# Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)

in the United States

by

Donald M. Anderson Porter Hoagland Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, MA 02543



### Yoshi Kaoru Nanzan University Nagoya, Japan



### Alan W. White Massachusetts Maritime Academy Buzzards Bay, MA 02532



### September 2000



## Technical Report

Funding was provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Grants No. NA46RG0470 and NA90AA-D-SG480, the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCE-9321244, and the Johnson Endowment of the Marine Policy Center.

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

## DANGER

Area Closed

Shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels, and other
b i v al v e molluscs ) in the area descri b ed b elo w contain p aralytic to x ins and are not safe
for use as food

. 

## W oods Hol e 

## WHOI-2000-11Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend special thanks to the following people for their assistance in providing information for this report: D. Baden (University of Miami); D. Blythe (University of Miami); J. Burkholder (North Carolina State University); R. Conn (City of Sarasota, Florida); L. Fleming (University of Miami); W. Foster (Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine); R. Haddock (Guam Department of Public Health); Y. Hokama (University of Hawai i); R. Horner (University of Washington); J. Hurst (Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine); C. Lobban (University of Guam); K. Lynch (North Car olina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources); V. Paul (University of Guam); R. RaLonde (University of Alaska); W. Rothenbach (City of Sarasota, Florida); E. Todd (Department of Health and Welfare, Canada); T. Tosteson (University of Puerto Rico); K. White (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada); and R. Weisman (Florida Poison Information Center).

We also thank the following people for information which they provided during the initial stages of this project: C. Allison (AK); S. Barker (ME); R. Barrett (AK); B. Barss (OR); T. Beardsley (AK); R. Becker (LA); T. Bettinger (AK); E. Buskey (TX); D. Cannon (OR); K. Canty (MA); P. Chapman (WA); R. Collins (CA); E. Cosper (NY); E. Cox (TX); R. D'Amico (NY); C. Dequillseldt (NY); B. Dewey (WA); P. DiPietro (MA); W. Donaldson (AK); B. Eisley (NJ); J. Finger (CA); A. Freudenthal (NY); J. Garrett (FL); B. Halgren (NJ); R. Hanowell (WA); D. Heil (FL); Y. Hokama (HI); R. Horner (WA); J. Hunt (FL); J. Hurst (ME); T. Johnson (CA); J. Johnson (OR); S. Kennedy (FL); G. Langlois (CA); R. Lewis (ME); R. Madiack (NJ); J. Mahoney (NJ); H. Marshall (VA); M. McCallum (WA); M. McNair (AK); J. Nelson (NH); C. Newell (ME); R. Nuzzi (NY); P. Olsen (NJ); M. Ostasz (AK); J. Paeth (OR); Pierce Asso ciates (MA); R. Pierce (FL); H. Radtke (OR); P. Rai che (NH); T. Reisingor (T X); J. Rensel (WA); B. Roberts (FL); L. Robinson (TX); M. Ross (CA); P. Rubec (TX); Shore Appraisals (MA); D. Simons (WA); T. Smith (WA); K. Spiller (TX); G. Stater (OR); K.Steidinger (FL); M. Street (NC); C. Strong (NY); W. Tatum (AL); P. Tester (NC); R. Usher (MA); J. Volk (CT); C. Weise (AK); T. Whitledge (TX); D. Whittaker (MA); S. Wilk (NJ); and G. Woods (MA).

We thank Ms. Ellen Gately for typographical assistance with this manuscript, and Ms. Judy

Kleindinst and Ms. Kristin Gribble for their editorial efforts. This research was supported in part by NOAA National Sea Gr ant College Pr ogram Office, Department of Com merce, under

Grants No. NA46RG0470 and NA90AA-D-SG480, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Sea Grant Projects No. R/B-150-PT and R/S-24, by NSF Grant OCE-9321244, and by the Johnson Endowment of the WHOI Marine Policy Center.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

3 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Blooms of toxic or harmful microalgae, commonly called "red tides," represent a significant and expanding threat to human health and fisheries resources throughout the United States and the world. These phenomena take many forms, ranging from massive accumulations of cells that discolor the water to dilute, inconspicuous, but hi ghly toxic populations. Ecological, aesthetic, and public health impacts include: mass mortalities of wild and farmed fish and shellfish; human

intoxication and death from the consumption of contaminated shellfish or fish; alterations of

marine food webs through adverse effects on larvae and other life history stages of commercial fish species; the noxious smell and appearance of algae accumulated in nearshore waters or deposited on beaches; and mass mortalities of marine mammals, seabirds, and other animals.

Many harmful algal blooms (HABs) have significant economic impacts. Shellfish closures, wild or farmed fish mortalities, and scared consumers who avoid seafood are well-recognized impacts of major HABs. While adverse health effects and lost sales of fish and shellfish produ cts are direct costs, constrained development or investment decisions in coastal aquaculture due to the

threat from outbreaks of toxic algae are examples of poorly understood or poorly quantified

indirect or hidden c osts. Lost ma rine recreational opportunities also are a significant cost of harmful algal bloom incidents.

HABs have increased steadily in both species complexity and geographical extent over the last

several decades. In turn, the range of harmful effects and the magnitude of economic costs have also widened. This report provides the first comprehensive estimate of the economic impacts of HABs in the United States, focusing on both direct and indirect costs.

We estimate the economic impacts of HABs for events where such impacts were measurable

with a fair degree of confidence during the six-year interval of 1987-92 (Table ES.1). Due to reporting limitations, the selected events are a subset of all outbreaks that occurred during the 1987-92 study period, and thus our aggregate economic impact underestimates the true impacts. “Economic impact” is defined broadly to mean either lost gross revenues in the relevant product or factor markets, expenditures for environmental monitoring and management, or other costs that would not have been incurred in the absence of HABs. In general, this measure is consistent with published estimates made for other natural catastrophes, such as hurricanes or earthquakes. Economic multipliers, often used to approximate the full ramifications of costs or losses as they

are transferred through a local economy, are not used here. The calculation of economic multipliers in the absence of detailed data on market structure and interactions can be misleading, as multipliers can be sensitive to local market structure characteristics and to the quality of data

that describe interactions among market sectors. Developing a description of local and regional markets for specific HAB events was beyond the scope of this project.Table E.S.1: Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States(Estimate is of 1987-1992 period, reported in 2000 dollars)% ofLowHighAverageTotalPublic Health18,493,825$24,912,544$22,202,597$45%Commercial Fishery13,400,691$25,265,896$18,407,948$37%Recreation/Tourism-$29,304,357$6,630,415$13%Monitoring/Management2,029,955$2,124,307$2,088,885$4%TOTAL33,924,471$81,607,104$49,329,845$100%15 Year Capitalized Impacts(discounted at 7%)$308,981,162$743,270,485$449,291,987Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

5 Economic impacts are grouped into four basic categories: (1) public health impacts; (2)

commercial fishery impacts; (3) recreation and tourism impacts; and (4) monitoring and management costs. Unless otherwise indicated, all estimates are reported in 2000 U.S. dollars.

Public Health Impacts

Human sickness and death from eating tainted seafood results in lost wages and work days.

Costs of medical treatment and investigation also are an important part of the economic impact caused by such events. Cases of sickness and death from shellfish toxins are probably the most clearly documented among the different types of HAB impacts, since these cases are recorded by public health agencies in individual states as well as at the federal level.

For the 1987-92 period, the average public health impact due to shellfish poisoning from HABs was approximately $1 mill ion per year (caused by paralytic, neurotoxic and amnesic shellfish poisoning, or PSP, NSP, and ASP respectively). This total is low because of highly effective

state monitoring programs that detect toxic shellfish and keep contaminated products off the market. Another problem caused by toxic al gae is the fish poisoning syndrome called ciguatera, caused by dinoflagellate toxins that move through the tropical food chain to the l arger fish that then poison human consumers. Ciguatera affects predominantly the residents of, and visitors to, Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Isl ands, Guam, and the Marshall Islands. Over the study interval, the economic impact of c iguatera poisoning varied from $18 mill ion to more than $24 million per year, averaging $21 million. These estimates are low since ci guatera poisoning has

occurred outside the tropical areas l isted above due to exports of fish to other jurisdictions. Further, some seafood companies purchase insurance to cover potential ciguatera-caused liabilities, and there are court costs associated with ciguatera-rel ated litigation – neither of which we were able to quantify for the study interval.

The total public health impacts from HABs ranged from a low of $18 mill ion to a high of $25 million, averaging $22 mill ion o ver the six-year interval. These figures represent approximately 45% of the total economic impacts from all causes.

Commercial Fishery Impacts

Commercial fishery impacts from HABs include wild harvest and aquaculture losses of fish and shellfish resources due to NSP, PSP, ASP, ciguatera, and brown tides. Annual impacts vary from $13 to $25 mill ion with average annual impacts of $18 mill ion. These figures clearly are

underestimates because they do not include losses from PSP closures in several states w here it was not possible to document the acreage cl osed or the value of the resource that was not

harvested. The estimation of commercial fishery impacts is complicated further by the transfer of shellfishing effort from closed areas to areas that remained open and by fishermen switching to other fishing activities. In addition, the estimates do not include the value of wild fish kills or of lost opportunities for harvesting some untapped shellfish resources. Measuring the economic impacts of wild fish kills is problematic because many involve so-called “trash” fish that, byEconomic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

6 definition, have no market value. Al so, the ultimate causes of fish kills often are unclear. For example, fish kills caused by the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria undoubtedly occurred in North Carolina during the six-year study interval, but state officials could not indicate which events were caused by Pfiesteria and which were due to other causes, such as low dissolved oxygen.

Another issue is that some currently untapped fishery “resources” have values that could be

realized in the absence of HAB events, but such estimates are not included here. Examples

include some shellfish resources of coastal Alaska, which are permanently quarantined due to persistent PSP toxicity and the log istics of sampling distant or remote resources. However, in order for such “lost opportunities” to be counted legitimately as economic impacts in this study,

these fisheries must be demonstrated to be commercially viable. A pl ausible alternative reason for non-exploitation is that they are not profitable fisheries because there is insufficient demand or because harvesting is uneconomical. The annual economic impact estimates presented here

include losses from these untapped resources only in certain special cases (e.g., surf cl ams in Alaska and on Georges Bank).

Recreation and Tourism Impacts

In 1991, a federal study estimated that expenditures by re creational fishermen for travel, food, lodging and equipment were 67 percent greater than expenditures for commercial fish l andings. Although many experts argue that the impacts of HABs on recreation and tourism are important and potentially large, there are few available data describing the size of the impacts. Clearly, the

economic impacts of HABs on recr eational and tourism activities deserve substantially more attention than they have been given to date. In Florida, for example, recurrent red tides have been estimated to cause over $20 million in tourism-related losses every year. These impacts, as well as similar losses in Texas and other areas, are not well documented and thus are reduced to much lower levels in this study. The total annual estimates for recreation and tourism are, once again,

underestimates. Efforts to measure recreation and tourism impacts must be undertaken at the

local level because l ocal environmental and socioeconomic conditions are critical determinants of changes in recreational benefits.

Estimates of economic impacts on recreation and tourism during the 1987-92 period range from zero to $29 million. The annual average is $7 million.

Monitoring and Management Costs

It is often the case that water monitoring tasks, including shellfish testing for PSP, NSP, and ASP, are spread across different divisions of state government, making it difficult to collect data on costs. Further, monitoring activities for both HABs and other water quality testing, such as shellfish sanitation, often are conducted by the same personnel. As a result, it is difficult to

factor out those costs rel ated specifically to HAB monitoring and management. Given this qualification, annual average monitoring and management costs for HABs are estimated at $2 million, distributed among twelve states: Alaska, Cal ifornia, Connecticut, Florida, Maine,Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

7 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. These costs include the routine operation of shellfish toxin monitoring programs, plankton monitoring, and other management activities.

Conclusions

Table ES-1 presents the annual aggregate economic impacts (in millions of 2000 dollars) of HABs
in the United States during the 1987-92 period. The total costs average $49 mill ion per year, ranging from $34 mill ion to $82 mill ion. Over the last several decades, the cumulative impacts thus approach $1 bill ion. Public health impacts are the larg est component, representing more than 45 percent of total average impacts. Commercial fisheries impacts are the next l argest component, representing 37 percent of the total. Recreation/tourism impacts account for 13 percent of the total, and monitoring/management impacts represent the remaining 4 percent. Further, it is important to note that expenditures made to improve monitoring and management likely resulted in decreases in impacts in the other categories.

These estimates are highly conservative and reflect the difficulties in compiling and assessing the impacts of phenomena for which economic studies are rare. The totals in Table ES-1 do not

include the effects of economic mul tipliers, which would increase the estimates several-fold. They also do not include the value of untapped or unexploited resources, such as some of the

extensive shellfish populations al ong Al aska’s 30,000-mile coastline, presently cl osed to harvesting due to PSP toxicity. Likewise, the effects of delayed harvesting, as with temporary beach closures due to PSP, could not be estimated with any precision and thus are not included.

We note also that outbreaks of certain blooms may cause severe economic impacts that equal or exceed the annual averages for the selected study interval. For example, a 1976 New Jersey red tide caused losses estimated at more than $1 billion in 2000 dollars. Similarly, the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreak in the Chesapeake Bay is estimated to have cost the seafood industry $46 mill ion. These single events exceed the annual average of HAB impacts for the entire nation.

The difficulties encountered in our efforts to generate a national estimate of HAB economic impacts underscore the need to modify the manner in which HABs are reported. At present, information on HAB events is fragmentary and inconsistent with respect to the l evel of detail provided. The duration, affected acreage or shoreline length, average toxicity levels, and values of

affected coastal resources should be documented for each bloom in order to describe the overall economic significance of the incident. In addition, l ocal and state governments should place much higher emphasis on quantification of economic impacts. Until l ocal governments become capable of supply ing site-specific impact information for each bloom incident, truly comprehensive and detailed national l evel aggregation of such impacts cannot be realized. Furthermore, the causes of economic impacts and the degree of their uncertainty should be included in any reports of economic impacts.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

8 Overall, the economic impacts from HABs are diverse and l arge within the United States. Even with the highly conservative treatment given the impacts in this study, the annual costs are significant. Perhaps more importantly, many are recurrent, and show s igns of increasing as the number of toxic and harmful algal species grows and as our rel iance on the coastal zone for aquaculture, commerce and recreation expands. Prudent investment in research and monitoring can do much to reverse this trend and to reduce the annual impacts.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................13

2 METHODS....................................................................................................................... ....16



### 2.1 Definition of Economic Impacts ................................................................................16 2.2 Economic Impacts are not an Ideal Measure of Social Costs ...............................17 2.3 Ex Ante vs. Ex Post Impacts ......................................................................................19
2.4 Nonmalleable Factors .................................................................................................19 2.5 Other Types of Impacts ..............................................................................................19 2.6 Distribution of Impacts ...............................................................................................20 2.7 Usefulness of the Economic Impact Measure ........................................................20 2.8 Study Interval ..............................................................................................................20

2.9 Data

............................................................................................................................... 21

3 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS .............................................................................................22



### 3.1 PSP, NSP, and ASP Illnesses .....................................................................................22

3.1.1 Illness Costs...........................................................................................................22 3.1.2 Unreported Illnesses ..............................................................................................25 

### 3.2 Ciguatera .......................................................................................................................26

4 COMMERCIAL FISHERY IMPACTS ..............................................................................28



### 4.1 Wild Harvest and Aquaculture Losses ...................................................................28 4.1.1 Brown Tide Impacts on Bay Scallop Harvests in New York................................28 4.1.2 ASP Impacts on Razor Clam Harvests in Washington and Oregon.......................31

4.1.3 Alaskan Shellfish Resources...................................................................................32 4.1.4 Ciguatera Impacts on Sales of Recreational Fish in Hawaii ...................................32 4.1.5 West Coast Harvesting Delays ..............................................................................32 4.1.6 Inconclusive Impacts on Shellfish Harvests in Maine and Massachusetts............33 4.1.7 Impacts from the Application of Health Standards...............................................34 4.1.8 Impacts of Wild Fish Kills.....................................................................................34 4.1.9 Inconclusive Evidence of Seagrass Dieoffs in Florida ............................................36 

### 4.2 Untapped Fisheries .....................................................................................................36 4.2.1 Alaska’s Untapped Shellfish Resources ................................................................37 4.2.2 Georges Bank Surf Clam Fishery...........................................................................42 4.2.3 Georges Bank Roe-On Scallop Fishery..................................................................42 

### 4.3 Major HAB Events in Other Years ..........................................................................43

5 RECREATION AND TOURISM IMPACTS .....................................................................44



### 5.1 The 1987 North Carolina Red Tide Event ................................................................45 5.2 The 1991-92 Washington and Oregon ASP Event .................................................45Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

10 

### 5.3 Recreational Impacts - Large but Uncertain ...........................................................46 5.4 Laguna Madre Brown Tide ........................................................................................47 5.5 Property Value and Recreational Impacts of Macroalgae .....................................47

6 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT COSTS .............................................................49

7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS...................................................51



### 7.1 Annual Aggregate Economic Impacts .....................................................................51 7.2 Reasons Why Our Estimates are Conservative ......................................................51
7.3 Information Needs .......................................................................................................54
7.4 Overview .......................................................................................................................55

8 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................56

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................61

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................89Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

11 LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 2.1. Economic costs of a HAB event in a commercial fishery 17

Figure 2.2. Economic costs of a HAB event in a recreational fishery 18Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

12 LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 3.1. Illness due to natural seafood toxins in the United States 23

Table 3.2. Shellfish poisoning impacts from harmful algal blooms 24

Table 3.3. Public health impacts of ciguatera 27

Table 4.1. Commercial fishery impacts 29

Table 4.2. New York commercial bay scallop landings (1980-84) 31

Table 4.3. Landed values in shellfish in Maine (1988 and 1992) 33

Table 4.4. Massachusetts state PSP testing results 35

Table 4.5. Status of Alaskan molluscan shellfish resources 38

Table 4.6. Estimated “net” gross revenues arising from opening the Alaskan 41 and Georges Bank surf clam fisheries

Table 5.1. Recreation and tourism impacts 44

Table 5.2. Washington state recreational shellfishing trips for razor clams 46

Table 6.1. Annual average monitoring and management costs 50

Table 7.1. Estimated annual economic impacts from harmful algal blooms 52

in the United StatesEconomic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

13 1 INTRODUCTION

Ocean waters are home to thousands of species of microscopic algae which together comprise the

base of the marine food web. Most of these species are harmless, and in fact are critical to the ocean’s ecology and to the production of biomass at all levels of the marine food web. There are, however, a few dozen algal species which are associated with adverse impacts of many different types. The term “harmful algal bloom” or HAB is now used to describe the destructive and often visible "blooms" of these algae that kill fish, make shellfish poisonous, and cause numerous other problems in marine coastal waters. The one feature uniting these diverse phenomena is that they cause harm. In the past, the term “red tide” was used to describe many of these phenomena, but the term is potentially misleading and does not adequately describe the many different types of harmful outbreaks. Some algal species produce potent toxins which accumulate in shellfish that

feed on those al gae, resulting in poisoning syndromes in human consumers called paralytic, diarrhetic, amnesic, and neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (PSP, DSP, ASP, and NSP respectively). A related phenomenon called ci guatera fish poisoning (CFP) occurs when toxic al gae l iving on

coral reef sea weeds are consumed by herbivorous fish, which pass the toxins on to l arger predators which then del iver the neurotoxins to human consumers. All of these toxins can also alter marine ecosystem structure and function as they are transferred through the food web, affecting fecundity and survival at multiple levels in ways that are still largely unquantified.

Some toxic bl ooms kill wild and farmed fish populations. Others are associated with irritating and toxic aerosols, due to the transport of toxins in sea spray. Even non-toxic algal species can

cause problems through biomass effects - shading of submerged vegetation, disruption of food web dynamics and structure, and oxygen depletion as the blooms decay. Traditionally, the term HAB has referred to microscopic algae, but its interpretation has now been broadened to include blooms of macroscopic al gae (seaweeds) which displace indigenous species, destroy habitat,

cause oxygen depletion, and even alter biogeochemical cycles. The causes and effects of macroalgal bl ooms are similar in many ways to those associated with harmful microscopic phytoplankton species.

During the past several decades, HAB events have occurred in more l ocations than ever before throughout the United States and the world (Anderson 1989; Smayda 1990; Hall egraeff 1993). The number of algal species involved in such events has increased, there are more known toxins,

more fisheries resources are affected, and the economic impacts of HAB outbreaks are larger as well. Whether or not this gl obal increase in HABs is taking place because of enhanced nutrient and pollutant loadings from anthropogenic sources has been a topic of debate within the scientific community (e.g., Anderson 1989; Smayda 1990). Whatever the reasons, virtually all coastal regions of the United States are now subject to an unprecedented variety and frequency of HAB

events. The United States is not al one in this respect, as nations throughout the world are increasingly faced with a bewildering and disturbing array of toxic or harmful species and impacts.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

14 In the United States, the most significant economic and public health problems related to harmful algae during the 1987-92 interval that is the focus of this study were:

• Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), which occurs in all coastal New England states as well as New York and along much of the west coast from Alaska to California. This problem has also extended to offshore areas in the Northeast, notably Georges Bank.

• Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP), and fish and marine mammal mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico and, more recently, extending northward to the coast of the Carolinas.

• Mortalities of farmed salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.

• Recurrent brown tides, causing mortalities of mussel populations, massive recruitment failure of scallops, and reduction of eelgrass beds around Long Island.

• Ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP), a malady associated with dinoflagellate toxins

accumulated in tropical fish flesh, occurring in virtually all sub-tropical to tropical United States waters, including Fl orida, Hawaii, Guam, United States Virgin Isl ands, Puerto Rico, and many Pacific Territories.

• Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), a sometimes fatal illness so named because one of

its most severe symptoms is the permanent loss of short-term memory. The ASP toxin, domoic acid, has been detected in shellfish from both the West and East Coasts of the United States, and toxic Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries cells have been isolated

from Gulf of Mexico water.

• Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) which some consider the most serious and globally widespread phytoplankton-related seafood ill ness. The fi rst confirmed

incidence of DSP in North America occurred in 1990 and 1992 in Canada. DSPproducing species of phytoplankton such as Dinophysis acuminata and Prorocentrum
lima occur throughout all temperate coastal waters of the United States, though no outbreaks of DSP have yet been confirmed.

• “ Pfiesteria -like" dinoflagellates, affecting human health and fisheries in estuaries of the southeastern United States, and in particular the Neuse-Pamlico estuaries. Although Pfiesteria had been discovered by 1992, economic impacts of fish kills caused by this organism are not included in this study because no data could be obtained on the fish kills conclusively linked to Pfiesteria over the 1987-92 interval, or of the value of the dead fish. In the laboratory, human exposure to aerosols from toxic Pfiesteria cultures

has been linked to short- and long-term neurotoxic symptoms. Fishermen and others working in or exposed to estuarine waters have complained of similar problems,Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

15 exemplified in the worst cases as a loss of neu rocognitive ability. There are no estimates of the economic impacts of these human health effects in this report, again

because of a lack of data.

• Blooms of macroalgae (seaweeds), in response to nutrient enrichment associated with coastal eutrophication. Opportunistic macroalgal species outcompete, overgrow, and replace seagrass and coral reef ecosystems. Once established, the macroalgal bl ooms may remain in an environment for decades until nutrient supplies decrease. Negative

effects include reduced light availability to seagrasses and reef systems, l eading to lower productivity, habitat loss from hypoxia/anoxia, and eventual die-off of sensitive species.

In this report, we provide a national estimate of the economic impacts of HABs from events for which such impacts were measurable with a fair degree of confidence during the interval 1987-92. (Unless otherwise indicated, all estimates are reported in 2000 U.S. dollars.) Due to inadequate reporting, the events included here are only a subset of the HAB outbreaks that occurred during the six year study period. For this reason and others (discussed below) we believe that our aggregate economic impact estimates significantly underestimate the true impacts. We acknowledge that “economic impact” is not an ideal measure of economic l oss, but we employ the concept in this study because it is the predominant form in which damages are reported by coastal managers and by scientists in the published literature. We group economic impacts into four basic categories: 1) public health impacts; 2) commercial fishery impacts; 3) recreation and tourism impacts; and 4) monitoring and management costs. This is the first effort

to estimate economic costs of HABs at the national l evel, so it is perhaps not surprising that in the course of this analysis, we encountered many unknowns and uncertainties with respect to quantifying impacts. These problems are discussed below.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

16 2 METHODS

The following economic impact analysis is based mainly on a survey of experts from individual

coastal states and the literature. Formal letters requesting economic impact information were mailed in August 1992 and February 1994 to individuals in certain heavily impacted states who were either knowledgeable about HAB impacts or who were likely to know others who could be contacted for more specific details. In total, more than 170 people were contacted by letter and by telephone to elicit economic impact information and to uncover details about individual HAB events. After a preliminary evaluation and synthesis of these data, topics requiring further data or analysis were identified. These were addressed through a new series of telephone calls and correspondence in 1997-99. We have summarized these data in the body of the report.

2.1 Definition of Economic Impacts

We define “economic impacts” broadly to mean either lost gross revenues in the relevant product or factor markets, expenditures for environmental monitoring and management, or other costs that would not have been incurred in the absence of HABs. In general, this measure is consistent with published estimates made for other kinds of natural catastrophes, such as hurricanes or earthquakes (e.g. Pielke and Landsea 1997; Pielke and Pielke 1997). As such, the estimates reported here represent a preliminary, but admittedly rough, approximation of the economic

costs to the United States from the occurrence of HABs. Readers should keep the limitations of

economic impact analysis in mind, realizing that it was developed as a purely descriptive technique. Its original purpose was to describe the economic structure of a region, to help

understand economic interactions and lin kages among sectors. In particular, it is not a form of benefit-cost analysis, and it should not be used to justify normative decisions (Propst and Gavrilis 1987).

Another consideration is that we do not apply “multipliers” in this report to capture the full

ramifications of economic impacts. Multipliers can be sensitive to l ocal market structure characteristics and to the quality of data that describe interactions among market sectors (Archer 1995; Propst and Gavrilis 1987). Developing a description of l ocal and regional markets for specific HAB events was beyond the scope of this project. We have identified some studies of HAB impacts in which multipliers have been estimated and used, such as Maine's economic impact calculation for shellfishing closure of September 1980, and we recognize that it is possible to calculate multipliers for this kind of application (Loomis 1993). However, we bel ieve that the

calculation of economic mul tipliers in the absence of detailed data on market structure and interactions can be potentially misleading, creating a perception of exaggerated economic costs of HAB events (e.g. Hunter 1989). Furthermore, the occasional misuse of economic impact analysis

to make normative decisions to justify investments, for example, is made all the worse when impacts are multiplied.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

17 2.2 Economic Impacts are not an Ideal Measure of Social Costs

Economic impacts as defined here are not an ideal measure of the costs of HABs to society.

Under ideal circumstances, we would like to obtain a measure of l ost consumer and producer surpluses in the rel evant markets due, say, to shifts in demand or supply c urves. We demonstrate this point in Figure 2.1, which depicts supply and demand in a commercial fishery during one season 1 . Assume that we are considering the costs associated with the closure of a fishery due to a HAB event. In a typical case, this can be r epresented by a shift of the supply curve, which itself is the horizontal sum of marginal cost schedules for individual firms, from S 0 to S 1 . The effect is a reduction in the supply of fish to the market, from F 0 to F 1 , and an increase in the price of fish, from P 0 to P 1 . Prior to the closure, the net benefits fl owing from the fishery

are the sum of producers’ surplus (E+F+G) and consumers’ surplus (A+B+C+D). After the closure, producers’ surplus now becomes area B+E and consumers’ surplus is reduced to area A.

The net economic l oss associated with the closure is therefore C+D+F+G. Compare this theoretically correct, but often more difficult to obtain, measure with lost gross revenues from the closure (G+I). It should be cl ear that the latter is not a very cl ose approximation of “true” economic losses. In particular, although G is a true economic loss, I represents resources that can be productively invested or utilized elsewhere in the economy. 

### $

P 1 

### S 1



### A

B C D
G E

F

H I P 0 

### S 0



### F 1 

### F 0 

### Fish supply

demand

Figure 2.1. Economic costs of a HAB event in a commercial fishery.

1 We examine the case of the lower section of the traditional backward bending supply curve. This example is relevant to the case of a fishery managed to maximize economic yield.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

18 

### $

DF 1 

### DF 0 

### M 0



### M 1 

### P B A

C
D E

Days Fished

Figure 2.2 Economic costs of a HAB event in a recreational fishery.

The case of a recreational fishery is represented in Figure 2.2. In the present study, we have

estimated economic impacts as the product of lost days fished, e.g., due to a fishery closure,

times average daily recreati onal expenditures. (Note that some recreational fisheries may have a commercial component, complicating the analysis.) However, this measure does not represent a

true economic cost of a HAB event because, when expenditures are not made, individual

recreational fishermen incur no costs. Nevertheless, there may be consumer surplus losses, which represent true economic costs. Assume that there exists a recreational “market” demand

curve (M) al ong which fishing success (i.e., catch rate) is assumed to be constant (Anderson 1986). Prior to a HAB event, gross benefits are equal to area A+B+C+D+E and expenditures are equal to area C+D+E. Net benefits are therefore equal to area A+B. Now assume that an algal bloom results in the closure of some fishing areas, causing reduced catch rates in areas that remain open, say, due to increased fishing pressure in the latter. 2 Because fishing success declines, area closures will result in the contraction of recr eational market demand for each level of aggregate days fished: for example, M 0 shifts down to M 1 . At the current l evel of fishing expenditures of

2 Other scenarios are certainly possible. For example, a bl oom event may result in the closure of an entire recreational fishery. Closures could be temporal, instead of spatial, limiting the total days fished. Analyses of other scenarios should be straightforward.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

19 P, a new equilibrium of DF 1 aggregate days fished is established. Foll owing the logic described above, net benefits at the new l evel of days fished are equal to area B. The loss in consumer surplus from the closure is equal to area A. Note that there is no explicit market for days fished. The demand for days fished is a “non-market” demand. Estimation of this demand, and therefore losses to a recreational fishery from a HAB event, req uires the application of specialized

economic methods.

2.3 Ex Ante vs. Ex Post Impacts

The point in time at which impacts are measured also must be considered. When a commercial or recreational fishery is closed ex ante , then the appropriate measure of economic effects is the sum

of lost consumer and producer surpluses, as described in the previous paragraphs. However, if

commercial fish have been harvested already and the product subsequently prevented from reaching the market because toxicity exceeds safe levels, then it is appropriate to add harvest costs (area I in Figure 2.1) to the measure of economic losses. Harvest costs are included because they are a measure of resources that have been utilized to no productive effect. Another example

is the occurrence of a HAB that affects an operating coastal aquaculture facility that must subsequently incur additional depuration costs or dispose of tainted product. In both examples, there may be additional costs, such as higher tipping fees, associated with the disposal of the

tainted seafood.

2.4 Nonmalleable Factors

Another source of economic costs relates to the ease with which capital or l abor can be transferred to other productive activities. In the economic models described above, we assume that fishing vessels, processing plants, fishermen, etc. will immediately and costlessly switch to

their n ext best alternative activity. In other words, capital and labor are assumed perfectly

“malleable.” However, when examining specific cases, we may find that this assumption is not

valid. Good examples include empty hotel rooms or slowed restaurant trade resulting from reduced coastal tourism during a HAB event. As another example, it may be costly for fis hermen to re-rig their boats or steam to another fishing ground when a HAB closure has been declared. Often, economic impact studies will assume that capital and labor is completely non malleable. In this report, where feasible, we point out any malleability assumptions in the studies that we cite.

2.5 Other Types of Impacts

We have collected data on other types of impacts. The economic impacts that we measure in the

form of hospitalization costs or monitoring and management costs are true economic costs. These activities represent the all ocation of scarce medical and m anagement resources that otherwise would be devoted to other health problems or public goals. I nterestingly, these activities help to mitigate the l arger “potential” costs of HAB events. For example, monitoringEconomic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

20 might prevent the consumption of toxic seafood, and hospitalization might reduce mortality from seafood consumption. As a result, there may be net benefits from undertaking these activities. (The existence of net benefits will depend upon a comparison of the total costs and total benefits of these activities.) Our economic impact analysis does not account for the benefits of these types of mitigating activities.

2.6 Distribution of Impacts

Note that some firms in the relevant market actually may benefit from a HAB event. For example, if a fishing location is closed because of a HAB event, a firm fishing for the same species

in a location that remains open may actually see an increase in price for its product. Although

there is a cl ear net loss at the market l evel, local net gains or net losses may occur, and the

distribution of gains and losses may not be uniform across all localities. Unless demand is perfectly elastic with respect to price, consumers will unambiguously lose because of price increases when supply is reduced as a consequence of a HAB event. Some will even be unwilling to purchase the fish or shellfish at the new higher price.

2.7 Usefulness of the Economic Impact Measure

Even though our measure of economic impacts is not theoretically correct, it can still be useful. First, this measure is very easy to collate and calculate. To our knowledge, there are few studies

that have examined the true economic costs of HAB events, but many have estimated economic impacts. Second, this approach can give an idea of the scale of the problem. If economic impacts are found to be large in any particular instance, it indicates that we need to take a closer look at

the true economic l osses. Third, the geographic location of economic impacts can give an

estimate of where l ocal los ses occur, and the type of impact can help us identify the rel evant market. When combined with an understanding of the relevant product or factor market, we may be able to predict where l ocal net gains might occur. Thus, economic impact analysis can give a

feel for the distributional effects of a HAB event.

2.8 Study Interval

We examine a “window” of impacts resulting from events during the six-year period from 1987 to 1992 to develop an estimate of “annual” economic impacts. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the frequency and spatial distribution of HAB occurrences. Because of this uncertainty, the ch oice of a shorter period could result in either under- or over-estimates of economic impacts, depending upon when and where HAB events occurred. The six-year period was the longest period for which we could collect a consistent set of data within the constraints of the project. Although our choices about the timing and duration of the study period are somewhat arbitrary, we bel ieve that it gives us a reasonable interval within which to develop credible estimates of the annual economic impacts of HAB events at the national level.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

21 2.9 Data

Although we made an effort to gather economic impact data as comprehensively as possible, both

the type and amount of available data were l imited. Most coastal states have neither

conducted economic analyses of HABs nor collected data that can be used to generate reliable quantitative economic impact estimates. In many cases, the complex physical and ecological characteristics of the coastal environment make it difficult to determine whether an algal bloom is the i mmediate and relevant cause of certain coastal phenomena such as fish kills, oxygen depletion, or seagrass dieoffs. Moreover, l ocal experts often differ substantially in their opinions about the magnitude of economic impacts from HABs.

In Appendix A, we summarize HAB events reported informally by individual co astal state experts to a “national office” of the ICES Center for the Exchange of Information on Excepti onal

Plankton Blooms , located at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Although the data are rudimentary in nature, these are the only national compilations of bl oom data. In Appendix B, we present the names and affiliations of the individuals with whom we corresponded.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

22 3 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS

Human sickness and death from eating tainted seafood results in lost wages and work days.

Costs of medical treatment and investigation also are an important part of the economic impact caused by such events. Individuals who are sick may also experience pain and suffering. In theory, these feelings could be quantified in economic terms, but we make no attempt to do so here. Cases of sickness and death from shellfish toxins are probably the most clearly documented

among the different types of HAB impacts. Because of the high level of public interest in seafood safety, these cases are recorded by public health agencies in individual states as well as at

the federal level.

3.1 PSP, NSP, and ASP Illnesses

During 1978-87, paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) was a minor cause of seafood-borne illness in the United States, according to data on illness cases re ported to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta (Table 3.1). Only two deaths due to PSP were reported during this period. Nishitani and Chew (1988) present data on reported PSP cases during 1979-87 in the four Pacific Coast states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. These data show that in the more recent years there were far fewer PSP cases than in the earlier years, especially in Cal ifornia. A separate report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identifies shellfish poisoning cases for the 1973-92 period (Rippey 1994). The reported number of PSP sickness cases varies widely

across these sources. For example, the CDC reports no PSP cases in 1987, but Nishitani and Chew (1988) report seven PSP cases in Alaska in that year. Because reports to CDC are voluntary, we believe that the CDC database underestimates the number of PSP sickness cases in

any year.

For the 1987-92 period, we show in Table 3.2 our estimate of the public health impacts resulting from PSP, NSP, and ASP. Impacts ranged from $11,098 to $4.84 million, with an average cost of
$1.02 mill ion. The ill ness and death cases presented in Table 3.2 were compiled from the information in Appendix A and the tables in Nishitani and Chew (1988) and Rippey (1994).

A few cases of respiratory complaints and eye irritation are reported in Appendix A. Aerosolized toxins, such as those from Gymnodinium breve in Florida, may well have caused some of these cases. However, these complaints are not included in Table 3.2 because of the difficulty in quantifying the number of cases as well as their impacts.

3.1.1 Illness Costs

We adopt the estimates used by Todd (1995) for PSP illnesses (C$1500 [1993 Canadian dollars] per reported ill ness and C$1180 [1993 Can adian dollars] per unreported ill ness) to estimate the costs of foodborne disease due to PSP, NSP, and ASP in the United States. Unreported illnessesEconomic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

23 Table 3.1: Illness Due to Natural Seafood Toxins in the United States Reported to the Center for Disease Control

Ciguatera PSP

Year O utbreaks Cases Outbreaks Cases

1978 19 56 4 10

1979 21 97 1 3

1980 15 52 5 116

1981 30 219 1 -

1982 8 37 - 5

1983 13 43 - -

1984 18 78 - -

1985 26 104 2 3

1986 18 70 - -

1987 11 35 - -

Total 179 791 13 137

NOTE: An outbreak is an incident involving two or more sick individuals, and a case is a single ill person. Source: F. E. Ahmed (ed.), 1991. Seafood Safety, p. 89.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

24 Table 3.2: Shellfish Poisoning Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms

Year State Type Re ported Unreported a Impacts b
(000s)

Florida PSP 3 27

North Carolina NSP 47 423 1987

Alaska PSP 7 63 $633

Washington PSP 5 45 1988
Alaska PSP 3 27 $89

New York PSP 2 18 1989
California PSP 2 18 $44

Massachusetts PSP 8 72 1990
Alaska c PSP 2 18 $4,836

California PSP 11 99 Washington/Oregon ASP 28 252 1991

Alaska PSP 5 45 $488

1992 Alaska PSP 1 9 $11

Avg. 21 185 $1,016

a Reported illnesses are estimated to be 10 percent of all illnesses due to HAB events (Todd, pers. comm., 1997).

b Economic impacts are estimated at $1,374 per r eported illness, $1,081 per unr eported illness,and $4.73 million per death (2000 dollars). (Please see the text for refer ences.) Values in the table are reported in 2000 dollars.

c Includes one mortality in Alaska.

Sources: Appendix A, Nishitani and Chew (1988), and Rippey (1994).Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

25 do not, by definition, incur medical and transportation costs. Ill ness costs include lost productivity due to sick days, costs of medical treatment and transportation, and costs associated with investigations for the cause of the sickness. 3 The figures we use are downward revisions of earlier estimates published by Todd (1989a, 1989b). Because cost information is not

available specifically for NSP or ASP illnesses, we apply the cost estimates for PSP cases to

these illnesses.

During the study period, one person died from PSP in Alaska in 1989. Our estimate of the

economic impact per death is based upon l abor market studies of the implicit value of life (Viscusi 1993). Such studies have been used to develop estimates of both the value of l ife and the costs of nonfatal illnesses from empirical data that relate wage premiums to job risks. These

studies suggest that there is a range of the value of l ife from $3 to $7 mill ion, and we use an estimate of $4 million for the one life lost in Alaska (1993 dollars).

3.1.2 Unreported Illnesses

We know that a substantial number of illnesses caused by HABs re main unreported. However,

no reliable method has been proposed for extrapolating from the reported cases to estimate the true number of illnesses. Todd (1989a) proposed multiplying the number of repor ted cases by a factor of ten to estimate the total. Until better information on unreported illnesses is available, we believe that the most conservative way to report our findings is to provide cost estimates based

upon actual, reported poisoning episodes, using Todd’s multiplier, without additional arbitrary adjustments.

Our estimate of public health costs of unreported ill nesses is much lower than the annual PSP costs of $2.31 million (2000 U.S. dollars) estimated for the United States by Todd (1989a), who employed much larger estimates of costs per ill ness (C$6000 in 1985 Canadian dollars) during a different period (1978-82). Todd’s calcul ation also accounts for the l ikelihood that unreported

cases are very likely to be less serious than reported cases, implying that there may be lower

associated medical treatment and investigation costs. Following Todd’s l ead, we mul tiplied the number of reported cases during 1987-92 by 10, and weighted reported ill nesses by the higher cost per ill ness. Our annual average estimate of the public health impacts due to shellfish poisoning was $1.02 mill ion (2000 U.S. dollars), a value that is substantially less than Todd’s (1989a) estimate.

3 Labor market studies have also been used to estimate the implicit value of nonfatal injuries. These estimates fall in the range of $25 to $50 thousand (Viscusi 1993). Other methods for val uing morbidity effects, such as survey techniques, result in estimates that range from $700 to $3500, which are more consistent with Todd’s estimates of ill ness costs (e.g., Viscusi et al. 1987). Note, however, that survey methods are very sensitive to perceptions of risks.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

26 3.2 Ciguatera

Another problem caused by toxic al gae is the syndrome called c iguatera fish poisoning (CFP),

which is linked to dinoflagellate toxins that m ove through the tropical food chain to the higher predators. Although c iguatera technically is not a “bloom” phenomenon, we investigate it because it originates with toxic microalgae and has significant economic and public health costs (e.g. Ragelis 1984). In Table 3.3, we report the number of human sicknesses due to ciguatera poisoning in Florida (Weisman, pers. comm., 1997), Hawaii (Hokama, pers. comm., 1994),

Puerto Rico (Tosteson, pers. comm., 1997), the U.S. Virgin Isl ands (Tosteson, pers. comm., 1997), Guam (Haddock, pers. comm., 1997), and the Marshall Islands (Ruff 1989). We develop

our own estimates of sicknesses in Pal au, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and

American Samoa based on the incidence of ciguatera ill nesses in the Marshall Islands. 4 To be

consistent across all regions, we adopt Todd’s (1995) estimate of the ill ness costs (1993 Canadian dollars) due to ciguatera of C$1100 (US$1,007 [2000 dollars]) per reported case and C$750 (US$687 [2000 dollars]) per unreported case. This may result in an overestimate of ciguatera costs in Puerto Rico, as Tosteson (pers. comm., 1997) thinks that the costs per reported case are lower in Puerto Rico—about US$532 per reported case (2000 dollars).

