EPA/600/R-97/136
December 1997
MINUTES
of the
Stakeholder Meetings on the
Report of the JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group
National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
* "•.'•.-' "- ,
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade riames or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ... '
This document was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor,
as a general record of discussions during the public meetings. As requested by EPA, the
document captures the main points and highlights of discussions and includes brief summaries of
discussion topic sessions. The document is not a complete record of all details discussed, nor
does it embellish, interpret, or enlarge upon matters that were incomplete or unclear. Statements
represent the individual views of each workshop participant; except as specifically noted, norie of
the statements represent analyses or positions of EPA or the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture.
11
-------
-------
.••••• CONTENTS' . '_ , , ' v
Preface ; ;........ iv
1. Background .• 1
2. Introduction .• '..... 3
* ..
3. Introductory Remarks and Overview of the Report of . .
the Shrimp Virus Work Group ,. -'.' 4 •
1 ' •
Questions About the Shrimp Viru's Report Overview ..............:............. 8
< . . . ' : • •
Review of Shrimp Virus Report Management Goals and Assessment Endpoints ..... 13
'4. Stakeholder Presentations and Public Comment
Charleston, South Carolina—July 15,1997 , :. .... 15
5. Stakeholder Presentations and Public Comment
Mobile; Alabama—July 21, 1997 .29
6. Stakeholder Presentations and Public Comment
Brownsville, Texas—July,23, 1997 ! 38
7. Stakeholder Presentations and Public Comment
Thibodaux, Louisiana—July 25,1997 .............. .....,'.... 62
Appendix A: Stakeholder Meeting Agendas ,
Appendix B: Stakeholder Meeting Attendees
Appendix C: Written Comments Submitted on the Report of
the Shrimp Virus Work Group .
Appendix D: Report of the JS A Shrimp Virus Work Group
in
-------
-------
PREFACE
New, highly virulent viruses have been documented in foreign shrimp aquaculture, and
evidence suggests that these viruses could cause widespread disease in shrimp raised in
, aquaculture and in wild shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico, and southeastern Atlantic coastal regions.
To assess the risks associated with these emerging viral pathogens, the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture (JSA), which is under the auspices of the President's Office of Scienceand
Technology Policy, formed the interagency Shrimp Virus Work Group. Four Federal agencies
are represented on the Work Group: the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
On June 5, 1997, the Work Group submitted a report to the JSA entitled An Evaluation of
Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of
Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters (Shrimp Virus Report). The report
contains a review of available literature and is a first step toward the goal of assessing the risks
associated with the introduction and spread of nonindigenous shrimp viruses to the wild shrimp
fishery and shrimp farming industries. During July 1997, the EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA), in cooperation with the JSA, sponsored a series of public
meetings to gather stakeholder input on the Shrimp Virus Work Group's'report and the shrimp
virus issue.
This document contains-the minutes of the stakeholder meetings that served as a review
of the Shrimp Virus Report as well as the original Shrimp Virus Report (Appendix D). Eastern
Research Group, a contractor for NCEA, conducted the stakeholder meetings and prepared the
summary. NCEA believes that this interagency effort contains useful background information
for further discussion of the issues surrounding the shrimp virus problem and provides an
appropriate foundation for planning future risk assessment activities. '.-,--'
IV
-------
-------
1. BACKGROUND
New, -highly virulent viruses have been documented in foreign shrimp aquaculture.
Evidence suggests that these viruses could cause widespread disease in shrimp raised in
aquaculture and in wild shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern Atlantic coastal regions.
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (ISA), which is under the auspices of the
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, formed the interagency Shrimp Virus
Work Group to assess the risks associated with these emerging viral pathogens. Four Federal
agencies are represented on the Work Group: the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
On June 5,1997, the Work Group submitted a report to the JS A entitled An Evaluation of
Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of
Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters (shrimp virus report, Appendix D). The '
report is a first step toward thd goal of assessing the risk-of disease, and the financial and
economic risks associated with the introduction and spread of nonindigenous shrimp viruses to
the wild shrimp fishery and shrimp farming industries.
Although it is not an actual risk assessment, the report is organized by elements of the '
4 - ' ' ' ' •
risk assessment process. Risk assessment is a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse
; effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. Risk
assessments can help identify environmental problems, establish priorities, and provide a
scientific basis for management and regulatory actions. The report provides the JS A with a basis'
for discussion and for selecting among a range of options for conducting a risk assessment.
During July 1997, these Federal agencies and JS A sponsored a series of public meetings
to gather stakeholder .input on the shrimp virus issue and the Shrimp Virus Work Group's report.
Stakeholders include individuals from the wild shrimp fishery industry, the shrimp aquaculture
industry, the shrimp processing industry, environmental organizations, regulatory and resource
management agencies, and the general public.
