
| Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) database | ||||||||
| Index of Watershed Indicators | ||||||||
| Data bases symptomology of Pfiesteria-related sicknesses | ||||||||
| National Databases: Environmental factors; species distribution; Plankton observer network | ||||||||
| Databases to include hydrology, nutrient loading, and TMDL's | ||||||||
| Fish health data bases | ||||||||
* R - Research; M - Monitoring; O -
Outreach