Experts differ on the ratio of reported to unreported ill nesses in each jurisdiction. We use the following ratios: 1:4 for Florida (Weisman, pers.comm., 1997); 1:10 for the Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa (our own estimate); and 1:100 for Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Isl ands (Tosteson, pers. comm., 1997 and our own estimates). The economic impact varies from $17.72 mill ion to $24.28 mill ion per

year, averaging $21.19 mill ion on an annual basis. It is cl ear that the economic impacts due to ciguatera poisoning account for most of the public health impacts from toxic al gae. Nevertheless, we may not be estimating the true scale of the problem. Ragelis (1984), for example, notes that ciguatera poisoning often occurs outside of tropical areas due to exports of tropical fish to other jurisdictions. Further, some seafood companies now purchase insurance to cover potential ciguatera-caused liabilities, and there are also court costs associated with ciguatera-related litigation, which has be come quite common. We have no estimates of these costs, so again, our

estimates are conservative.

4 We include the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia in our U.S. estimate because all three nations have a “compact of

free association” with the United States and all three are heavily dependent upon the United States for foreign aid. The Northern Mariana Islands is a Commonwealth in political union with the United States, much like Puerto Rico. American Samoa is a territory of the United States much like the U.S. Virgin Islands.Table 3.3: Public Health Impacts of Ciguatera(estimates of reported and unreported illnesses for each jurisdiction)YearFloridaaHawaiibPuertoRicob,cVirginIslandsb,cGuambMarshallIslandsdAmericanSamoaeNorthernMarianaIslandsePalaueMicronesiaeTotals Estimatedimpacts(2000$U.S.millions)f1987 250 750 90 8910 200 19775 6 593 5 495 264 2376 30 270 32 290 7 66 51 456 935 3398226.521988 250 750 77 7623 200 19775 6 593 15 1485 264 2376 30 270 32 290 7 66 51 456 932 3368526.291989 250 750 71 7029 200 19775 6 593 4 396 264 2376 30 270 32 290 7 66 51 456 915 3200225.011990 250 750 28 2772 162 16025 5 481 11 1089 264 2376 30 270 32 290 7 66 51 456 840 2457519.361991 250 750 61 6039 162 16025 5 481 6 594 264 2376 30 270 32 290 7 66 51 456 868 2734721.471992 250 750 48 4752 162 16025 5 481 2 198 264 2376 30 270 32 290 7 66 51 456 851 2566420.18a)Weisman (pers.comm. 1997) estimates that only one in four ciguatera cases in Florida are reported.b)We assume only one in 100 ciguatera cases are reported in these jurisdictions, based upon Tosteson’s (pers. comm. 1997) estimate forPuerto Rico.c)Tosteson (pers.comm. 1997) estimates reported ciguatera cases are 0.6 percent of thepopulation during 1987-89 and 0.5 percent of thepopulation during 1990-92.d)Ruff (1989) estimates that only one in ten ciguatera cases are reported in the Marshall Islands.e)We estimate that one in ten ciguatera cases are reported in these jurisdictions, based upon Ruff’s (1989) estimate for the Marshall Islands.We use also the average incidence of ciguatera in the Marshall Islands as a hazard rate for these jurisdictions.f)Todd (pers.comm. 1997) estimates ciguateraillness costs of Can$1100 (1993 dollars) per reported case and Can$750 (1993 dollars) perunreported case.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

28 4 COMMERCIAL FISHERY IMPACTS

In Table 4.1, we present HAB events for which commercial fishery impact information was

obtained. Most of these events are described in further detail in Appendix A. Annual impacts vary from $13.82 to $25.88 million. Average annual impacts are $18.95 million (2000 dollars).

4.1 Wild Harvest and Aquaculture Losses

We estimate total commercial harvest losses during a November 1987 to February 1988 G. breve bloom in North Carolina (Tester et al., 1991) to be $8.27 million. We estimate total impacts of $17.64 million arising from the deaths of farmed Atlantic salmon killed by phytoplankton blooms in Washington in 1987, 1989, and 1990 by multiplying the market price of salmon by the weight

of lost fish. Two commercial shellfishing interests, Taylor United and the Coast Oyster Company, estimate a combined $1.22 million loss incurred during a shellfish recall resulting from the detection of PSP toxins in Washington State shellfish. Sev eral other HAB events are further clarified in the following sections.

4.1.1 Brown Tide Impacts on Bay Scallop Harvests in New York

In 1985, a brown tide bloom first ap peared in the Peconic Estuary, Long Island and has reappeared since on a regular basis. The most significant economic impact was the eradication of the Peconic’s nationally significant bay scallop stocks. The Suffolk County Department of

Health Serv ices estimates that the 1982 v alue of commercial landings of bay scallops from the Peconic Estuary was $12.55 million (SCDHS 1992). (A multiplier may have been used to arrive at this estimate.) However, Tettelbach and Wenczel (1993), citing a report by Rose (1987),

estimate the v alue of commercial bay scallop landings from New York waters for the years preceding the 1985 brown tide incident at a much lower lev el, av eraging $2.60 million (2000 dollars) (Table 4.2). 5 In the only study we are aware of that looks at lost surpluses (instead of lost sales) from a HAB event, Kahn and R ockel (1988) estimate annual total consumers’ and producers’ surplus losses from the elimination of bay scallop populations in Long Island waters at a very similar level of $3.27 million (2000 dollars).

5 Landing values are measured at the average U.S. bay scallop price of $4.91/lb. (1984 dollars). The av erage price was $4.46/lb. in 1985. Estimates of lost output have been converted into 2000 dollars in the table.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

29 Table 4.1: Commercial Fishery Impacts*

(2000 $U.S. millions)

Year Inc ident Type State Estimated Impacts Total

Annual

Estimated

Impacts Harvest losses of clams, oysters, scallops, and finfish NSP North Carolina 8.27

Lost sales of recreational fish CFP Hawaii 3.17 Bay scallop mortality BT New York 3.27 Farmed fish kills HAB Washington (Cypress Island) 0.75 1987

Bitter crab disease in tanner

crabs Closure of surf clam fishery PD

PSP Alaska

Alaska 0.16

5.72 21.33

Lost sales of recreational fish CFP Hawaii 3.17 Bay scallop mortality BT New York 3.27 1988

Bitter crab disease in tanner

crabs Closure of surf clam fishery PD

PSP Alaska

Alaska 0.16

8.29 14.89 Farmed fish kills HAB Washington (Cypress Island) 11.01

Lost sales of recreational fish CFP Hawaii 3.17 Bay scallop mortality BT New York 3.27 Closure of surf clam fishery PSP Massachusetts (Georges Bank) 0.13 1989

Lost value of unprocessed geoducks and bitter crab

disease in tanner crabs Closure of surf clam fishery PSP,

PD

PSP Alaska

Alaska 1.49

6.15 25.27 1990 Farmed fish kills HAB Washington (Central Puget Sound) 5.88

Lost sales of recreational fish CFP Hawaii 3.17 Closure of surf clam fishery PSP Massachusetts (Georges Bank) -0.01Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

30 Table 4.1: Commercial Fishery Impacts (Continued)

Year Inc ident Type State Estimated Impacts Total

Annual

Estimated

Impacts 1990 Bay scallop mortality Lost value of unprocessed geoducks and bitter crab

disease in tanner crabs Closure of surf clam fishery BT PSP,

PD

PSP New York

Alaska

Alaska 3.27

1.49

-0.39 13.40

Lost sales of recreational fish CFP Hawaii 3.17 Bay scallop mortality BT New York 3.27 Closure of surf clam fishery PSP Massachusetts (Georges Bank) 0.23

Harvest losses of razor clams ASP Oregon 0.11 1991

Lost value of unprocessed geoducks and bitter crab

disease in tanner crabs Closure of surf clam fishery PSP,

PD

PSP Alaska

Alaska 1.49

8.04 16.31

Lost sales of recreational fish CFP Hawaii 3.17 Bay scallop mortality BT New York 3.27

Product recall costs for one

firm PSP Washington 1.22

Closure of surf clam fishery PSP Massachusetts (Georges Bank) 0.26

Harvest losses of razor clams ASP Oregon 0.21 1992

Lost value of unprocessed geoducks; bitter crab disease in tanner crabs; and PSP event in Dungeness crab fishery Closure of surf clam fishery PSP,

PD

PSP Alaska

Alaska 1.99

9.14 19.25

*Not included are unknown impacts from unexploited resources of surf clams and tellin in the Bering Sea and roe-on-scallop from Georges Bank (see the text for more detail). Key to type of

harmful algae bloom: ASP=amnesiac shellfish poisoning; BT=brown tide; CFP=ciguatera fish poisoning; HAB=harmful algae bloom (not otherwise identified); NSP=neurotoxic shellfish poisoning; PD= paralytic dinoflagellate; PSP=paralytic shellfish poisoning.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

31 Table 4.2: New York Commercial Bay Scallop Landings (1980-84)

Year Bay Scallop Landings (000 lbs) Landed Value ($4.91/lb) (1984 $ millions) Landed Value

(2000 $ millions)

1980 425 2.09 3.43

1981 245 1.20 1.97

1982 500 2.46 4.04

1983 165 0.81 1.33

1984 275 1.35 2.22 Average 322 1.58 2.60

Source: Tettlebach and Wenczel (1993)

Because bay scallop reseeding efforts have been unsuccessful, and actual bay scallop landings

between 1986 and 1991 from New York waters were negligi ble in comparison with landings

before the brown tide incident (Tettelbach and Wenczel 1993), we assumed the commercial fishery impact occurred ev ery year during our study interval. We note that although the Kahn and Rockel study employs the theoretically correct methodology for valuing economic losses, the

measure of lost surpluses is not compatible with the other data on lost sales that we have collected for this category. In this specific case, however, the measure of lost surpluses is almost exactly the same size as the measure of lost sales, 6 and we use an estimate of $3.27 million for economic impacts in this fishery.

Brown tide also may have affected oyster production in the Peconic system. The estimated commercial landings of oysters in the Peco nic Estuary were about $5.84 million in 1982, plummeting to less than $14,000 per year in 1987 (SCDHS 1992). However, it is unclear, first,

whether these losses were due solely to brown tide and, second, whether they occurred on an annual basis. They therefore have not been included in our tabulations.

4.1.2 ASP Impacts on Razor Clam Harvests in Washington and Oregon

Since the autumn of 1991, the occurrence of ASP has adversely affected the primarily recreational shellfisheries for razor clams in Oregon and Washington. According to the Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, an av erage of 58,000 lbs. of razor clams (at $3.65/lb.) were harvested commercially on an annual basis before closures were imposed. This implies that potential

annual harvest losses are $0.21 million for the commercial market (2000 dollars). Because the

6 There is no reason to believe that this will always be the case. The relative sizes of lost surpluses and lost sales will depend upon the elasticities of demand and supply.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

32 ASP events occurred during the fall season of 1991, we use 50 percent of this impact estimate in 1991 and the full impact estimate for 1992. In Washington State, the commercial harvest of razor clams was 23,103 lbs. in 1991. 7

4.1.3 Alaskan Shellfish Resources

Ralonde (1998) estimates that the cost of PSP to Alaska in terms of lost v alue in commercial fisheries, closures of recreational shellfishing beds, and mouse bioassays is on the order of $10 million per year (1998 dollars). With respect to commercial fisheries impacts, Ral onde estimates

three types of costs: geoduck processing effects, bitter crab disease (BCD) in tanner crabs (caused by dinoflagellate parasites), and a 1992 PSP event in Dungeness crabs. Ralonde

calculates the 1996 lost v alue of geoducks due to the fact that they have to be processed to

remove the v iscera, where PSP toxin is concentrated. This reduces their v alue. Annual lost

income in 1996 was $1.32 million (2000 dollars). Because the sales of geoducks in 1996 were approximately equal to the six-year av erage, we use the 1996 estimate of lost sales as an annual estimate for the period 1989-92 (the fishery began in 1989). Ralo nde estimates the lost v alue in

1996 of tanner crabs due to BCD at $163,209 (2000 dollars). We assume that this is the annual lost value due to BCD during 1987-92. Finally, in 1992, a PSP event resulted in a $500,783 loss of sales in the Dungeness crab fishery (2000 dollars).

4.1.4 Ciguatera Impacts on Sales of Recreational Fish in Hawaii

Ciguatera impacts in Hawaii are estimated at $2.75 million per year (1994 dollars) based on the dollars per lb. of fish unmarketable due to ciguatera (Hokama, pers. comm., 1994). This estimate represents potential losses of retail sales from catches made mainly in sport fishing. Note that, in this case, the value of sport fishing recreation per se is not diminished, but the retail sale is lost.

If the act of sel ling a caught fish is a v alued part of the sport fishing experience, then the nonmarket value of recreational fishing may also be reduced. It is difficult, however, to estimate the latter impact.

4.1.5 West Coast Harvesting Delays

In California, Oregon, and Washington, Nishitani and Chew (1988) argue that shellfishing closures due to PSP have resulted mainly in harvesting delays, and not in significant financial

losses. Our discussions with sev eral New England commercial shellfishing companies suggest
that short-term closures cause few operational problems and that long-term closures cause

7 No further commercial harvest information was received. However, we were told that most of the razor clams in Washington are found at public beaches where commercial harvests are prohibited.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

33 financial losses only infrequently, e.g., once in every ten years. 8 However, the situation may be quite different in New England because there are many more independent clam diggers who may be affected by shellfish closures (Shumway et al

. 1988). This is a complex area of impact needing further investigation. Although these other impacts may ex ist, the only data we have at present

on commercial fishery economic impacts from HABs are due mainly to exceptional events like those presented in Table 4.1.

4.1.6 Inconclusive Impacts on Shellfish Harvests in Maine and Massachusetts

Because of inconclusive information, Table 4.1 does not present all of the potential commercial fishery losses caused by HABs during the 1987-92 period. For Maine and Massachusetts, we tried, unsuccessfully, to infer fishery impacts from a relationship between the frequency of shellfish closures due to PSP (or numbers of shellfish samples testing positive for PSP) and

annual harvest values. For example, in Maine, 1988 was the year with the greatest number of HAB closures, and 1992 was the year with the least (Lewis, pers. comm., 1994). Table 4.3 presents the landed values of the four major shellfish species 9 in Maine in those two years. Lower landed values ($12.80 million) occurred in 1992 than in 1988 ($16.20 million). 10 Clearly, in Maine, shellfish closure frequency is not a good predictor of economic impacts.

Table 4.3: Landed Values of Shellfish in Maine (1988 and 1992) (millions of dollars)

Shellfish 1988 (Constant $) 1988 (2000$) 1992 (Constant $) 1992 (2000$)

Clams 6.83 9.86 7.86 9.56

Mussels 2.17 3.13 1.02 1.24 Quahogs 1.86 2.68 1.46 1.78 Oysters 0.38 0.55 0.14 0.17

Total 11.24 16.20 10.48 12.80

Source: Lewis, pers. comm. (1994)

8 In Washington State, one shellfish grower stated that a worst-case scenario would involve a 3-week PSP closure, costing about $27,000 (1994 dollars), which might happen once every 10 years. An annual PSP closure, from 1 July to 1 Nov ember, of pink scallops that are marketed whole costs $58,000 (1994 dollars). However, sev eral other commercial fishermen indicated to us that there was not much impact from PSP closures.

9 In Maine, sea scallops must be processed at sea, and only the adductor muscles are landed and marketed. Because scallop adductor muscles do not accumulate PSP toxins, scallops are not affected by HAB closures.

10 Total landings in these years exhibit the same pattern.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

34 A similar situation applies to Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Div ision of Marine Fisheries provided us with data on the state's annual PSP tests (Whittaker, pers. comm., 1994). Table 4.4 presents the number of shellfish samples tested, the ratio of the samples with greater than 80μg/100g of PSP, and the annual commercial shellfish landing values in Massachusetts from less

than 3 miles offshore for the 1987-92 period. 11 The years 1987-90 show the highest sample proportions of PSP contamination. However, a comparison with annual shellfish la nding v alues

fails to reveal a relationship between lower landed values and more frequent detection of PSP contaminated samples. Likewise, the numbers of contaminated samples alone do not ind icate the severity or duration of HAB events.

Maine and Massachusetts officials record neither acreage closed to shellfishing due to HAB

events nor shoreline miles affected by HAB closures. Records of shellfish closures or openings are complex, including partial extensions of closures or the reopening of already closed areas. Further, Maine has 50,000 acres of potential shellfish beds, but 90 percent of the state's total clam harvest is produced on about 10 percent of its acreage. Therefore, we conclude that it is not

feasible to estimate commercial fishery impacts r eliably from closure acreage or shoreline miles affected by HABs.

Finally, the co-occurrence of high coliform counts or of shellfish sanitation problems with HABs
makes it difficult to factor out the economic impacts that are due solely to HAB events. For example, samples collected from certain areas in Massachusetts in 1994 showed high PSP levels, warranting shellfish closures. However, the same areas had been closed already due to high

coliform bacteria levels.

4.1.7 Impacts from the Application of Health Standards

Maine oyster farmers and shellfish dealers lost $0.72 million in 1988 when their shipments of oysters tested positive for DSP by The Netherlands (Shumway 1990). However, the results of further analyses of the same shipments tested negative for DSP. Because the shipments were presumably uncontaminated, this economic impact was not included in our analyses.

4.1.8 Impacts of Wild Fish Kills

Concerns are sometimes raised in the topical literature about "indirect" commercial fishery impacts, such as wild fish kills and lost opportunities to harvest untapped shellfish resources. Wild fish kills were reported in many states (Appendix A), but for numerous reasons, measuring

11 The shellfish landing values exclude shrimps, crabs, squid and lobsters that are not usually affected by HABs. (Appendix E presents annual shellfish and finfish landing values for all coastal states.)Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

35 Table 4.4: Massachusetts State PSP Testing Results

Year Species # of Samples

Tested Ratio of Samples

with PSP >

80 μ g Total

Commercial

Landings

(000s)

Mussel 285 0.000
Surf Clam 49 0.388 1987

Ribbed Mussel 26 0.000 16,710

Mussel 361 0.047
Softshell Clam 105 0.124
Surf Clam 44 0.386
Ribbed Mussel 38 0.000 1988

Quahog 7 0.000 14,834

Mussel 371 0.070
Ribbed Mussel 76 0.000

Surf Clam 69 0.406 1989

Softshell Clam 67 0.164 11,765

Mussel 396 0.043
Softshell Clam 86 0.116
Surf Clam 78 0.513 1990

Ribbed Mussel 58 0.000 12,243

Mussel 348 0.003
Surf Clam 26 0.192
Ribbed Mussel 24 0.000 1991

Softshell Clam 20 0.000 12,008

Mussel 389 0.018
Surf Clam 48 0.083 1992

Ribbed Mussel 24 0.000 14,057

Source: Whittaker, pers. comm. (1994)Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

36 the economic impacts of such kills is problematic. First, many of these kills involve so-called “trash” fish, which have no market v alue by definition. Even local officials who regularly investigate fish kill eve nts make no attempt to estimate the economic impacts of kills of trash fish. Second, the ultimate causes of fish kills often are unclear, making it difficult to attribute

them to an algal bloom. 12 Fish kills can be the result of oxygen depletion (due to high fish populations, high temp eratures, or HABs), disease, bacteria, nutrients, chemical spills, or some combination of these or other factors. Potential economic impacts associated with recent fish

kills (primarily menhaden) a ttributed to the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria are not included in our

estimates because of the uncertainty in attributing fish kills to this organism prior to 1992. In

more recent years, the economic impact from outbreaks of Pfiesteria -like organisms has been significant. For example, Seiling and Lipton (1998) estimated that lost sales of Maryland seafood (of all types) due to a fish kill linked to Pfiesteria during the summer of 1997 amounted to $45.70 million (2000 dollars). These lost sales were due entirely to the “halo effect.”

4.1.9 Inconclusive Evidence of Seagrass Dieoffs in Florida

Gorte (1994) estimates that $16.10 million per year (2000 dollars) is the potential income loss due to the substantial decline in pink shrimp harvests from Florida Bay, hypothesized to be the result of a seagrass dieoff due, in turn, to blooms of blue-green algae. Using an economic multiplier, total impacts were estimated at $36.90 million. However, there is substantial uncertainty about the real causes of the seag rass dieoff and its linkage to blue-green algae (Gorte 1994; Hunt, pers. comm., 1994). Further, economic recession and foreign competition within the shrimp industry are other plausible reasons for the industry’s decline. Here again, our loss estimates do not include these uncertain impacts.