Public meetings were held in the following locations: .
Charleston, South Carolina (July 15,1997) '
-------
Mobile, Alabama (July 21,1997)
Brownsville, Texas (July 23,1997)
Thibodaux, Louisiana (July 25,1997)
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
Each stakeholder meeting followed a similar format. Dr. Charles Menzie, who facilitated
the meetings, opened with remarks explaining the purpose of the meetings. Dr. Kay Austin, a
'member of the ISA Shrimp Virus Work Group, provided an overview of the shrimp virus report.
Presentations were made by local representatives of several stakeholder groups. Following these
presentations, the floor was opened to questions and public comments. The agendas for each of
the meetings are attached as Appendix A. Attendees of each meeting are listed hi Appendix B.
These minutes contain the following sections: ' ,
• Introductory Remarks and Overview of the Shrimp Virus Work
Group Report
This section describes Dr. Menzie's introductory remarks, Dr. Austin's overview of the
/ Shrimp Vims Report, and questions from all four meetings about Dr. Austin's
presentation. This section also includes a summary of discussions that occurred at each
meeting about the management goal and key assessment endpoints as defined in the
Shrimp Virus Report.
• Stakeholder Presentations and Public Comments
This section contains summaries of presentations made at each of the four meetings by
local representatives of stakeholder groups. This section also contains summaries of
public comments made by attendees at each of the four meetings. Written comments
received on the Shrimp Virus Work Group Report appear in Appendix C.
-------
3. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND OVERVIEW
OF THE REPORT OF THE SHRIMP VIRUS WORK GROUP
At each meeting, Dr. Charles Menzie explained his role as meeting facilitator. He
reviewed the meeting agenda, process, and ground rules. He stated that ISA specifically sought
input from and the viewpoints of stakeholders on the following matters:
• Concerns about the threats posed by the shrimp virus
• The accuracy and completeness of the Shrimp Virus Work Group's report
• Any additional information that could be useful in evaluating the risks posed by
shrimp viruses
Then, Dr. Kay Austin of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment and a
member of the ISA Shrimp Virus Work Group, provided an overview of the Work Group's
activities and the report's purpose, history, scope, and findings.
She reviewed ISA's charge to the Work Group:
• To develop a Federal interagency strategy to address the shrimp virus issue
• To identify relevant research on shrimp viruses, their mode of transmission, and
their potential for introduction to U.S. shrimp resources
• To contribute to information and education on the shrimp virus issue
• To develop a risk assessment
She explained that, to date, the Work Group has:
• Developed and published the shrimp virus report
• Planned and held stakeholder meetings
• Begun to plan an expert workshop, to be held late in 1997, to formulate the risk
assessment . v '
Dr. Austin explained that the report is not a risk assessment. It is, however, structured as
a problem formulation, which is a scoping activity performed early in the risk assessment process
to collect and gather risk-relevant information and define major data gaps, uncertainties, and
research needs. The report provides ISA with a basis for discussion and for selecting among
options for conducting a risk assessment.
, 4
-------
The report focuses on four major virus stressors, chosen because they have a broad
distribution and different patterns of virulence: Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV), Infectious
- N
Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV), White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSV),
and Yellow Head Virus (YHV).
• , The report also reviews potential sources for the virus, including shrimp processing and
aquaculture, as well as less significant potential sources such as bait shrimp, ballast water,
migratory birds, and flooding. ,, .
Dr. Austin explained that the report does not:
• . Perform an actual risk assessment
• Address information available after early 1997
• Discuss risk management options
• Recommend risk mitigation or management actions
She also briefly reviewed highlights of the report:
• New, highly virulent diseases have been documented in foreign shrimp
aquaculture.
• Consumer demand for shrimp is growing at a rate of 7 to 9 percent
annually. Because me wild shrimp fishery appears to have reached
maximum harvest, importation has greatly increased over the last few
. years to meet this growing demand.
• None of the viruses in question pose a threat to human health.
• Recent events such as catastrophic viral outbreaks in shrimp aquaculture
both in the United States and abroad, recent appearances of these
organisms in shrimp in commercial retail stocks, and new information on}
me susceptibility of shrimp and other crustaceans to these organisms have
prompted the development of the report.
Dr. Austin also provided data on the economic significance of the problem. The U.S.
shrimp industry (harvesting and processing alone) is valued at $3 billion per year. Imported
shrimp account for over 85 percent of the market. In 1995, imports exceeded domestic
production by a ratio of four to one, amounting to 720 million pounds. The largest share of these
imports come from Latin America and Asia—areas of the world where shrimp viruses are
-------
endemic. Aquaculture operations, in contrast, account for a much smaller portion of the U.S.
economic market, ranging from 2 million pounds in 1991 to 4 million pounds in 1994.