4.2 Untapped Fisheries

Some currently untapped fishery “resources” may have potential v alues that could be realized in

the absence of HAB ev ents. Examp les include the shellfish resources of coastal Alaska (e.g., Neve and Reichardt 1984) and surf clams on Georges Bank. However, in order for such “lost opportunities” to be counted legitimately as economic impacts, these fisheries must be demonstrated to be commercially viable. A plausible alternative reason for why these resources

are untapped is that they are not now profitable fisheries. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

12 During 1980-89, NOAA found that 12 out of 22 coastal states reported more than 50 percent of all probable fish kills (NOAA 1991b). Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina and South Carolina reported between 76 and 100 percent of probable fish kills. Each fish kill event was attributed to one or more of 20 possible causes (e.g., low dissolved oxygen, temperature, HABs, wastewater, and eutrophication, pesticides, among others). During the 1980-89 period, the numbers of fish kill events attributed at least in part to HABs were: New York (2), Virginia (2), Florida (2), and Texas (8). States like New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington did not identify HAB as a direct
cause for any of their fish kill events.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

37 4.2.1 Alaska’s Untapped Shellfish Resources

In Table 4.5, we report on the commercial status of Alaskan molluscan shellfish resources. Current yields are more than one million pounds per year generating approximately $4.33 million in gross revenues (2000 dollars). The status of Alaskan shellfish stocks and their commercial significance are summarized annually by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 13 and they have been reviewed by Foster (1997), Schink et al. (1983), and Jewett and Feder (1981). All

commercial shellfish except for the Pinto abalone, chitons, and limpets are threatened by PSP contamination (Foster 1997). Recently, some species have tested positive for ASP. Yields of

razor clam, weathervane scallop, and geoduck (see below) are processed to remove porti ons of

the animal that may be toxic. The Pacific oyster, b lue mussel, and Pacific littleneck clam are cultured species for which bioassays are conducted as they are produced. Black katy chitons, fat gapers, gumboot chitons, and lim pets are all subsistence fisheries for which there is no major commercial market. Historically, significant quantities of butter clams (1946) and cockles (1962) were produced off the Alaskan coast. More recently, however, only minor harvests have taken place, and, although small markets for these species exist on the west coast of the United States,

it is not clear that historical levels of production could be commercially viable (Ostasz, pers.comm., 2000, 1994). A 1977 NMFS survey of the southeast Bering Sea rev ealed significant quantities of great Alaskan tellin clams (Lutz and Incze 1979; Nelson et al . 1979), but there is no

known market for tellin in the United States.

The 1977 NMFS survey also revealed potentially exploitable quantities of the Alaskan surf clam ( Spisula polynyma ) in the Bering Sea. Hughes and Bourne (1981) estimate an annual maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of 25,017 metric tons for this resource. The Alaskan discovery came at
a crucial time in the U.S. surf clam market, as the mid-Atlantic surf clam ( Spisula solidissima )

resource had just suffered a steep decline due to an oxygen depletion event in the New York Bight, and the price of surf clams tripled during 1976 and remained high for the next ten years as

the resource recovered. In 1979, Lutz and Incze (1979) v alued the annual potential sustainable yield of surf clams at $28-47 million (2000 dollars). However, only small quantities of Alaskan

surf clams have been harvested since the 1977 stock assessment was conducted.

The reasons for the lack of a viable Bering Sea surf clam fishery are not completely clear, but

several hypotheses have been put forward. First, some of the surf clam resource has tested positive for PSP. Neve and Reichardt (1984) argued that persistent PSP was largely responsible for the non-exploitation of this resource. However, Ostasz (pers.comm., 2000), citing Hughes and Nelson (1979), notes that only a small proportion (2 out of 185 samples) had detectable

levels of PSP toxin in 1978, and no samples tested positive for toxin in 1977. Because Alaska

13 Shellfish statistics are updated annually at http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/shellfsh/shelhome.htm#species.Table 4.5: Status of Alaskan molluscan shellfish resourcesRESOURCEGENUS/SPECIESLOCATIONYEARHARVESTPRICEREVENUEPSPSTATUSCITElbs $/lb $mThreatButter clamSaxidomus giganteusSoutheast19461,763,698 PSPminor 1995-96 harvest Nishitani and Chew(1988)CockleClinocardiumnuttalliiSoutheast19621,302,932 PSPminor 1995 harvest Nishitani and Chew(1988)PacificOysterCrassostrea gigasSoutheast,Southcentral1996-98 874,318 0.41 0.36 PSPcultured (bioassayed)ADF&G (1999)Razor clamSiliqua patulaCook Inlet1995-99 339,025 0.16 0.05 PSP processed (toxinremoved)ADF&G (1998);McNair (pers. comm.,2000)WeathervanescallopPatinopecten caurinusYakutat1999280,000 3.00 0.84 PSP processed (toxinremoved)ADF&G (2000)WeathervanescallopPatinopecten caurinusKodiak1996270,000 6.00 1.62 PSP processed (toxinremoved)ADF&G (1998)GeoduckPanopea abruptaSoutheast1995-99 193,491 3.38 0.65 PSP processed (toxinremoved)ADF&G (2000);McNair (pers. comm.,2000)PintoAbaloneHaliotiskamtschatkanaCapeSpencerto Yakutat50,000 9.12 0.46Imamura (1994)PacificlittleneckclamProtothaca stamineaSoutheast;KachemakBay1995-99 45,331 2.69 0.12 PSPcultured (bioassayed)ADF&G (1999);McNair (pers. comm.,2000)WeathervanescallopPatinopecten caurinusCook Inlet199630,000 7.00 0.21 PSP processed (toxinremoved)ADF&G (1998)MusselMytilus edulisSoutheast,Southcentral1996-98 4,674 2.23 0.01 PSPcultured (bioassayed)ADF&G (1999)Alaska surfclamSpisula polynymaBristol Bay19850.54 0.00 PSPminor 1985 harvest Ralonde (1998);Hughes and Bourne(1981)Black katychitonsKatherina tunicataSoutheast1985subsistence fishery Foster (1997)Fat gapersTresus capaxSoutheast1985 PSPsubsistence fishery Foster (1997)GumbootchitonsCryptochiton stelleriSoutheast1985subsistence fishery Foster (1997)Limpets Southeast1985subsistence fishery Foster (1997)TellinTellina luteaBristol Bay1985 PSP nofishery Lutz and Incze (1979)39 has not “classified” the Bering Sea according to NSSP standards, harvesting the resource is currently infeasible. 14

A second plausible reason for the lack of production may be that the fishery is not commercially viable (Foster 1997). Certainly, production of surf clams at the MSY level is likely to drive p rice

down in the U.S. surf clam m arket, thereby decreasing the profitability of the fishery or even precluding its initiation. Further, the structure of the market may p resent an entry barrier into this fishery. With respect to the mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery, Weninger (1998:755) states that: “[t]he perishable nature of the cla ms, scheduling of p rocessing activities, and the need to coordinate with downstream buyers requires tight vertical coordination between fishers and processors." Without the establishment first of a costly processing infrastructure, and considering the difficulty of distributing product from a remote location, it may be difficult for a surf clam fishery to get established in Alaska. Finally, Ostasz (p ers.comm., 2000) suggests that seasonal closures might be imposed on a potential surf clam fishery to protect juvenile sp awning grounds for King crab. It is possible that the timing or area coverage of a closure would increase the cost of surf clam fishing to levels that might not support a fishery.

Finally, there has been concern exp ressed over the p otential impacts on walrus stocks from the harvesting of Alaskan surf clams, which are an important food source for walrus (Stoker 1979 as cited by F oster 1997). This concern might exp ress itself in opposition from environmental

interests should a commercial op eration be initiated. The Alaskan Eskimo Walrus Commission has the responsibility for protecting surf clam resources in walrus habitat (Ostasz, pers. comm. 2000).

Even in the face of uncertain business factors and p otential environmental oppo sition, rep orts continue to surface stating that a $50 million Alaskan surf clam resource is precluded by HABs.

We do not have critical information on the cost of p roducing Alaskan surf clams, but we can

hazard a rough estimate of the economic imp acts associated with a hypothetical Bering Sea fishery. To accomplish this, we make the following assumptions:

• The only obstacle to commercialization of the Alaskan surf clam resource is the p otential presence of shellfish poisoning (PSP or ASP);

• The Alaskan surf clam is a close substitute for the Atlantic surf clam and will compete in the same market;

• Production of the Alaskan (and Georges Bank) resources at estimated MSY levels is likely to affect the price of surf clams in the U.S. market (by driving it down);

14 Classification might occur if significant commercial interest arose. Foster (1997) notes that the turnaround time on the mouse bioassay from Alaska’s one shellfish testing lab may be too long for a resource that quickly spoils.40 • There is no expansion of existing demand such as might occur, for example, through the opening of an export market;

• An Alaskan surf clam fishery is financially viable and will produce at MSY;

• For the years 1989-1992, an Atlantic surf clam fishery on Georges Bank is financially viable and produces at the 1988 level of yield;

• Fishermen in the mid-Atlantic fishery will continue to harvest the same amount of Atlantic

surf clams as before.

If we multiply the current market price times the hyp othetical yield of Alaskan and Georges

Bank surf clams to obtain “lost gross revenues” due to PSP, the value of yields of Alaskan, Georges Bank, and mid-Atlantic surf clams will all be too high. To arrive at a more realistic price, we adapt and modify the specification em bodied in a demand model for the mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery which was developed by Ar mitage (1985). 15 We fit the model using monthly data from 1991-98 to estimate up dated parameters that describe how the price of surf clams varies with the quantity supplied to the market (and other related variables). 16

The results of this analysis are p resented in Table 4.6. Using annual yield and annual average price data for 1987-92, we estimate the price of surf clams [column (D)] that would have resulted from the production of mid-Atlantic surf clams at historical levels, Alaskan surf clams at

the MSY level, and Georges Bank surf clams at the 1988 level (the latter only for the years of closure: 1989-92). We then use this price to calculate the potential “lost” gross revenues for both Alaskan [column (F)] and Georges Bank [column (G)] surf clams due to HABs closures.

Note that the “gain” to the Alaskan and Georges Bank surf clam fisheries actually results in a decline in gross revenues in the mid-Atlantic fishery (compare column [E] with column [C]). In order to calculate the “net” contribution to gross r evenues in the national surf clam market that results from expanded supply, we apportion 17 the reduced gross revenues in the mid-Atlantic

15 Armitage’s (1985) model is developed with quarterly data from 1976 to 1980. Note that one of our assumptions assumes that industry structure remains unaffected. As price declines, we might expect some marginal fishermen to exit the mid-Atlantic fleet. With a change in fleet size, it is p ossible that less product will be harvested in the mid-Atlantic, thereby buoying the price. Further, we do not know the cost structure for an Alaskan operation. Another important consideration that we ignore he re is the radical change in the mid-Atlantic’s management regime in 1990 from a time-restricted, quarterly TAC regime to an ITQ regime. As a consequence, the application of the model to the pre-1990 surf clam market may be questioned.

16 Armitage’s model is an ex-vessel “price p rediction” model that does not factor out supply effects exp licitly. The model tests the hypotheses that surf clam price is a function of surf clam landings, the demand for ocean quahogs, the demand for har d clams, and the demand for oysters. The modified model specification and the parameter values used here are available from the authors upon request.

17 The decrease in mid-Atlantic revenues is apportioned using the relative ratio of yield in each fishery. For example, the Alaskan share is equal to 0.97 = 25,017mt/(25,017mt + 711mt).Table 4.6: Estimated “Net” Gross Revenues Arising from Opening the Alaskan and Georges Bank Surf Clam Fisheries(2000 dollars; gr rev = gross revenues)(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J)ACTUALMID-ATLLANDINGSACTUALMIDATLPRICEACTUALMID-ATLGR REVESTIMATEDU.S.PRICEESTIMATEDMID-ATLGR REVESTIMATEDALASKAGR REVESTIMATEDGEORGESBANKGR REVESTIMATEDTOTAL U.S.GR REVNETALASKANGR REVNETGEORGESBANKGR REV1987 60,743,928 0.69 42,067,532 0.41 25,044,815 22,739,704 47,784,520 5,716,9871988 62,113,500 0.66 41,184,360 0.42 26,204,755 23,268,262 49,473,017 8,288,6571989 67,071,920 0.63 42,290,924 0.39 26,341,452 21,660,517 615,432 48,617,401 6,151,691 174,7861990 70,750,886 0.58 41,301,457 0.32 22,700,343 17,695,807 502,784 40,898,934 -391,402 -11,1211991 65,722,147 0.55 36,272,435 0.36 23,909,371 20,064,403 570,083 44,543,856 8,042,902 228,5201992 72,841,527 0.53 38,486,668 0.37 26,920,663 20,383,397 579,146 47,883,206 9,136,933 259,604AVG6,157,628 162,947Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

42 fishery across both the Alaskan (column [I]) and Georges Bank column [J]) fisheries. Note that this apportioning is conducted purely for a ccounting purposes at the national level . For example, in 1987, the gross benefit to Alaska of a surf clam fishery is roughly $23 million, but the contribution of an Alaskan fishery to the nation, given that demand is downward sloping, is only about $6 million.

In 1990, the decline in gross revenues in the mid-Atlantic fishery is so substantial, that the “net” contribution to total U.S. gross revenues from landings in the other fisheries is neg ative. During the study period, the average HABs-related loss in gross revenues to the hypothetical Alaskan surf clam fishery is approximately $6.16 million and to the hypothetical Georges Bank surf clam fishery is $0.16 million (2000 dollars). We believe that these are much more realistic estimates than the $50 million that is typically discussed.

4.2.2 Georges Bank Surf Clam Fishery

The Geor ges Bank surf clam fishery has been closed since 1989 due to high PSP levels. Assuming this is a viable commercial fishery, the opportunity costs of closing the fishery could be viewed as an estimate of the economic impacts of HABs. In 1990, the combined New England

and mid-Atlantic surf clam quota all owed by NMFS was 230 metric tons, valued at only $2.94

million (2000 dollars). Note that because individual surf clam quotas are not site-specific,

fishermen can switch at low cost to other regional locations, e.g., offshore New Jersey. As explained in section 4.2.1, we estimate average annual economic impacts to be $0.16 million (2000 dollars).

4.2.3 Georges Bank Roe-On Scallop Fishery

The traditional offshore scallop fishery in the U.S. sector of Georges Bank has not been affected by HABs because the product, the scallop adductor mus cle, does not concentrate PSP toxins. However, the potential may exist for the development of a “roe-on-scallop” fishery (adductor

muscle with the gonad attached), because this product is highly regarded in much of the world.

The roe can accumulate PSP toxins, so such a fishery would be affected by the presence of the toxins. A fishery for roe-on-scallops has existed in the Ca nadian sector of G eorges Bank since the late 1980s. The fishery is relatively small, involving about 5,000 lbs. of roe-on-scallop landings per week (K. White, pers. comm., 1998). The fishery was closed from about 1992 to

1994 because of high lev els of PSP toxins. The roe-on scallops are not marketed in Canada but

are sent overseas, bringing in substantially more revenue per pound than the adductor muscle alone does (K. White, pers.comm., 1998). 18

18 The unit price of the roe-on product is about $C15/lb overseas. In Canada, the exvessel value of the adductor muscle alone is about $C 8-9/lb (K. White, pers. comm., 1998).Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

43 It is unknown to what extent a similar roe-on-scallop fishery would be commercially viable in the United States sector of Georges Bank. There is insufficient information about the international

demand for the product or of the logistics and expense of toxin testing protocols. We therefore do not consider it meaningful to assess the economic impact of lost opportunities in this fishery

because of the lack of quantitative information. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that shellfish poisoning is restricting the development of a U.S. roe-on-scallop fishery.

4.3 Major HAB Events in Other Years

This study focused on the years 1987-92, yet there were a number of significant events in other years that demonstrate the magnitude of the impacts that are possible. For example, in 1976, New Jersey suffered an extensive oxygen depletion event in which HABs were implicated in part. A confluence of oceanographic, hydrologic, and meteorological factors led to a bloom of the dinoflagellate Ceratium tripos , which resulted in anoxic conditions and the formation of hydrogen

sulfide in the bottom waters of the New York Bight. The bloom affected sedentary commercial stocks of surf clams, ocean quahogs, sea scallops, and some finfish and lobster. Lost sales from

harvests during 1976 and for five to seven years into the future (for scallops and surf clams respectively) were estimated. The largest impacts by far occurred in the surf clam market. Impacts in the downstream processing and marketing sectors were estimated using a multiplier of

2.5. Total lost sales in all sectors combined were estimated to be $1.33 billion in 2000 dollars (Figley et al

. 1979).

In September 1980, the entire Maine coastline was closed to shellfishing because of a bloom of

the dinoflagellate Alexandrium tamarense , a source for PSP toxins. Harvest losses from this event were estimated at $5.04 million, and total economic impacts were estimated to be $15.10 million, using a multiplier of 3 (2000 dollars). Also in 1980, California, Oregon, and Washington closed oyster harvesting for one month due to PSP toxicity, resulting in losses to commercial oyster growers in these states of $1.31 million (Nishitani and Chew 1988). In 1986, a red tide of Gymnodinium breve event in Texas caused the loss of $2.22 million in oyster production, resulting in estimated economic impacts of $6.00 million (2000 dollars) (Texas Shores 1987).

In 1997, a bloom of Pfiesteria occurred in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries. The bloom resulted in the deaths of from 30-50,000 menhaden. After medical testing of fishermen who complained of an array of physical and neurological problems, the Governor of Maryland acknowledged the human health risk associated with Pfiesteria and closed several Chesapeake tributaries to recreation and fishing (Bowman 1997). Although the state later spent half a million dollars on a promotional effort to counteract the scare, demand for seafood from the state of Maryland shrank significantly during the autumn of 1997. Lipton (1999) estimates $45.70

million in lost seafood sales to Maryland producers that can be attributed directly to the 1997 Pfiesteria scare (2000 dollars).Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

44 5 RECREATION AND TOURISM IMPACTS

In 1991, a federal government study estimated that saltwater anglers spent an average of $562 per angler, totaling $5 billion (1991 dollars) for travel, food, lo dging and equipment (DoI and DoC 1993, Appendix D). When compared with the total U.S. domestic landings of commercial finfish and shellfish ($3.3 billion in 1991), total r ecreational expenditures can be seen to be 67 percent greater than commercial fish landings. However, to date, the economic impacts of HABs on

recreational and tourism activities have been given little attention relative to the impacts on

commercial fisheries.

Although many experts argue that the impacts of HABs on recreation and tourism are important and potentially large, there are few available data describing the size of the impacts (Table 5.1). Our estimates of the economic impacts on recreation and tourism during the 1987-92 period range from zero to $29.30 million. The annual average is $6.63 million.

Table 5.1: Recreation and Tourism Impacts (2000 $U.S. millions)

Year Incident Type State Estimated Impacts Annual

Total

Estimated

Impacts

1987 tourism and recreation impacts to a coastal community (red tide) NSP North

Carolina 28.32 29.30

1988 0.00

1989 0.00

1990 0.00

Recreational shellfishing for

razor clams ASP Oregon 1.05 1991

Recreational shellfishing for

razor clams ASP Washington 0.66 1.71

Recreational shellfishing for

razor clams ASP Oregon 2.04 1992

Recreational shellfishing for

razor clams ASP Washington 6.72 8.76Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

45 5.1 The 1987 North Carolina Red Tide Event

The overall impacts from a 1987 HAB event in North C arolina have been " conservatively" estimated at $37.57 million (2000 dollars) (Tester et al

. 1988). This estimate includes neither the public health impacts nor monitoring and management costs. Because the losses to commercial

fish harvests from this incident were estimated at $8.27 million, we can attribute the remaining $29.30 million to recreation and tourism impacts. The estimated tourism and recreation impacts

of the incident amounted to only 1.9 percent of the $1.52 billion (2000 dollars) generated by combined hotel, lodging, amusement and recreation services in the entire state of North Carolina

in 1986. 19 Nevertheless, we expect that the ratio of economic impacts to measures of county productivity in the four impacted coastal counties is much larger. However, as tourists redirected their vacation destinations, negative impacts that occurred in these four counties are likely to have been counterbalanced by positive impacts in other counties, in North Carolina and elsewhere, thereby mitigating aggregate impacts at the state or regional level.

5.2 The 1991-92 Washington and Oregon ASP Event

Another major HAB event that affected recreation and tourism activities occurred in Oregon and Washington during 1991-92. In October 1991, these states closed their primarily recreational

razor clam fisheries because of ASP contamination. In Ore gon, prior to the closures, roughly 67,000 trips per year were taken for recreational shellfishing of razor clams (Radke, pers. comm., 1994). On average, recreational shellfishermen spend $30.51 per trip (2000 dollars). Therefore,

we estimate the 1992 economic impacts of the razor clam shellfish closure to be $2.04 million. We assume that the 1991 impacts were a little more than one-half of this amount, $1.05 million, because the onset of ASP contamination occurred during the fall of 1991.

In Table 5.2, we present the numbers of recreational shellfishing t rips in Washington State for

razor clams during the spring and fall seasons before and after the outbreak of ASP (Ayres and Simons 1993, 1992). The number of trips in the fall of 1991 fell by 21,333 compared with the three-year average prior to the ASP event. In 1992, the co mbined number of trips made during the spring and fall seasons was smaller by 220,666 compared with the three-year average. Using an estimated average per trip expenditure of $30.51 for re creational shellfishing, we estimate the impacts on recreation and tourism to be $0.66 million and $6.72 million in 1991 and 1992, respectively.

19 Appendix C presents, for each coastal state, gross state product (GSP) and the value of output from several industrial sectors within that state during 1985-90 (Trott et al

. 1991).Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

46 Table 5.2: Washington State Recreational Shellfishing Trips for Razor Clams (before and after October 1991 ASP event)

Season Fall Spring
1988-89 43,000 195,000
1989-90 55,000 204,000
1990-91 32,000 274,000

Average (88-91) 43,333 224,333

1991-92 *22,000 0
1992-93 47,000 136,000
1993-94 60,000 --

*Fall 1991 season was cut short. Source: Ayres and Simons (1993, 1992)

5.3 Recreational Impacts - Large but Uncertain

Many experts consider the economic impacts of HABs on commercial fisheries to be minor in contrast with the size of the impacts on recreation and tourism. This is believed to be the case in Florida, where Habas and Gilbert (1975) estimated the economic damage to the tourist industry

of a summer 1971 Gymnodinium breve red tide event at more than $68 million (in 2000 dollars). Gymnodinium blooms have occurred after 1971, but there have been no attempts to estimate

economic impacts. The most significant impacts occurred in the hotel, restaurant, amusement, and retail sectors. As with the North Carolina red tide event, we need to be careful in interpreting

these damage estimates. Undoubtedly some tourists spent their monies at other tourist

destinations in Florida or other states.

When kills of “trash” fish result from an HAB, there is no commercial fishery impact, but dead fish can substantially reduce the recreational “experience” of visitors to these beaches. In Texas, a severe HAB event was reported during the period from August to October 1986. Most of the dead fish from this event were either trash or “underutilized” fish, but many of these washed up on beaches, where they decayed. According to Texas Shore magazine (1987), this event resulted

in economic impacts on tourism and seafood sales. However, the gross impact was minimized because the economy of many Texas coastal communities was already depressed. In fact, sales tax proceeds from ten affected coastal counties for the months affected by the HAB indicate only small overall impacts when compared with tax proceeds the year before.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

47 5.4 Laguna Madre Brown Tide

Although we expect some level of economic impact from an HAB event, the anecdotal evidence

sometimes can be contradictory. As an example, from May 1990 until recently, a brown tide developed and then persisted for over 7 years in the Laguna Madre, along the southern coast of

Texas. Some professional sport-fishing guides reported that they lost many customers, but others say that customers are still catching fish by changing fishing methods to cope with a change in the water's transparency level. (Water was clear before the outbreak, so “sight casting” was possible). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department reported that their monthly fish stock

assessments indicate the same abundance of adult and juvenile fish in the Laguna Ma dre when compared with the situation prior to the brown tide, and their sport harvest surveys reveal unchanged levels of sport fishing catches (Spiller, pers. comm., 1994). The Laguna Madre system had suffered two unusually hard freeze seasons, causing widespread fish kills prior to the onset of the brown tide. Sport fishermen may have bypassed the Laguna Madre because of poor fishing results at those times.

5.5 Property Value and Recreational Impacts of Macroalgae

In Massachusetts, local residents expressed several different opinions about the economic impacts of a slimy, dark-brown macroalgae, Pillayella litoralis . Since 1987, the recurrent

accumulation of Pillayella in Nahant Bay and Broad Sound has been attributed to eutrophication of Massachusetts Bay by the press and the general public, but this may be more easily related to a unique hydrographic mechanism which carries this alga to shore and concentrates it on one particular shoreline location. Pillayella ’s abundant growth interferes with swimming, and it
generates a sulfurous, "rotten-egg" odor as it decomposes on beaches. The property values of

houses in the area could be reduced by the existence of these algae on beaches and their smell. However, this effect was both variable and uncertain. One Nahant realtor told us that prices of some of the houses she sold were depressed because of the algae. In particular, she speculated that a house that sold for $300,000 could have been worth $325-350,000 if there had been no Pillayella problem (1994 dollars). A second realtor did not think property values were affected at all, and a third believed that there was a negative effect, but that because the housing market had been depressed for some time, the actual sales data do not show an impact.

Macroalgae may also negatively affect recreational activities. One local Nahant resident told us that the presence of Pillayella resulted in no differences in beach attendance rates. However,

observations of identical numbers of beach-goers does not necessarily imply that there has been no recreational impact, because when beach or fishing conditions deteriorate, each recreationist’s personal “enjoyment” may decline. Therefore, it is important to know by how much

recreationists value certain environmental conditions, instead of focusing on only the participation rate.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

48 Efforts to measure these types of recreation and tourism impacts must be undertaken at the local

level because local environmental and socioeconomic conditions are critical determinants of changes in recreational benefits. Moreover, in their valuation attemp ts, analysts also should incorporate the existence of substitute beaches or other recreation a reas where tourists can visit.

Even if certain areas are affected by HABs adversely, recreationists may be able to visit other nearby areas that offer similar recreational amenities. In such a case, regional economic impacts may be minimal.Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

49 6 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT COSTS

In Table 6.1, we present our findings about the costs of monitoring and managing HABs. Annual average monitoring and management costs total $2.09 million (2000 dollars) in the United States. We were able to obtain annual estimates of monitoring and management costs from twelve states: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine and New Hampshire (combined), Massachusetts,

North Caroli na, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Many states experiencing HABs, such as Texas, do not have a regular monitoring program for PSP or HABs. It is often the

case that water monitoring tasks, including PSP testing, are spread across different divisions of

state government, making it difficult to collect data on costs (Langlois, pers. comm., 1994). Further, monitoring activities for both HABs and other water quality testing, such as shellfish sanitation, often are conducted by the same experts. Consequently, it is difficult to factor out those costs related specifically to HAB monitoring and management.

In addition to the annual monitoring and management costs incurred by coastal states, we report
other categories of costs in Table 6.1. For example, in Massachusetts, BlueGold Mussels, Inc. spent approximately $6,000 per year (1994 dollars) conducting PSP tests on their own shellfish products. We also present other estimates of the costs of monitoring or management related to one-time or infrequent events including: survey and investigation costs for two specific HAB events in New Jersey (Olsen, pers. comm., 1994); the cost estimate for a 3-month NSP event on Florida's west coast (Roberts, pers. comm., 1994); and the ASP tests during the spring of 1994 in Washington (Simons, pers. comm., 1994). 20

Our estimate for monitoring and management costs in Florida includes the annual costs of beach cleanups on the southwest coast of Florida. These costs are currently incurred primarily by each of the eight counties along that coast. We have collected recent (1995-97) estimates of the costs of beach cleanups for Sarasota County (Conn, pers. comm., 1998). These costs average $56,592 per year (current dollars), and they apply to the cleanup of dead fish due to HAB events and to the collection and disposal of red seaweed that washes up during storms. A significant portion of

the annual costs is the tipping fee. We divide this average cost by the number of miles cleaned (17.5) in Sarasota County to develop a per mile cleanup cost. We assume that approximately 50

miles of the 200-mile southwest coast of Florida are cleaned each year, accounting for the patchiness of red tide events and the difficulty of accessing certain areas of the coast. The result

is an estimate of the cost of beach cleanups for HAB events and washed up seaweed of about $162,500 per year (1998 dollars). Further research will allow us to refine that estimate. Note

that Habas and Gilbert (1975) estimated the cleanup costs for a 1971 red tide event to be approximately $755,211 in 2000 dollars.

20 This expenditure was for the spring season only. Apparently a budget shortfall precluded further ASP tests in the fall season of 1994 (Simons, pers.comm., 1994).Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

50 Table 6.1: Annual Average Monitoring and Management Costs (2000 $U.S. thousands)

State Type of Cost Annual Average Cost ($000)

Alaska Estimated fees for PSP and ASP costs 320.74

California Annual monitoring 212.73

Connecticut Annual monitoring 10.11

Florida Personnel salaries and associated overhead

for monitoring and bioassaying for a 3-

month Gymnodinium breve event on west coast; estimated costs for beach clean-ups during each year 183.59

Maine/New Hampshire Annual PSP monitoring 291.61

Massachusetts Annual monitoring; Annual private PSP monitoring by BlueGold Inc. (400 samples annually at $15 per sample) 57.79

New Jersey A series of three tests for annual red tide monitoring at $100 per test; individual response investigations by four separate agencies for a Jun-Aug 1988 algal bloom; intensive follow-up survey conducted in 1989 for the Jun-Aug 1988 bloom;

individual response investigations by two agencies for a July 1992 algal bloom 30.30

New York Annual monitoring 319.10

North Carolina Annual monitoring 34.84

Oregon Annual monitoring 96.26

Washington Annual monitoring 531.83

TOTAL 2088.89Economic Impact of HABs in the U.S.

51 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

7.1 Annual Aggregate Economic Impacts

Table 7.1 (which reproduces Table ES-1), is a compilation of our estimates of the annual aggregate economic impacts (in millions of 2000 dollars) of HABs in the United States during the 1987-92 period. For each of the four main types of impacts, we present both the ranges of annual estimated impacts during the 1987-92 study period and average annual estimated impacts. Public health impacts are the largest component, representing about 45 percent of total average impacts at more than $22 million annually. Impacts from ci guatera poisonings are the largest

element of those public health impacts. Commercial fisheries impacts are the next largest component, representing 37 percent of total average impacts at more than $18 million annually. Recreation/tourism impacts account for 13 percent of total impacts at nearly $7 million annually. Monitoring/management costs represent only 4 percent of the total at more than $2 million annually. It is important to note that expenditures made to improve monitoring and management likely resulted in decreases in impacts in the other categories.

We also present an estimate of capitalized impacts. Assume that our estimates of impacts will

occur on an annual basis over the next 15 years. Discounting these annual losses at a rate of 7
percent and summing the discounted losses results in an estimate of capitalized impacts. Our estimate of 15-year capitalized average impacts is $449 million.

During the 1987-92 period, total annual impacts fluctuated widely (except for monitoring/management costs). This reflects the irregular occurrence of HAB events, which in
turn vary dramatically with respect to the magnitude of impacts. We expect that coastal

communities and industries are able to manage recur rent (i.e., expected or “predictable”) outbreaks reasonably well, thereby limiting their economic impacts (Shumway et al

. 1988). However, outbreaks of unexpected or unusual blooms may tend to cause more severe economic impacts (Bicknell and Walsh 1975; Egan 1990; Tester et al. 1988).

7.2 Reasons Why Our Estimates are Conservative

The estimates reported here represent a preliminary approximation of the economic costs to the

United States from the occurrence of HABs. The fact that these estimates are uncertain or approximate is not due to lack of effort, but rather to the difficulty in assigning impacts to many

of the events that occurred – due to lack of information and even to a lack of knowledge as to how to quantify certain impacts. Due to reporting inadequacies and the large size of the US coastline, the HAB events on which this analysis is based are a subset of all outbreaks that occurred during the 1987-92 window. Consequently, our aggregate economic impact underestimates the actual impacts. A second qualification is that, although we report on economicTable 7.1: Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States(Estimate is of 1987-1992 period, reported in 2000 dollars)% ofLowHighAverageTotalPublic Health18,493,825$24,912,544$22,202,597$45%Commercial Fishery13,400,691$25,265,896$18,407,948$37%Recreation/Tourism-$29,304,357$6,630,415$13%Monitoring/Management2,029,955$2,124,307$2,088,885$4%TOTAL33,924,471$81,607,104$49,329,845$100%15 Year Capitalized Impacts(discounted at 7%)$308,981,162$743,270,485$449,291,98753 impacts, we did not use economic multipliers. Thus, our estimates reflect only the direct effects of HAB events, ignoring indirect and induced effects on other sectors of the economy. Again, this conservative approach leads to underestimates of the true impact.

Human sickness and death from eating tainted seafood results in lost wages and work days and pain and suffering. Costs of medical treatment and investigation are also an important aspect of

the economic impact caused by such events. We know that a substantial number of illnesses caused by HABs remain unreported. In the absence of a reliable method for estimating the ac tual number of illnesses, we adopted conservative “rule-of-thumb” factors from several experts in the field. Further, we used estimates developed by Todd of the costs of shellfish and ciguatera poisoning -- estimates that are smaller, by an order of magnitude, than generic estimates of nonfatal illness costs emerging from studies of job risks.

Our public health impact estimates are dominated by ci guatera illness and treatment costs, but

these estimates are low b ecause ciguatera poisoning also occurred outside of the areas we surveyed as a result of exports of tropical fish to other jurisdictions. In addition, we have been unable to include either the costs of insurance to cover potential ciguatera-caused liabilities or the court costs associated with ciguatera-related litigation.

Commercial fisheries impacts underestimate true losses due to HAB events because they do not

include PSP closures in several states, including Maine and Massachusetts, where it was not possible to document the acreage closed or the value of the resource that was not harvested during PSP outbreaks. These states are examples of the case where the price of shellfish may

increase when landings are lowered due to closures. Indeed, the economic impact estimate from harvesting closures (basically the increased value of output), would appear to be positive—a counterintuitive result. Although some shellfishermen may benefit from price increases, consumers unambiguously lose. These losses are not included in our economic impact estimates, because once again, it is difficult to quantify them. Furthermore, our estimates do not include the costs of wild fish kills, because the value of those fish is not known in most cases.

Another factor that leads to an underestimate of impacts is the economic loss from blooms of Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria -like organisms that have not been included in our totals. Although recent Pfiesteria blooms have been shown to have major economic halo effects in Maryland following an outbreak in 1997 (Seiling and Lipton 1998), the organism had not been identified during the early portion of our study period, and even after it was first linked to massive fish kills, no estimates

could be obtained of the economic losses associated with those events. In part this reflects the difficulty in attributing causality to past fish kills and in assigning economic value to wild fish.

Yet another conservative aspect of this study is that some currently untapped fishery resources have values that might be realised in the ab sence of HAB events, but such estimates are not included here. Examples include some shellfish resources of coastal Alaska, which are permanently quarantined due to persistent toxicity and the logistics of sampling distant or remote resources (Neve and Reichardt 1984), and a potential roe-on scallop fishery on Georges Bank.54 Finally, although many experts argue that the impacts of HABs on recreation and tourism are important and potentially large, there are few available data describing the size of the impacts.

For example, reduced tourism and lowered residential real estate values on the Gulf Coast of

Florida are two types of impacts that are likely to be large but for which we currently have no

data.

7.3 Information Needs

In addition to economic impact estimates, we made several important findings ab out the current state of available information and the need for improvements in the data collection process. First, the reporting practice of HAB events needs to be expanded and the format formalized. At present, information about HAB events is fragmentary and incomplete in its coverage. HAB data

are compiled on an annual b asis by the U.S. National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. These data are maintained by that office, and are also supplied to the ICES/IOC Working Group on Harmful Algal Bloom Dynamics, which has entered them into an international database called H AEDAT (Harmful Algal Events Database), maintained by the IOC HAB Science and Communication Centre in Vigo Spain. However, the data collection effort within the different reporting regions of the US relies on volunteer efforts by academic and government scientists as well as government officials, and

thus tends to be uneven in coverage and detail. Efforts are underway to standardize the data collection process, but even with those changes, it is clear that these individuals cannot provide

the type of information needed for economic impact assessment. At the least, the duration,

affected acreage or shoreline length, average toxicity levels, and values of affected coastal

resources should be documented for each bloom in order to describe the overall economic significance of the incident. In addition, local and state governments should place much higher emphasis on quantification of economic impacts. Economic impacts are usually specific to local

environmental and socioeconomic conditions, and local officials are t herefore the ones who need to compile the information which can later be analyzed by economists. Until local governments

become capable of supp lying site-specific impact information for each bloom incident, truly comprehensive and detailed national level aggregation of such impacts cannot be realized.

Second, we note that some economic information is available on economic impacts to fisheries

resources or to human populations exposed to HABs, but there is a significant lack of available information about recreation and tourism impacts. This could be a significant but highly episodic factor that is presently underestimated in our study.

Third, the causes of economic impacts and the degree of their uncertainty should be included in any study of economic impacts. For example, it may be premature to attribute the economic impacts solely to a specific HAB, b ecause there are often other possible explanations for mortality events. Finally, economic factors that are used to generate the impact estimates should55 be reported. These factors include whether or not an economic multiplier is used; local economic recession or prosperity trends; and foreign and domestic seafood competition factors.

7.4 Overview

Here we offer the first effort to compile an estimate of the economic impact of HABs in the US.

The data generated are of interest and use, but it is also of note that the process of coll ecting, compiling, and analyzing that data revealed areas where changes are needed. This includes changes in the reporting process, as well as the development of new approaches to the assignment of impacts to certain types of events or situations (e.g., the evaluation of unexploited fisheries, or the losses associated with quarantine or harvesting restrictions).

Overall, the economic impacts from HABs are diverse and large. Even with the highly conservative treatment given the impacts in this study, the annual costs are significant. Ave rage annual costs also tend to mask the significance of individual HAB events, some of which greatly exceed the annual average for the entire country. Perhaps more importantly, HABs are recurrent,
and show signs of increasing as the number of toxic and harmful algal species grows and as our

reliance on the coastal zone for aquaculture, commerce and recreation expands. Prudent investment in research and monitoring can do much to reverse this trend and to reduce the annual impacts.56 8 REFERENCES

Ahmed, F.E., (Ed.). 1991. Seafood Safety . The Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1996-99. C ommercial Fisheries and Wildlife Notebook Series. http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/. Anderson, D.M. 1989. Toxic algal b looms and red tides: a global perspective. In: Red Tides: Biology, Environmental Science, and Toxicol ogy, T. Okaichi, D. Anderson, and T. Nemoto (Eds.), Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Anderson, L.G. 1986. The Economics of Fisheries Management. 2 nd edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Archer, B. 1995. Economic impact analysis. Research Notes and Reports, 704-707. Armitage, T.M. 1985. A b ioeconomic model of the middle Atlantic surf clam ( Spisula

solidissima ) fishery. Ph.D. Dissertation. Williamsburg, Va.: School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. Ayres, D.L. and D.D. Simons. 1992. The 1991 razor clam fisheries and status of the razor clam stocks, Progress Report No. 300, September, Department of Fisheries, State of Washington. Ayres, D.L. and D.D. Simons. 1993. The 1992 and 1993 razor clam fisheries and status of the

razor clam stocks, Draft Progress Report, December, Department of Fisheries, State of Washington. Bicknell, W.J. and D.C. Walsh. 1975. The first 'HAB' in recorded Massachusetts history: managing an acute and unexpected public health emergency. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms , V. R. LoCicero (Ed.), The Massachusetts Science and Technology Foundation. Bowman, B. 1997. Maryland governor: P fiesteria can hurt people. WRAL5 Online (1 September): http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/1997/0901-maryland-governor/. Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior (DoC and DoI). 1993. 1991 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office (March). Egan, B. D. 1990. All dredged up and no place to go. AAC Bulletin, No. 90-1, pp. 7-15. Figley, W., B. Pyle and B. Halgren. 1979. Socioeconomic impacts. Chapter 14. In: Oxygen Depletion and Associated Benthic Mortalities in New York Bight

, 1976 , R.L. Swanson and

C. J. Sindermann (Eds.), Professional Paper 11, December, NOAA, U.S. Department of

Commerce. Foster, N.R. 1997. The molluscan fisheries of Alaska. pp. 131-144 In History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of North Central America and Europe

, C.L. MacKenzie, V.G. Burrell, A. Rosenfield and W.L. Hob art, (Eds.), Vol. 2, Pacific

Coast and Supplemental Topics. Woods Hole, Mass.: Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.57 Gorte, Ross W. 1994. The Florida bay economy and changing environmental conditions. 94-435 ENR, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Habas, E. J., and C. Gilbert, 1975. A preliminary investigation of the economic effects of the

HAB of 1973-1974 on the west coast of Florida. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms , V. R. LoCicero (Ed.), The Massachusetts Science and Technology Foundation. Hallegraeff, G.M. 1993. A review of harmful algal b looms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia 32:79-99 Hughes, S.E. and N. Bourne. 1981. Stock assessment and life history of a newly discovered

Alaska surf clam ( Spisula polynyma ) resource in the southeastern Bering Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38(10): 1173-1181. Hughes, S.E. and R.W. Nelson. 1979. Distribution, ab undance, quality, and production fishing

studies on the surf clam, Spisula polynyma , in the southeast Bering Sea, 1978. NWAFC Proc. Rep. 79-4. Anchorage, Ak.: Northwest Alaska Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce. Hunter, W.J. 1989. Eco nomic-impact studies: inaccurate, misleading and unnecessary. Industrial Development 158(4): 10-16. Jewett, S.C. and H.M. Feder. 1981. Epifaunal invertebrates of the continental shelf of the

eastern Bering and Chukchi Seas. In: The Eastern Bering Sea Shelf: Oceanography and

Resources . Vol. 2. D.W. Hood and J.A. Ca lder, (Eds.), Washington: Office of Marine

Pollution and Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the

Interior. Kahn, J. and M. Rockel. 1988. Measuring the economic effects of brown tides. Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 677-682. Lipton, D.W. 1999. Pfiesteria 's economic impact on seafood industry sales and recreational fishing. In: Proc. Economics of Policy Options for Nutrient Management and Pfiesteria

. B.L. Gardner and L. Koch, (Eds.), College Park, Md.: Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy, University of Maryland, College Park, pp. 35-38. Loomis, J.B. 1993. Integrated public lands management: principles and applications to national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and BLM lands. New York: Columbia University Press, Chap. 7, pp. 171-191. Lutz, R.A. and L.S. Incze. 1979. The impact of toxic dinoflagellate b looms on the North

American shellfish industry. In: Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms, D. Taylor and H. Seliger, (Eds.). Elsevier, New York.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1985-1992. Fisheries of the United States. Silver Spring, Md.: NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1989. Selected characteristics in coastal states: 1980-2000. NOAA's Coastal Trends Series: Report 1. Silver Spring, Md.: NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce (October).58 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1990. 50 years of population change along the nation's coasts: 1960-2010. Silver Spring, Md.: Strategic Assessment Branch, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce (April).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1991a. The 1990 national shellfish register of classified estuarine waters. Silver Spring, Md. : Strate gic Assessment Branch, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce (July).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1991b. Fish kills in coastal

waters: 1980-1989. Silver Spring, Md.: Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce (September). Nelson, R.W., J.C. Wekell and J.W. Joy. 1979. Evaluation of the clam resources of the S.E. Bering Sea. Proc. National Shellfish Association 69: 204. Neve, R.A. and P.B. Reichardt. 1984. Alaska's shellfish industry. In: Seafood Toxins , E.P. Ragelis, (Ed.), Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 53-58. Nishitani, L. and K. Chew. 1988. PSP toxins in the Pacific Coast states: monitoringprograms and effects on bivalve industries. Journal of Shellfish Research 7(4): 653-669. Orth, F.L., C. Smelcer, H.M. Feder, and J. Williams. 1975. The Alaska clam fishery: a survey and analysis of economical potential. University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Report No. R75-3 and Alaska Sea Grant Report No. 75-05. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska (August). Pielke, R.A. and C.W. Landsea. 1997. Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1925- 1995. Mimeo. Boulder, Colo.: Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr. 1997. Hurricanes: their nature and impacts on society. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Propst, D.B. and D.G. Gavrilis. 1987. Role of economic impact assessment procedures in recreational fisheries management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc

. 116: 450-460 Ragelis, E.P. 1984. Ciguatera seafood poisoning: overview. In: Seafood Toxins, E.P. Ragelis, (Ed.), Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 25-36. Ralonde, R. 1998. Harmful algal b looms: the economic consequences for Alaska. Mimeo. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program. Rippey, S.R. 1994. Shellfish b orne disease outbreaks. Shellfish Sanitation Program Technical Report. North Kingstown, R.I.: Northeast Seafood Laboratory Branch, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Rose, J.C. 1987. Scallops transplanted to algae-damaged beds. Oceans 20(1): 6. Ruff, T.A. 1989. Ci guatera in the Pacific: a link with military activities. The Lancet (28 January): 201-205. Schink, T.D., K.A. McGraw and K.K. Chew. 1983. Pacific coast clam fisheries. WSG 83-1. Seattle, Wash.: Washington Sea Grant Program, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, pp. 33-40. Shumway, S.E, S. Sherman-Caswell and J. W. Hurst. 1988. Paralytic shellfish poisoning in Maine: monitoring a monster. Journal of Shellfish Research 7(4): 643-652. Shumway, S.E. 1990. A review of the effects of HABs on shellfish and aquaculture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 21(2): 65-104.59 Smayda, T.J. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton b looms in the sea: evidence for a global epidemic. In: Toxic Marine Phytoplankton . E. Graneli et al., (Eds.), Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 213-228. Stoker, S.W. 1977. Report on a subtidal commercial clam fishery proposed for the Bering Sea. MMC-77/01. Washington: U.S. Marine Mammal Commission.

Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). 1992. Brown tide comprehensive assessment and management program: summary. New York (November). Tester, P.A., R.P. Stumpf and P.K. Fowler. 1988. HAB, the first occurrence in North Carolina

waters: an overview. In: Proc. of the Oceans '88 Conference . Baltimore: Marine Technology Society, pp. 808-811. Tester, P.A., R.P. Stumpf, F.M. Vukovich, P.K. Fowler, and J.T. Turner. 1991. An expatriate red tide bloom: transport, distribution, and persistence. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36:1953-1061. Tettelbach, S. and P. Wenczel. 1993. Reseeding efforts and the status of bay scallop Argopecten
irradians (Lamarck, 1819) populations in New York following the occurrence of “b rown tide” HABs. Journal of Shellfish Research 12(2): 423-431.

Texas Shores. 1987. Vol. 19, No. 4. College Station, Texa s.: Sea Grant College Program, Texas A&M University. Todd, E.C.D. 1995. Estimated costs of paralytic shellfish, diarrhetic shellfish and ciguatera poisoning in Canada. In: Harmful Marine Algal Blooms , P. Lassus et al., (Eds.) Lavoisier Intercept Ltd., pp. 831-834. Todd, E.C.D. 1989a. Preliminary estimates of costs of foodborne di sease in the United States. Journal of Food Protection 52(8): 595-601. Todd, E.C.D. 1989b. Costs of acute bacterial foodborne disease in Canada and the United States. International Journal of Food Microbiology 9: 313-326. Trott, E.A., A.E. Dunbar and H. L. Friedenberg. 1991. Gross state product by industry: 1977- 89. Survey of Current Business 71(12): 43-59. Viscusi, W.K., W.A. Magat and J. Huber. 1987. An investigation of the rationality of consumer valuations of multiple health risks. Rand Journal of Economics 18(4): 465-479. Viscusi, W.K. 1993. The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature 31:

1912-1946. Weninger, Q. 1998. Assessing efficiency gains from individual transferable quotas: an application to the mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 750-764. White, A.W., J. Nassif, S.E. Shumway and D.K. Whittaker. 1993. Recent occurrence of paralytic shellfish toxins in offshore shellfish in the northeastern United States. In: Toxic Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea , T. Smayda and Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 435-440.60APPENDIX A

Harmful Algal Bloom Incidents

Thi s Appendix is a summary of harmful algal bloom incidents reported infor mally
from coastal st ates t o the Natio nal Of fice f or Marine Bio toxins and H armful Alg al Blo oms at the Woods H ole Oceanographic Instit ution for the 1987 - 1992 per iod.ALA BAMAYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 8 Jul 31 Gulf shor es, AL "Bloom" o f filamentou s algae heav ilyinf ested front beaches; over 2,00 0,000dead menh aden f ound in vicinity o fState Par k Pier . Cou ld not tie the twooccurrences tog ether since waterquality h ad returned to nor malfollowing the k ill.Cla dophor asp .ALA SKAYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2 3/2 2 Settlers Cove n earKetchikanPSP , 41-y ear old female fro m threesteamed clamsWar ning about P SP anduncertified areasAlexandrium61μ g/100g (the sample of co okedclams)199 1 Jun 11 Sheep Island; A rea no tcer tified (no commercialhar vest); harvest forsub sisten ce pur poses4 p eople had PS P symp tom (3 cases ) Sam ples o f butter clams andoth ers to be an alyzed for P SP199 1 Jun 13 Nelson Lagoon 1 p erson had PS P symp toms f romfried cocklesSam ple to be an alyzed forPSP199 1 Dec 12 Ketchikan ; from BlashkeIsland (approved oysterand clam harves t area)1 p erson reported PSP typesym ptoms, but u nknown causeRes ampled little neck clamswer e negative f or PSP anddom oic acid199 0 Jun 27 Volcano Bay (SW end o fAleutian Penins ula), 28miles E o f village of ColdBayOne death , 47-y ear old male;con sumed 35-40 butter clamsTwo press releases statingris k of h arvesting fr omunapproved areas(recreational b eaches )Alexandrium7,7 50 psp /100g (butter clam s)199 0 Jun 23 Kod iak Is land One indiv idual sought medicalass istance after experiencingnum bness in face and later in his legs(co nsumed 20 mu ssels)Press release w arning abouthar vestin g in u ncertifiedareasAlexandriummus sel PS P, 1,9 25 and 2,026 μg/10 0g198 9 Apr 10 Dutch Har bor, A laskaPen insulaNo effects to 3 adults and 2 childrenwho ate cooked razor clams; a cat atevis cera ( guts), was p aralyzed andsub sequen tly diedNo area o n Aleu tian I slandsis certif ied co mmercially f orshellfish ing198 8 Jun 15 Alaska Peninsula, 16miles ENE of ChignikPSP ; 3 people h ospitalized(co nsumption of butter clam , muss elsand cockels)a n on-cer tified area, not anapp roved commer cialshellfish ing ar ea367 .2 μg/100g ( cockels); 85.0 μg/100 g(littleneck clams); 3265.9 μg/100 g(mu ssels)• Events of only water discoloration an d toxicity d etection at uncertified areas withou t any advers e effects were excluded.CALIFORNIAYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2 Apr , Jul,NovSon oma Co unty,Bod ega HarborPSP in th e Wash ington clam The Calif . Annu alQuarantin e was extend ed toinclude the Was hingto nclam even beyon d thenor mal qu arantine per iodAlexandriumcatenella120 μg/10 0g (siphon) and 54 μg/10 0g(viscera) in Ap r; 200 μg/10 0g (siphon)and 150 μ g/100g (viscera) in Jul; 120μg (sipho n) and 100 μ g (vis cera) inNov199 1 Aug Salt Poin t, Son omaCou ntyPSP , 11 p eople affected (3 severely, 1critically) fro m sea mussels2,0 00 μg/100g199 1 Sep t San ta Cru z Sick and dying brown pelicans andBrandt's cormor ants ( dom oic acid)Nitzschiapseudoser iata(Ps eudo-nitzschiaaus tralis )100 -200 ppm (dom oic acid in stomach);50- 60 ppm (dom oic acid in body p arts)199 1 Jul, Aug,Sep , Oct,DecMen docino County Hig h PSP in wild sea mussels Ann ual qu arantine wasextended indefinitelyAlexandriumcatenellaPSP , 930 μg/100 g (Jul); up to 330 0μg/100 g199 1 Jul, Aug,Oct, Nov,DecSon oma Co unty Hig h PSP toxin levels in Wild SeaMus sels, Washin gton Clam, andBas ket Co ckleA s pecial quarantine wasestablish ed to includ e allbiv alve s hellfish tak en byspo rt har vester s.Alexandriumcatenella330 0μg/10 0g (wild sea mussels); 1 00-1,4 00 μg/100g ( Washin gton Clam); 130μg/100g ( Basket Cockle)199 1 Jan , Feb,Jun , Jul,Aug , SepMar in Cou nty Hig h PSP in mus sels, oyster s, andclamsA s pecial quarantine orderto includ e all bivalv eshellfish taken by sp orthar vester s. Th e annu alquarantin e on s porthar vested mussels wasextended indefinitely ;Drakes Bay and the en tireEstero were clo sed tocom mercial harv esting onJul 26.Alexandriumcatenella1,9 00-10,000 μg /100g (mussels); 1 10-2,5 00 μg/100g ( clams) ; 1,20 0-2,20 0μg/100g ( oyster s)CALIFORNIA (C ontinued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 0 Mar - Apr ;Aug - NovMar in Cou nty (D rakesBay Chimn ey Rock;Drakes Estero Beds #12 ,#38 ; Keh oe Beach;Tom ales Bay ClamIsland; and Law son'sLan ding)Hig h PSP in wild sea mussels, sen tinelsea mussels, bay wild mussels, gap erclams, cu ltured pacif ic oys tersEmergency quarantineiss ued fo r Mar and Ap r onspo rt har vested mussels(persons collecting clamsand scallops ad vised todis card v iscera or dark par tsand only white meat b eprepared for hu mancon sumption).AlexandriumcatenellaPSP , 160 μg/100 g (max ) for Mar-Ap r;580 μg/10 0g (max) for Aug-N ov199 0 Beg inningof JanSan Louis Obisp oCou nty (Moonsto neBeach Cam bria)PSP in wild sea mussels Emergency musselquarantin e from Dec 1 989was still in ef fect. It waslif ted on Feb 1 3, 199 0.AlexandriumcatenellaPSP , 82 μ g/100g198 9 Sep , Oct,NovHum boldt County ;Aff ected areas wereHum boldt Bay (MadRiv er, Bird Isl., Ind ianIsl. Chan ., San d Isl.,Nor th Jetty #1 & #2,Com m. Gro w Station,Shelter Cove, TrinidadHead, Trinidad Pier,Sam oa Bridge (centerspan)Extremely elevated co ncentr ations ofpar alytic toxin s in m ussels and o ystersAlthough the an nual m usselquarantin e was in eff ectdur ing th e bloo m, anemergency quarantine wasinitiated for clams, scallo ps,native oy sters, cockles, an doth er biv alves. Thequarantin e was extend edbey ond th e Oct 31 nor maldeadline to Nov 30, 1 989.Alexandriumcatenellapar alytic toxin s in s entinel (350 0 μg)wild (220 0μg) b ay mus sels; wild ( 4400μg) sentinel (1 4000 μ g) sea mussels;cultured Pacific oysters (2 70 μg)198 9 Sep , Oct Men docino County;Aff ected areas wereBru hel Po int, A nchorBay , Cas par Po int,Sou th Cas parHeadlands ,MacKerricher StatePar k, Pt. ArenaLig hthous e.Par alytic toxin s; two non fatal cases ofPSP (one adult and on e two years oldchild) reported on 9/10. Both hadeaten mus sels collected at AnchorBay .The annual muss elquarantin e was in for ce, bu temergency quarantine wasins tituted in m id Sep t on thetak ing of clams , cock les,scallops, nativ e oysters, andoth er biv alves along thenor th coast.AlexandriumcatenellaPar alytic toxin s in w ild sea muss elsreached 6 300 μg /100gCALIFORNIA (C ontinued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 9 end of Jan,beg inningof Feb,Aug , Sep,Oct, Nov,DecSon oma Co unty;Aff ected areas wereSch oolhou se Beach,Bod ega Bay South Jetty,Bod ega Head, Mu sselPoint, Salt Point StatePar k, Dun canPoint/Wrights' Beach,Sea Ranch /Black pointIncreased paralytic s hellfish tox inlev els in natur al sea mussels andabalone jingleQuarantin e on s porthar vestin g of m usselsdur ing Jan and Feb; thequarantin e extended the Oct31 deadline; pu blic P SPalert via news mediaAlexandriumcatenellaPSP from Aug th rough Oct reached550 0 μg/1 00g (w ild bay muss el), 1 900μg/100g ( wild s ea mus sel) and 220 0μg/100g ( sentin el bay mussel)198 9 Dec(19 88); J an,Feb and aniso latedoccurrenceMar 4,198 9StinsonBeach(wild seamus sels)Mar in Cou nty; A ffectedareas wer e Drak esEstero ar eas #1 2 #17,Drakes Bay Chim neyRock Boat Launch,Keh oe Beach, StinsonBeach, Tom ales BayLaw son's Landin gPSP in sh ellfis h (sen tinel bay mu ssels,natural b ay mus sels, sentin el seamus sels, natural sea mussels, pacificoys ters, sentin el Jap anese scallo ps,gap ers clams (v iscera)Clo sure o f comm ercialshellfish eries; emerg encyquarantin e on s porthar vested shellfish f rom th eentire Mar in Cou ntycoastline (quar antine liftedon Mar 20 )Alexandriumcatenella198 9 Aug , Sep,ear ly Oct,DecMar in Cou nty; A ffectedareas wer e Drak es BayChimney Rock, D rakesEstero Ar ea (#7 , #8,#12 , #20, #38),Lim antour Beach ,Tom ales Bay (Tom alesPoint, Lawson'sLan ding, lease M430-11) , Rodeo Beach (hig hand low r ock)Hig h PSP Iss ued pu blic P SP alert viathe news media. Since theann ual mu ssel q uarantinewas still in ef fect, theimp ortance of complyingwith it w as str essed.Alexandriumcatenella180 0 μg/1 00g (J apanes e scallop); 360μg/100g ( cultur ed Pacific o yster) ; 1500μg/100g ( cultur ed bay mussel); 90 0 μg(wild bay mussel); 18 00 μg (sentinelsea mussel); 21 0 μg ( wild s ea mus sel);460 μg (u nidentified mussel)CALIFORNIA (C ontinued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 9 fro m midAugthr oughSep , Octand NovSan Mateo County;Aff ected areas wereLin da Mar , Moss Beach ,Pes cadero State Beach ,Tun itas CreekHig h PSP in wild sea mussels (800μg/100g)Ann ual mu ssel q uarantinewas exten ded beyond theOct 31 deadline; public PSPalert iss uedAlexandriumcatenella800 μg/10 0g (wild sea mussels)198 9 Aug 18,DecMon terey County ;Aff ected areas werePacific G rove P ointPin os, Pf eiffer BeachBig SurSlight elevatio n in P SP in wild s eamus sels ( 110 μg /100g) in Au g and inDec (130 μg)Ann ual mu ssel q uarantinewas in ef fect; emergencyquarantin e issu ed in DecAlexandriumcatenella110 μg/10 0g in Aug; 1 30 μg/100g inDec198 9 late Aug,Sep , Oct,DecSan Louis Obisp oCou nty; A ffected areaswer e Mor o Bay,Moo nstone Beach ,Cam bria, North EsteroBay , Estero BayCay ucosElevated PSP in cultu red an d wild baymus sels, wild s ea mus sels, andcultured pacific oystersThe annual muss elquarantin e (5/1 -10/31 ) wasin effect; emer gencyquarantin e was issued inDec; comm ercial oysteroperation s in Mor o Baywer e shut downAlexandriumcatenella< 1 600 μg /100g (sea m ussels ); < 5 40μg/100g ( oyster s)198 9 mid -Mar,mid -Apr,ear ly May ,ear ly Jun ,ear ly Jul,mid -Oct,mid -DecSan ta Bar bara County;Aff ected areas wereCiv ilian Beach, MinuteMan Beach , SantaBar bara ChannelDetectable but below alert levels ofPSP throu ghout the year in cultur edand wild bay mu ssels as well as inwild sea mussels; PSP in wild seamus sels exceeded the alert level in Octand DecMus sel qu arantine wasiss ued in DecAlexandriumcatenella198 8 Dec 20 Drakes Estero Ar ea 17and Drakes Bay, Mar inCou ntyPSP toxin in co mmercial mus sel beds Area clos ed to commer cialhar vestin gAlexandriumcatenella87 vg/100 g (Drakes Estero baymus sels); 290 μ g/100g (Drak es Baysen tinel Sea mu ssels)• Toxin levels below the alert level (8 0μg/10 0g) or high levels within the Califo rnia annual quaran tine p eriod (May 1 -Oct 31) w ere ex cluded . These events did not lead to anyspecial m anagem ent actions.• W ater d iscolo ration events were not entered .CON NECTIC UTYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2 May 27(Mum fordCov e); Ju l1 ( PalmerCov e)Tow n of G roton Hig h PSP in mus sels shellfish closu re (fo r 5/29 -7/1 0)Alexandriumsp . 96.3 μg/1 00 g, mussels (Mum fordCov e); 18 7.9 μg /100 g , muss els(Palmer Cove)FLO RIDAYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2 Sep 1, 19 92- J an 17,199 3Pin ellas to Lee County Dead fish (insh ore an d offs hore) fromPin ellas to Lee County; res pirato ryirr itatio n from Pin ellas to Lee County;water dis coloration f rom Manatee toLee CountyShellfish bans: 9/4-1 /17(Lo ngboat Key, Saraso taCou nty); 9/8-1/17 (Lo werTam pa Bay , ManateeCou nty); 9/9-1/17 (LemonBay , Sarasota County) ,(Lemon Bay and Gas parillaSou nd, Ch arlotte Coun ty),(Pine Island So und an dMatlacha, Lee County) ;9/1 5-1/17 (Boca Ciega Bay ,Pin ellas County )Gym nodiniumbrevefro m negative to 2,10 0,000 cells/liter(co astal surface water); fr om neg ativeto 10,330 ,000 cells/liter ( offsho resur face w ater)199 0Feb 23 -Mar 22Pin ellas to Lee CountyRep orts o f diso riented and sick s eabir ds (particularly cormorants); someres pirato ry irr itatio n on S iesta andLid o beaches (3 /3-3/4 ); rep orts o f deadbir ds and a few fish off Clearwater(2/9); reports of dead bird s anddolphin at Egm ont Key (2/9 )Shellfish harvesting ban(2/26-3/2 3) in Longbo atKey (Sarasota County)Gym nodiniumbreveup to 233 ,000 cells/liter ( coastal surf acewater); u p to 1 63,000 cells /liter(of fshore, 3-5 miles out)199 0 Oct 18 -Nov 22Sar asota to CollierCou ntyDead fish (offs hore about 2 0 miles offLee County and "massive fis h kill"rep orted by SEA MAP cr uise b etween10- 20 nau tical miles offsho re fro mVen ice to San ibel; respir atory irritationand dead fish o n Gas parilla IslandShellfish ban ( 10/26- 11/22)in Lemon Bay an dGas parilla Soun dGym nodiniumbreveup to 6,3 00 cells/liter (co astal surface)198 9 Mar 23 -May 5Pin ellas and Manateecou ntiesDead fish (offs hore and beach);Gulfport beach closed on 4/9;res pirato ry and eye irritationShellfish bans (3/24 - 5/5) -Pin ellas and Manateecou ntiesGym nodiniumbreve< 8 50,000 cells /liter (coas tal su rfacewater); < 12,70 0 cells/liter (off shoresur face); 1,000 -14,70 0 cells/liter(of fshore botto m water)FLO RIDA (C ontinued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 8 Oct 3 - D ec20Pin ellas to Colliercou ntiesDead fish (more than 30 dif ferentspecies n oted o n some beach es);res pirato ry irr itatio n; s ome waterdis coloration in Oct and No v.Shellfish bans: 10/4- 12/20(Pin ellas county ); 10/3-12/9(Sarasota county); 10 /4-12/9 (Man atee county) ;10/11-12/9 (Charlottecou nty); 10/11- 12/20 (Leecou nty); 10/25- 12/20(Co llier county )Gym nodiniumbreveran ged fr om neg ative to 970 ,000cells/liter (co astal surface water);neg ative to 3,6 30,000 cells /liter(of fshore surface water); n egativ e to197 ,000 cells/liter ( 50' depth water)• Sep , 199 2: D ead fish (fr om Pin ellas to Lee Co.) on beaches ( mostly grunts, pin fish and gro uper) and 1/4 to 8 miles offsh ore (catfish , flou nder, hog fish, eels, grouper, pin fish, grunts ,spadefish , filefish, damsels, an gelfis h, silver tr out, batfish, and other baitfish) .• Nov , 199 2: D ead fish - S arasota and Manatee Co. beaches.MAINEYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2 May - Oct Kittery to Spru ce Head PSP in sh ellfis h (Mytilus edulis,Myaarenaria,Ostrea ed ulis, Spisulasolidissima, Mod iolus mod iolus,Eus pira her os)Aff ected areas closed to th ehar vest o f specific s peciesAlexandriumtam arense<40 -233 μ g/100g (Mytilus); <40-42 μgg/1 00g (Mya); <40-66 μg /10 0g(Spisula); <40 μg (Ostrea); <40-52μg/100g; (Mod iolus); 96 & 1 75 μg/100g(Eus pira)199 2 May - DecVin alhaven toRob binsto n (Can adianBor der)PSP in sh ellfis h (Mytilus edulis, Myaarenaria, Mod iolus mod iolus, Arcticaislandica , Pla copecten mag ellanicus,Eus pira her os)Aff ected areas closed to th ehar vest o f specific s peciesAlexandriumtam arense<40 -674 μ g /100 g (Mytilus); <40-66 9μg /100g (Mya); <40-13 4 μg /100g(Mod iolus); 594-11 55 μg /100g(Pla copecten); <40-12 42 μg/100g(Arctica); <40 & 97μg (Eus pira)199 1 Apr il - J uly Kittery to Spru ce Head PSP in sh ellfis h Aff ected areas closed forhar vestAlexandriumtam arense<40 -445 μ g /100 g199 1 July - Au g Jon esport to Canadianbor derPSP in sh ellfis h Aff ected areas closed forhar vestAlexandriumtam arense<40 -1927 μg /10 0g199 0 Jun -NovWin ter Harbor toCan adian BorderPSP in sh ellfis h (Mytilus edulis, Myaarenaria, Mod iolus mod iolus, Arcticaislandica , Pla copecten mag ellanicus)Aff ected areas closed to th ehar vest o f specific s peciesAlexandriumtam arense<40 -3060 μg /10 0g (Mytilus); <40-11 45μg /100g (Mya); <40-12 77μg /100g(Mod iolus); <40-24 78 μg 100g(Pla copecten); <40-58 7 μg /100g(Arctica)199 0 May -Nov Kittery to Spru ce Head PSP in sh ellfis h (Mytilus edulis, Myaarenaria, Ostrea ed ulis, Spisulasolidissm a, Mod iolus mod iolus,Lun atia her os)Aff ected areas closed to th ehar vest o f specific s peciesAlexandriumtam arense<40 -1470 μg /10 0g (Mytilus); <40-59 5μg/100g (Mya); <40-85 8 μg /100g(Spisula); <40-46 μg /1 00g (Ostrea);<40 -107 μ g /100 g (Mod iolus); 298-114 0 μg /100g (Lun atia)198 9 May -Aug Kittery to Spru ce Head;Win ter Harbor toRob binsto n (Can adianBor der)PSP in sh ellfis h (Mytilus edulis, Myaarenaria, Ostrea ed ulis, Spisulasolidissm a, Arctica islandica ,Pla copecten mag ellanicus)Aff ected areas closed to th ehar vest o f specific s peciesAlexandriumtam arenseTox icity ranged from <58 - 7217 μ g/10 0g198 8 May -Jul Kittery to Pem aquid;Bro oklin to Gou ldsbor o;Trescott to Rob binsto nPSP in sh ellfis h Aff ected areas closed to th ehar vest o f shellfishAlexandriumtam arenseTox icity ranged from <58 - 1,400 μg/10 0gMAINE (Continue d)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 8 Sep Cob scook Bay an dEas tportTox icity (dom oic acid) in bluemus sels (Mytilus edulis)Clo sure o f area to th ehar vestin g of all shellfishPseudo-nitzschiasp.Dom oic acid con centrations of 5 - 20ppb .198 8 Sep Maq uoit Bay,Bru nswickMor talities of marine inver tebrates(sh ellfis h and marine worms );coloratio n of w ater - brownClo sure o f area to th ehar vestin g of all shellfishGym nodiniumnag asakiense(Gyr odiniu maur eolum)1,8 00,000 cells /liter ; the total cell countsare unlik ely to cause anoxia198 8 May 9 toend of Ju lyTox icity in shellfish Clo sure o f shellfish beds -Mya arenaria,Mytilis edulisand other speciesAlexandriumfun dyense> 8 0μg/10 0g; 1,000 - 5,000 cells/liter198 7 Aug , SepCap e Porp oise to York ,MainePSP detected in shellfish Quarantin eAlexandriumtam arense<58 -4215 μg/100 gMASSACHUSETTSYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2thr oughou tthe yearGeo rges BankSur f clam s (Spisula solidissima)con tinued to retain p aralytic shellfishtox ins th at wer e accu mulated duringMay and J une 19 90.Clo sure o f Geor ges Bank tohar vest o f certain molluscanshellfish was continu edthr oughou t 1992Alexandriumfun dyensean d/orA.tam arense100 -200 μ g/100g (whole anim als); 200-500 μg/10 0g (mu scular tissu es)199 1 Jun & Jul Nor thern Coast Tox icity in sof t-shell clam s Shellfish Closu reAlexandriumfun dyense; A.tam arense120 μg/100 g, PSP199 1 Jun & Jul Geo rges Bank Tox icity in sur f clam s Shellfish Closu re (scallopfis hery w as not affected)Alexandriumfun dyense; A.tam arensesev eral h undred μg/10 0g, PS P199 0 May Geo rges Bank Filter-feeding shellf ish (s urf clams,ocean quahogs, blue m ussels , andscallops) accum ulated PSP toxins; 8fis hermen were poison ed (2 seriou slyand 1 nearly died)Shellfish ing banned; the seascallop f ishery remainedopen because th e addu ctormus cle remains toxin- freeor nearly soAlexandriumtam arense199 0 mid -May tomid -JulNor th Sho re and SouthSho re of Boston ;Sou thern extent is CapeCod CanalTox icity in shellfishMytilis edulis, Myaarenaria, and oth er speciesclo sed to shellfish ing fr omlate May to mid -Aug;Spisula solidissimaclosedto shellfish ing year-rou nddue to retentio n of thetox ins at Georg es Ban kAlexandriumfun dyense; A.tam arense200 -300 μ g/100g ; 500- 2500 cells/liter198 9 mid -May tothe end o fJulNor th and South Shoresof Boston ; Southernextent is the eastentrance to Cap e CodCan al; Georges Bank inAug . '89Tox icity in shellfish (Mya arenaria,Mytilus edulis, and oth ers); highes tever reco rded s hellfish tox icity in MA;tox in detected in sur f clam s andscallop v iscera on Georges Bank; nokno wn hum an or marine mammalillnessesNearshore shellfish b edclo sures (>80 μ g toxin/100gshellfish ) for severalspecies; offsho re sur f clam(Georges Bank) industryclo sed by NMFSAlexandriumfun dyense200 -5,000 cells /literMASSACHUSETTS (Continued)Yea rDat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 8 May 9 toend of Ju lyNor th and South Shoresof Boston ; southernextent is the eastentrance to Cap e CodCan al, NantucketSho als; isolatedoutbreaks in Eas thamand Orleans on CapeCodTox icity in shellfish ; toxin detected inoff shore mussels on N antuck et Sho alsClo sure o f shellfish beds -Mya arenaria, Mytilisedu lisan d other speciesAlexandriumfun dyense> 8 0μg/10 0g; 1,000 - 5,000 cells/liter198 7 Nov , DecMas sachus etts and Cap eCod Baysmor tality of 15 humpb ack an d 2 min kewhalesPub lic health advisor yiss ued, w arning consu mersabo ut con suming mackerel,esp ecially the viscer a.Sax itoxin identified in the viscera andliv er of macker el; 40 -600 m g/100g ofliv er or viscer a, or about 20 μg/kg fis h.• The impor tant o ffshor e scallop fishery (Georg es Ban k) has not b een af fected by th e PSP toxicity pro blem b ecause this fisher y utilizes o nly th e addu ctor m uscle, which remainstox in free, or nearly so.• G eorges Bank is an open o cean environ ment, 100-20 0 miles from the n earest land (Cape Cod).NEW HAM PSHIREYea rDat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 9 mid -May tothe end o fJulyentire NH coast Tox icity in shellfish (Mya arenaria,Mytilus edulis,an d others); n o know nhum an or marine mammal illn essesNearshore shellfish b edclo sures (>80μg toxin /100gshellfish ) for several species198 8 May 9 toend of Ju lyentire NH coast Tox icity in shellfish Clo sure o f shellfish beds -Mya arenaria, Mytilis edulisand other speciesAlexandriumfun dyense> 8 0 μg/1 00g; 1 ,000 - 5,000 cells/literNEW JERSEYYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2 7/2 0 - 7/23;a f ew les serblo oms ofsam e speciesreo ccurredin the baydur ing Au g.Rar itan Bay sou th sho re(fr om Cliffwood Beachto E. Keansburg ,esp ecially dens e inKey port H arbor) ; alsoextending in lesserintensity from SandyHoo k Bay along NJcoast to about LongBranch, w ith highestden sity at Sea Bright.Kill of m arine fauna in vicinity ofCliffwood Beach ; roug hly 15 ,000dead fin fish and shellfish wereobs erved over a total stretch of about200 0 yard s at Cliffwood Beach ;sev eral m ore dead fis h and crabs wereseen in Key port H arbor about thesam e time (7/21 -22)Increased surveillance byNJD EP and USEPAKatodiniu mrotundatu m(do minant);Olisthodiscus luteusandEug lena/Eutreptiaspp .(su bdomin ant);Chr oomona sspp .< 1 04cells/ml (Katodiniu mrotundatu m); < 5x103cells/ml(Olisthodiscus luteus, Eug lena/Eutreptiaspp ); oth er species at arou nd103/m l199 1 7/2 0-8/1 San dy Hoo k Bay Bro wn water; Flocculent dep osits Increase surveillance Diatoms:Tha lassio siranor denskioldii,Cha etocer ossociale,Lep tocylindrusmin imum,Cyclotellasp .;Chlorophy lla5x1 04cells/ml (Diatoms); > 50 m g/liter(Ch loroph ylla)199 1 7/2 5-8/1 Shark Riv er Water dis coloration Sur veillancePro rocentrumred fieldi, P.min imum,Gyr odiniu msp .,Eug lenasp .,Katodiniu mrotundatu m,Chr oomuna ssp .,Tha lassir osirasp .2x1 04cells/ml199 1 5/2 0-6/1 San dy Hoo k Bay Red water Con tinued monitoringPro rocentrummin imum2.5 x104cells/mlNEW JERSEY (C ontinued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 1ear ly Jun -ear ly Sep tBar negat BayYellow br own water (s ummer long);Pos sible ecolog ical d amage in eelgrassmor talityOng oing s urveillanceNan nochlo risato mus;Chlorophy lla106cells/ml (Nan nochlo ris ato mus); >22 mg/l ( Chloro phylla)199 0 mid Jun -mid SeptBar negat Bay Yellowish -brown water (summ erlon g); mats of dead eelgras s on s horesOn- going surveillance Chlorophy teNan nochlo risato mys;Chlorophy lla> 1 06cells/ml durin g bloo m peak s inlate Jul and late Aug ; Chlo rophyllaran ged 15 .71-24 .26 μg /liter for J un 12 -Sep 12198 9 mid -Jul toear ly SepRar itan/S andy H ookBay (most inten se andper sisten t in the estuary)Bro wn water dis coloration through out;res ultant brown flocculent materialand foam deposits on area s horesCon tinued surveillance;intensive survey of theestuaries area(Diatoms)Skeletonemacos tatum,Tha lassio siraspp ,Cylindrothecaclo steriu m,Hem iaulus sin ensis,Cha etocer osspp> 1 05cells/ml198 9 mid -Jun toear ly OctBar negat Bay Bro wnish water discoloratio n; lar gemats of d ead eelgrass on sh orescoinciden t with brown water ; (spo rtfis h catches pr obably affected)Con tinued routinesur veillance(coccoidpicoplank ton)Nan nochlo risato mus> 1 06cells/ml198 8May 24 -Aug 2Rar itan Bay - S andyHoo k Bay (south ernhalf)red dish-b rown w ater; fauna kills June22- 28; Au g 2, S andy H ook Bay southsho re. The fau na kill in J une in cludedmor talities of fin fish, especiallynor thern pip efish, scup, north ern searob in, smallmouth flou nder, andsum mer flounder. Meg ainver tebrateskilled in cluded shore shrim p, san dshr imp, b lue cr ab, an d lady crab. Theear ly Aug . kill also involv ed fin fishand shellfish, primar ily dem ersalspecies ( flound er, cr abs, etc.).Increased surveillanceDom inant species(5,000-25 ,000cells/ml) :Olisthodiscusluteus, Katodiniu mrotundatu m, andEutreptia lan owii.Sub domin antspecies ( 1,000-5,0 00 cells/ml) :Pro crocen trummin imum, andP.triestinu mKills attributed to localized hyp oxia,con tributed by wind and tid e. (D .O.lev els as low as 2.2 mg/liter)NEW JERSEY (C ontinued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 8 May 24 -Jun 8Rar itan Bay and entir ecoast of New Jersey,fro m beach to a fewmiles offBro wn flo cculen t material, or foam, onmuch of N J shor eIncreased surveillanceCer atulin apelagica;Skeletonemacos tatum(in someplaces)ran ged 1,000-20 ,000 cells/m l, butusu ally 1 ,000-1 0,000 cells/ml(Cer atulin a pelagica); 1,000- 10,000cells/ml (Skeletonema cos tatum);Chlorophy ll ran ged 3- 10 μg/l; D.O., atbottom, < 3.0 ppm (Long Beach ), and1.5 -4.8 ppm (Seas ide Heights)198 8 mid Jul - lateSepBar negat Bay Bro wnish water discoloratio n; lar gemats of d ead eel gras s on s horesIncreased surveillanceNan nochlo risato mus(d ominan t);Aur eococcusano phagefferens(<7.5 %)100 ,000-1 ,000,0 00 cells/ml (totalpicoplank ton); 12 μg/liter (ChlorophyllNor th end ); 24 μg/liter (Ch loroph yllSou th end )• N uisance bloo ms hav e occu rred o nly occasion ally ( usually localized) at Sh ark River, a relatively small estuar y. Occasion al red tides in th e adjacent coastal water s havehad greater adv erse impact (i.e., complaints of res pirato ry irr itatio n by b athers ) -- o ccurrences w ere in 1968,1972,and 19 80-82.• W ater d iscolo ration incid ents w ere ex cluded .NEW YOR KYea rDat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2Jan -Decwith peakcon centratio ns dur ingJul and A ugGreat Sou th Bay ; theblo om was presentthr oughou t the bay withhig hest concentration soccurring in th e centralbay area betweenBay shore and PatchogueAes thetic (brow n water); reducedtransparency po ssibly affecting g rowthof rooted vegetation in deeper ar eas;app ears to affect gro wth an drep roduction (larval surviv al) ofshellfish species (pr imarily hard clam,Mer cenaria mer cenaria, in GreatSou th Bay )increased frequ ency o fmon itorin g activitiesAur eococcusano phagefferensran ged fr om >103to >106cells/ml; 5.4-10.7 mg/liter ( dissolved ox ygen)199 2 Apr - Decwith peakcon centratio ns dur ingJun and J ulMor iches andShinnecock Bays ;blo om was concentratedin easter n Mor ichesBay , westernShinnecock Bay andtheir interconn ectingemb ayment, QuantuckBayAes thetic (brow n water); reducedtransparency po ssibly affecting g rowthof rooted vegetation in deeper ar eas;app ears to affect gro wth an drep roduction (larval surviv al) ofshellfish species (pr imarily hard clam,Mer cenaria mer cenaria, in GreatSou th Bay )increased frequ ency o fmon itorin g activitiesAur eococcusano phagefferens7.2 -11.7 mg/liter (dissolvedoxyg en)199 2 May - Octwith peakcon centratio nsoccurringdur ing Ju nand JulWes t Neck Bay andCoecles H arbor, ShelterIsland on the eastern endof the Peconic BaySys temAes thetic (brow n water); reducedtransparency po ssibly affecting g rowthof rooted vegetation in deeper ar eas;app ears to affect gro wth an drep roduction (larval surviv al) ofshellfish species (pr imarily hard clam,Mer cenaria mer cenaria, in GreatSou th Bay )Con tinue weeklymon itorin g prog ram;increase parametersinv estigated an d fund ing ofres earch activitiesAur eococcusano phagefferensup to 106cells/ml (West Neck Bay); upto 8.5x105cells/ml (Coecles H arbor) ;6.5 -8.4 m g/l (d issolv ed oxy gen)199 1 May -Sept Peconic Bay sys temDeleterio us eff ects o n various sh ellfis hspecies; water discoloratio n; red ucedtransparencyCon tinue weeklymon itorin gAur eococcusano phagefferens106cells/ml199 0 Apr -Jul;Sep -OctWes t Neck Bay, ShelterIslandWater dis coloration and red ucedtransparencyCon tinue weeklymon itorin gAur eococcusano phagefferens5.6 x105cells/ml (Jul) ; 1.8x 104cells/ml(Oct)NEW YOR K (Continued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 0Jun ; lastingfor about 1weekNas sau Co unty n orthsho re har borsExtensive green disco lored water;gen erated numer ous co mplain ts; so meoys ter po st-set death s noted by localcom mercial oyster com panyMon itor; press releas eEutreptiellasp . up to 17 mill. cells/liter199 0 late Jun tomid Jul;picked upagain byear ly SepNas sau Co unty n orthsho re har bors; especiallyCold Spring Har bor an dHem pstead Harbo r,Man hasset BayNum erous complaints o f discoloredwater and "sewage/slu dge" J ubileetyp e fish kill affecting pr imarily babyflo under in Cold Spring har bor - Jul12th; deadMytilus edulisan dCan cerirr oratusin Man hasset Bay - Jul 1 0-13thSam ple; p ress r eleasePro rocentrumtriestinu m;Eutreptiellasp.;SkeletonemaRhiosolen iafra giliss ima;Cha etocer osper pusillus;Sin ophysisacu minataup to 50 mill. cells/liter199 0 Jul - DecMor iches andShinnecock Bays ; theblo om was mainlycon centrated in easternMor iches Bay an dwes tern Shinnecock BayPrimarily aesth etic effects ; waterdis coloration and red ucedtransparencyIncrease monito ringfrequencyAur eococcusano phagefferens104to 9.6x1 05cells/ml at easternMor iches Bay an d western ShinnecockBay ; 103to 105cells/ml at other ar eas198 9 Aug 1(in itialobs ervation)Nas sau Co unty, Nearsho re Lon g IslandSou nd and within theNor th Sho re har bors(es pecially Hem psteadHar bor)Dis tinct brown water discoloratio n;one possible illness episod e later in f all(2 person s with DSP like sy mptoms )fro m local clam sIncreased surveillance andsam pling toxicity with"UBE" tes tDin ophysisacu minata700 ,000 cells/l (high est co unt); UBEtes t resu lts, > .5 MU (2 stations )198 8 mid June Great Sou th Bay andPeconic Bay Sys tem,Lon g IslandIso lated blooms peaked in m id Jun e,then dwin dled to undetected levels byend of su mmerSuf folk County monito ringpro gram w as car ried o utAur eococcusano phagefferens< 5 00,000 /ml max cell number in G reatSou th Bay ; up to 1,00 0,000/ml inPeconic s ystem198 8 May 26 -Aug 18W. Say ville, NY; G reatSo. Bay, Long I slandGro wth su ppress ion inM. mer cenaria;delay of spawning inM. mer cenariauntil cou nt/ml decreased to muchlow er lev els (< 350,0 00/ml)Raw water upwellingsys tems m oved to L.I.Sou nd to avoidAur eococcus(" Wait it out" )Aur eococcusano phagefferensNEW YOR K (Continued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 7Jul '87 - Feb'88Peconic Bay and GreatSou th Bay , Long Islan dMor tality of ju venile and larvalscallops; water color ation - brow n;eelgrass mortalityRe- seedin g of juvenilescallops attemp ted;uns uccess ful du e tomor talityAur eococcusano phagefferens< 1 ,000,0 00 cells/ml (Aur eococcusano phagefferens); < 25-3 0 μg/liter(ch loroph yll); normal oxygen condition• S hort-lived w ater d iscolo ration events were not entered .• A n extr emely dense and widespread blo om in Nassau County north shor e harb ors in mid-J uly, 1 987.• Low lev el detection s of P SP wer e not entered.NOR TH CAR OLINAYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2thr oughou tlatesum merand winter(in CoreSou nd)Neu se and Pam licoRiv er/Estuary & CoreSou nd; Co astal watersoff Willmington, NCsmall fis h kills / sh ellfis h kills(lo calized)non e"Ph antom"din oflagellate199 15/1 5, 8/4 ,9/1 0, 10/7-20, 12/15Pam lico River, TaylorCreek, Neu se Riv erMas sive k ills o f fin fish & shellfish;sep arate fisher ies an d public healtheff ectsSam pling protocol to detectand verif y pres ence o f thetox ic din oflagellatenew species withingen usAlexandrium198 7Nov '87 -Feb '88Con tinental shelf of NCsou th and west of Cap eLoo kout, includ ingsou nds an d inlets ins idethe Outer Banks andsou thern Barrier IslandsNeu rotoxic shellfish poison ing (N SP),48 illnes ses; r espiratory irritation inhum ans; f ish an d scallop mor talities(mo re than 50%) ; water colo ration -vis ibleShellfish quarantine forwaters to south of CapeHatterasGym nodiniumbreve< 2 0,000,000 cells/liter• Bur kholder and Nog a have associated the new species (n ow kno wn asPfiesteria pis cicida) w ith ap proxim ately 25% of the f ish kills wh ich have occurred in the Pam licoand Neu se estuaries . Abo ut 25% of fish kills in these estuar ies have been asso ciated with "sudden death" of many f ish sp ecies and shellfish which exhib ited neu rotoxic symp toms.• An incident of 4,700 cells/literPtychodis cus brevis(b elow the shellfish bed closure level of 5,000 cells/liter) w as not enter ed.[ECONOMIC IMPACT INFO RMATIO N]• F or the Nov '87 - F eb '88 red tide, the eco nomic losses to th e coas tal co mmunity were conservativ ely es timated at $25 million ( Testeret al.19 88).OREGONYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2abo ut 2-3Octoff Florence (a distanceof approx imately 36miles): 4 4o38' N,125o58' W to 44o27' N,125o10' WDead fish (mack erel) covering a largearea; n o bird s were eatin g the dead f ishand there were no oth er species o fdead fish .Not confirmed,pos siblyAlexandriumcatenellaDead mack erel ( Oct): 187-20 1 μg/1 00g(viscera) , <38- 41 μg/100g ( meat). Livemackerel (Nov): 97-11 6 μg/7 0g(viscera) , <37 μg/100 g (meat). Liverockfish (Nov): <30 μ g/80g (viscera),<36 μg/10 0g (meat)199 2late Jul -ear ly Augwithmus sels;peaked inlate Sep -ear ly Octwithmus selsfro m Reedsport to th eColumbia River (ca.43.7 - 46 .7 deg rees N .)Clo sure o f razo r clam commercial andrecreatio nal harvest caused sever eeco nomic problems for at least 2bus inesses; mus sel harvest also closed,but most is don e south of the clo surearea. On e repo rt ofPSP in Dun genesscrab viscera causing a health war ningto people who eat crab viscera,add itional testing to ensur e safe crabfor expor t. On e repo rt of deadmackerel containing P SP off the coast.Har vest closure for allshellfish north of Reedsportas of 12 Aug; o ysters andbay clams lot s ampled inSep & Oct; shellfish otherthan razo r clam s andmus sels r eleased fromclo sure in early Nov; razorclams and musselsrem ained closed throu gh theend of 19 92tho ught to beAlexandriumcatenellaPSP , 88 μ g/100g in mu ssels (late Jul -ear ly Aug ); (<4 367 μg /100g) , oysters(80 μg/10 0g) an d little neck clam s (225μg/100g) affected; razor clams (2 10μg/100g) affected in Nov.199 1 Oct - Nov 28 human illnes ses reported in WA &OR (mild) ; razo r clam s andDun geness crabs becam e into xicatedwith dom oic acidClo sure o f comm ercial andrecreatio nal harvest of razorclams on WA and ORbeaches; closed commercialfis hery f or Dun geness crabsfro m northern Cal. tonor thern Wash. for a monthPseudo-nitzschiaaus tralisRazor clams wer e still toxic in m idMar ch '92 with dom oic acid lev els of30- 60 ppm (regu latory closu re lev el is20 ppm )198 9 Oct, Nov Oregon co ast Elevated PSP levels in Oct and No v;exceeding 80 μg /100g in NovClo sure o f portions o f thecen tral O regon coast from15- 28 Nov for shellfish ingAlexandriumcatenellaPSP ; 89.4 μg/10 0g (11 /14); 113μg/100g ( 11/19)• I n 1991 , Oreg on PSP alert began in 9/25/91 on the gener al beaches in muss els, p eaking at 15 0 μg/100g and decliningto < 50 μg/100g b y 10/3 0/91.TEX ASYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 0 May 1990 -Apr . 1994(bloomcon tinuedfor >7 years)in ship channel runningoff Lagun a Mad re nearBro wnsvilleFis h kills and limited repo rts ofaer osol ( respir atory irritation)Shellfish harvesting banssou th of Port Mansfield(No v 1990 - Mar 1, 19 91,still con tinuin g at the tim eof this r eport)Gym nodiniumbreveup to 300 ,000 cells/liter•G. brevebloom ex tended along much of Tex as coast in 1986.WASH INGTONYea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 2late Sep -ear ly OctPacific coast o fWas hingto n State andcoastal estuaries ofWillapa Bay and GraysHar borShellfish toxicity (P SP) - highes tlev els measured in razor clams in thesur f zone. Low er lev els in commercialoys ters and clams within co astalestuariesPos tponem ent ofrecreatio nal razor clamfis hery o pening sched uledfor Oct 9 until Nov 1 3,199 2. Closure ofcom mercial oyster bed s inWillapa Bay and GraysHar bor. Minor productrecall.AlexandriumcatenellaRazor clams: 72 0 μg/1 00g (m eat), 3500μg/100g ( viscer a). 1 97 μg/100g inPacific o ysters in Gr ays Harbor estuary .199 2 29 Apr Glen Ayr Marin a,Hoo dsport, southernHoo d CanalMor ning: 90g fish (Des chutes stockfall chinook s almon) off f eed.Afternoon : fish rapid ly dying; becamepale in color, gills were b right orangewith tips of gill filaments bent;kid neys w ere so ft and blood y. Th erewer e no o ther p athogens present.Fis h were released fr om netpen s; pro bably fewsur vived.Unk nown, but a 28-30 μm diameter,pig mented ,Gym nodinium-likedin oflagellate waspresent. Also,Pseudo-nitzschiapun gensf.pun gens.199 1 Oct - Dec 28 human illnes ses reported in WA &OR (mild) ; razo r clam s andDun geness crabs becam e into xicatedwith dom oic acidClo sure o f comm ercial andrecreatio nal harvest of razorclams on WA and ORbeaches; Closedcom mercial fish ery fo rDun geness crabs fromnor thern Cal. to northernWas h. for a mon thPseudo-nitzschiaaus tralisRazor clams wer e still toxic in m idMar ch '92 with dom oic acid lev els of30- 60 ppm (regu latory closu re lev el is20 ppm )199 0 1-1 4 JulCen tral P uget S ound,Sam ish an d Bellinghambay s, Por t Angeleshar bor, P ort Tow nsendBay , northern H oodCan alKilled Atlantic salmo n in n et pen s(central Puget Sound) ; larg e fish(br ood stock) w ere af fected first; alsokilled br ood stock of White Riverspr ing chinook s almon in net pensFis h grow ers harvested fish ;two growers tow ed theirpen s to clear w aterHeterosig maaka shiwo50,000 - 4,000,000 cells/liter (at pensites); > 12,00 0,000 cells/liter detectedin Port A ngeles harbo rWASH INGTON (Continued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration199 0 Sep 19-24 Lib erty Bay Hig h toxin in s hellfishLib erty Bay clo sed to allcom mercial and sporthar vestin g of s hellfish;recall of commerciallyhar vested oysters fro m 17states (n o illn esses reported)Alexandriumcatenellu mtox in lev els were 226 -358 μ g/100g199 0mid to en dof AugPacific coast o fWas hingto n, Van couverIsland, ( B.C.),thr oughou t San JuanIslands ( WA)Hig h concentration of algal cells ; nohar mful effects (fish growers wor riedabo ut eff ect on net-p en fis h)Gon yaulaxspinifera1.5 -4.5 m ill cells/liter in patch es;for med cy sts199 0 Oct Dab ob Bay Hig h cell concentration; no effectsonly because fish gro wers in the areadid not h ave fish in the waterCha etocer oscon cavico rnis40,000 - 74,000 cells/liter , and up to 10mill cells/liter198 9Nov 18 totherep orteddate (Jan10, 1990) ;The toxicblo om wasstill presentat the timeofrep orting .American Lake, PierceCou ntyAs of Jan 10, 1 990, 5 dead cats, 1 illcat, 1 dead dog , 5 ill dogs and 3 deadwaterfowl were suspected to havebeen due to the algae (firs t repo rtedanimal illness) ; a few necropsys havebeen perf ormed, but w ere in conclu siveMed ia notified; fact sheetsdis tributed to residentsaro und th e lake; publicaccess sites po sted w ithwar ning s ignsAna baena flo saqu aeAnatoxin- A198 9 Sep 5-9(peak fis hmor tality inCyp ressIsland);Sep 8-10(Po rtAng eles)Cyp ress I sland and Po rtAng eles ( northern Pug etSou nd)Mas sive k ills o f Atlantic s almon in netpen s; als o chinook s almon andrainbow trout; mos t smaller fishsur vived. Larg er fis h died first,esp ecially broo d stock.Rap id har vest o f dead andmor ibund fish; stoppedfeeding and oth er activityaro und th e pens ; PortAng eles h ad mor e warn ingand placed tarp s arou nd thepen s to cut dow n watercir culation and had littlelos s.Heterosig maaka shiwo(Had a)Had aCells gen erally concentrated in u pper 2m o f water.WASH INGTON (Continued)Yea r Dat es/DurationLocation/Area Eff ects Man agemen t Decisions Cau sative Species Tox in/Tox icity/Cell C oncent ration198 9 Aug 1Flo under Bay, Fid algoIslandHig h PSP detectedCom mercial shellfishpro duct r ecalled; of 150pou nds, all but 7 pou ndswas recov ered anddes troyed ; clos ure fo rcom mercial shellfish ingAlexandriumcatenella804 μg/10 0g (Washington sam ple); 470μg/100g ( Califo rnia, product receiverstate, sample)198 8 mid Sep Car r Inlet, Pug et Sou nd5 confirm ed illnesses fromcon sumption of commer cial s huckedoys ters; no recreatio nal illnessesrep ortedImm ediate closu re ofrecreatio nal an d comm ercialhar vestin g, reo pened Oct 6;recalled 2 week s prod uction- Min terbro ok Oys ter Co .Alexandriumcatenellaup to 2,4 00 μg/100g ( PSP)198 7 var iousphy toplanktonblo omsCyp ress I sland mor tality of at least250,0 00 Atlanticand Pacif ic salmonCha etocer oscon cavico rnis[ECONOMIC IMPACT INFO RMATIO N]•Fo r the 1992 ( Sept - Oct) P SP event, th e comm ercial shellfish industr y estimated the lo ss of "$1million" due to recall and closu res.•Fo r the 1990 ( July 1 -14) f ish kill, th e dead fish were estimated to be wor th $4- 5 million (Hor neret al.19 91).•Fo r the 1989 ( Sept 5 -9) fish kill, the losses to three f arms and fou r separate n et-pen systems: 2,000,00 0 lbs. or ab out 95 % of the total cro p.•Fo r the 1987 f ish kill, th e loss es wer e over $0.5 millio n (Ren selet al.19 90).89 APPENDIX B

List of Local Experts Contacted by Letters90 

### GENERAL

Sandra E. Shumway
Natural Science Division Southampton College, LIU Southampton, NY 11968 Sshumway@southampton.liunet.edu



### ALASKA

Ronald K. Dearborn Alaska Sea Grant College Program University of Alaska 138 Irving II Fairbanks, AK 99775-5040 Fnrk@uaf.edu

Michael J. Ostasz Shellfish Program Coordinator Department of Environmental
Conservation 3601 C Street, Suite 1324 Anchorage, AK 99503 Mostasz@envircon.state.ak.us Craig Wiese Sea Grant Program University of Alaska, Fairbanks 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd, #110 Anchorage, AK 99508



### CALIFORNIA

James A. Fawcett University of Southern California Sea
Grant
Hancock Institute for Marine Studies University Park Los Angeles, CA 90089-1231

James J. Sullivan California Sea Grant College Program Univ. of California - San Diego A-032 La Jolla, CA 92093

Kenneth Hansgen Department of Health Services, EHSS
Sacramento Office 714 P Street, Rm. 616 Sacramento, CA 95814 Richard E. Danielson Department of Health Services Sanitation and Radiation Laboratory 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 94704

Greg Langlois Department of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way, Rm. 118 Berkeley, CA 94704

Sue Yoder University of Southern California University Park Los Angeles, CA 90089-123191 

### CONNECTICUT

Edward C. Monahan Connecticut Sea Grant College Program University of Connecticut Avery Point Groton, CT 06340 Sgoadm01@unconnvm.unconn.edu

Malcolm Shute Connecticut Department of Agriculture Aquaculture Division
P.O. Box 97 Rogers Avenue Millford, CT 06460 Dept.agric@snet.net Subject Line: Attention Malcolm
Shute James Citak Aquaculture Division Department of Agriculture
State of Connecticut
P.O. Box 97 Milford, CT 06460 Dept.agric@snet.net Subject Line: Attention James Citak

John Volk, Director Department of Agriculture
State of Connecticut
P.O. Box 97 Milford, CT 06460 Dept.agric@snet.net Subject Line: Attention John Volk



### DELAWARE

Carolyn Thoroughgood Delaware Sea Grant College Program Graduate College of Marine Studies
Robinson Hall Newark, DE 19716 C.Thoroughgood@mvs.udel.edu



### FLORIDA

James C. Cato Florida Sea Grant College Program Building 803 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Jcc@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Beverly Roberts Marine Research Laboratory Florida Dept. of Natural Resources 100 Eighth Ave., SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095 Bev.Roberts@dep.state.fl.us



### GEORGIA

Mac Rawson Georgia Sea Grant College Program University of Georgia Ecology Building Athens, GA 30602 Mrawson@arches.uga.edu Brad Williams Shellfish Program Leader Georgia Department of Natural

Resources 1 Conservation Way Brunswick, GA 31523-860092 

### HAWAII

Jack R. Davidson Hawaii Sea Grant College Program University of Hawaii 1000 Pope Road, Rm. 223 Honolulu, HI 96822 Yoshitsugi Hokama Department of Pathology
Room T-512 University of Hawaii
1960 East-West Road Honolulu, HI 96822 

### LOUISIANA

Jack R. Van Lopik Louisiana Sea Grant College Program
128 Wetland Resources Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7507 Ronald Becker Louisiana Sea Grant College Program Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7507 Rbecker@lsu.edu



### MAINE

Robert E. Wall Maine/N.H. Sea Grant College Program University of Maine
14 Coburn Hall Orono, ME 04469-0114

Sally Sherman-Caswell Department of Marine Resources
McKown Point Rd. West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 Sally.Sherman@state.me.us

Robert Lewis Dept. of Marine Resources
State House Station 21 Augusta, ME 04333-0021 Laurie Bean Dept. of Marine Resources
Bureau of Marine Science West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 Laurie.Bean@state.me.us

John W. Hurst, Chairman
Fisheries and Health Science Division Department of Marine Resources West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 John.Hurst@state.me.us



### MARYLAND

Chirstopher F. D'Elia Maryland Sea Grant College Program University of Maryland
0112 Skinner Hall College Park, MD 20742 Delia@cbl.umces.edu93 

### MASSACHUSETTS

Chryssostomos Chryssostomidis MIT Sea Grant College Program Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bldg. E38, Rm. 330
77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139 Chrys@deslab.mit.edu

E. Eric Adams Department of Civil Engineering Bldg. 48-325

MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 Eeadams@mit.edu

Michael Hickey
Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries
18 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 Paul DiPietro
MDC
6th Floor
20 Somerset Street Boston, MA 02108

Alan White Department of Marine Safety and
Environmental Protection Massachusetts Maritime Academy 101 Academy Drive Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 Awhite@mma.mass.edu

Dave Whittaker
Division of Marine Fisheries
18 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 David.Whittaker@state.ma.us



### MISSISSIPPI

James I. Jones Mississippi/Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
P.O. Box 7000
703 East Beach Drive Ocean Springs, MS 39564-7000



### NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brian Doyle New Hampshire/Maine Sea Grant College Prog. Marine Program Building University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 Brian.doyle@unh.edu John Nelson NH Fish & Game / Region 3
225 Main Street Durham, NH 03824-4732

Paul Raiche, Supervisor Dept. of Health and Human Services
Division of Public Health Services
6 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301-652794 

### NEW JERSEY

William G. Gordon
N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium Sea Grant Program Building No. 2 Fort Hancock, NJ 07732 Paul Olsen NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources Geological Survey CN 029 Trenton, NJ 08625



### NEW YORK

Anne McElroy
New York Sea Grant Institute Dutchess Hall, Rm. 147 State Univ. of New York - Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-5001 Amcelroy@notes.cc.sunysb.edu

Robert Nuzzi Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Riverhead County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Anita Freudenthal Nassau County Dept. of Health 240 Old Country Rd. Mineola, NY 11501



### NORTH CAROLINA

B. J. Copeland
Univ. of North Carolina Sea Grant College North Carolina State University
Box 8605 Raleigh, NC 27695-8605 Bjcopela@unity.ncsu.edu

JoAnn Burkholder Department of Botany
Box 7612 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 Joann_burkholder@ncsu.edu

Pat Tester
NOAA/NOS Beaufort Laboratory Beaufort, NC 28516-9722 Pat.Tester@NOAA.gov Mike Street Dept. of Environmental Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries Morehead City, NC 28557-0769 Mike.Street@ncmail.net

Bob Curry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission 512 N. Salisbury Str. Raleigh, NC 27604-1188

Karen M. Lynch
Environmental Sciences Branch
DEHNR
State of North Carolina 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 2760795 

### OREGON

Robert Malouf Oregon Sea Grant College Program Administrative Services Building - A320 Oregon State University Covallis, OR 07331-2131 Robert.Malouf@orst.edu

Debora Cannon Department of Agriculture Food & Dairy Division 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97310 John Johnson Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Service
2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, Oregon 97365



### PUERTO RICO

Manuel Hernandez-Avila Puerto Rico Sea Grant College Program University of Puerto Rico Department of Marine Sciences RUM-UPR, P.O. Box 5000 Mayaquez, PR 00708



### RHODE ISLAND

Scott Nixon Rhode Island Sea Grant College Prog. University of Rhode Island Marine Resources Building Narragansett, RI 02882 Snixon@gsosun1.uri.edu Joe Migliore
Senior Environmental Scientist Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908-5767 Jmiglior@dem.state.ri.us



### SOUTH CAROLINA

Margaret Davidson
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium 287 Meeting St. Charleston, SC 29401 Rick Devoe
South Carolina Sea Grant consortium 287 Meeting Str. Charleston, SC 29401 Devoemr@musc.edu96 

### TEXAS

Thomas J. Bright Texas Sea Grant College Program
1716 Briarcrest Drive
Suite 702 Bryan, TX 77802

Richard Thompson, Director
Division of Shellfish Sanitation Control Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756

Eleanor Cox Department of Biology Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 e-cox@tamu.edu Terry E. Whitledge
Marine Science Institute University of Texas - Austin
P.O. Box 1267 Port Aransas, TX 78373-1267

Kirk Wiles Texas Dept. of Health
1100 W. 49th Street Austin, TX 78753

Ed Buskey
Marine Science Institute 0University of Texas, Austin Port Aransas, TX 78373 Buskey@utmsi.utexas.edu



### VIRGINIA

William L. Rickards Virginia Sea Grant College Program University of Virginia Madison House - 170 Rugby Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Rickards@virginia.edu



### WASHINGTON

Louis S. Echols Washington Sea Grant College Program University of Washington 3716 Brooklyn Ave., N.E. Seattle, WA 98105-6716 Echols@u.washington.edu

Mary McCallum Washington State Dept. of Health Shellfish Office, Mail Stop LD-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Jack Rensel
Rensel Associates
2412 North 77th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Jackrensel@email.msn.com

Doug Simons Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
48 Devonshire Rd. Montesano, WA 98563 Simondds@dfw.wagov97 

### CANADA

Ewen Todd
Health Protection Branch
Health and Welfare Canada Sir Frederick G. Banting Research Centre Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa
Ontario K1A 0L2 Canada