Dr. Austin also provided a brief overview of the risk assessment process. She stated that
evaluating risk is only part of the environmental decision-making process. To make an effective
management decision, economic factors, social impacts, and political factors must also be
considered. Uncertainty is always a part of the process of evaluating risk.
She then reviewed significant findings of the report:
• Viral disease has been associated with severe declines in wild shrimp harvests in the Gulf
of California. Harvestable populations of the blue shrimp, Penaeus stylirostris, as well as
a number of less dominant species, plummeted coincident with the observed occurrence
of IHHNV disease in the Gulf of California. Beginning in 1987, the P. stylirostris
harvest declined by almost 1,000 tons per year, and it took nearly six years for
harvestable populations to recover. The work group found that this was the best piece of
epidemiological information suggesting a link between introduced viruses and declines in
wild shrimp populations.
• Nonindigenous shrimp viruses have not been documented in U.S. shrimp populations, but
detection efforts have been minimal. We have not been sampling them for very long.
We may not have been using the right technology or have been looking in the right
places.
• Numerous disease outbreaks have occurred in U.S. shrimp aquaculture since 1994.
Outbreaks have occurred in Texas, South Carolina, Hawaii, and the National Zoo in
Washington, D.C. In January 1997, a White Spot-like virus was detected at the Waddell
Research Center in South Carolina.
• Harvesting practices in foreign aquaculture could put U.S. natural resources at risk. The
Work Group learned that when an outbreak occurs in a foreign aquaculture setting, often
the affected crop is immediately harvested and exported.
• Shrimp may be contaminated from a number of possible sources. Aquaculture and
shrimp processing are two potentially important sources that may affect wild shrimp
populations. The Work Group also considered a number of other possible sources, such
-------
as live and frozen bait shrimp, ballast water, and natural spread via migratory birds, water
currents, and flooding.
In laboratory studies, we have determined that all life stages of shrimp are potentially at ',
risk from the four viruses covered by the report.
Species other than shrimp may be at risk from these viruses; Viral disease could result in
alterations to ecosystem structure, potentially affecting predator-prey relationships,
competition, and nutrient cycling. Many other economically and ecologically important
organisms that occupy the coastal areas feed on juvenile shrimp, and impacts to these
organisms could potentially be serious if the wild shrimp populations on which they feed
decline. Other organisms may actually be susceptible to disease themselves or serve as
carriers of these viruses.
Enhanced collaboration among various agencies and stakeholder groups will be essential
to control disease outbreaks. '
Dr. Austin concluded her presentation by discussing next steps:
• Complete the stakeholder meetings.
• Conduct a planning workshop of experts late in 1997. Workshop participants will
consider the shrimp virus report, all comments made at the stakeholder meetings.
and comments received in writing.
• Conduct the risk assessment.
-------
Questions About the Shrimp Virus Report Overview
Charleston, South Carolina
July 15,1997
Q: What is the Shrimp Virus Working Group's time frame?
A: The report is finished, and we are now receiving comments in writing and at these
stakeholder meetings. These comments will be considered at the expert workshop to plan
the risk assessment, to be held sometime in late 1997. The risk assessment could take
anywhere from one to three years to complete.
Q: Why do you keep referring to the shrimp virus situation as a problem, when the purpose
of the risk assessment is to determine if there is a problem? To. date, we've seen no
evidence of the virus hi wild shrimp populations.
A: Because so many people are concerned about the situation, ISA considers, it to be a
problem. No final conclusions or risk management recommendations have yet been
made by the Work Group or JSA,
Q: What was the cause of the viral outbreak in the Gulf of California?
A: From what we know, there was a severe viral outbreak in an aquaculture setting, and the
ponds were dumped. A Spanish-language document [a thesis prepared by Carlos R.
Pantoja Morales while studying the incidence of IHHNV in populations of shrimp off the
coast of Sonora, Mexico] contains evidence of a simultaneous occurrence of the disease
\
and severe declines in the dominant population of shrimp' in that area.
Q: Did the wild stocks recover?
A: Yes. The declines occurred over a four-year period, and it took about six years for
harvestable populations to return.
Q: How can we get copies of this Spanish-language document?
-------
A: By contacting Dr. Tom Siewicki at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, at the NMFS
Charleston Laboratory. v
Mobile, Alabama
July 21,1997
Q: You mentioned that the virus has been documented in the wild [in the Gulf of California]
in P, stylirostris and P. vannamei. Have you examined all the other possible explanations
for the declines in these populations, such as water temperature, the effects, of El Nino, or
the effects of predation? ,
A: [Answered by Tom Mcllwain, NMFS] There is still some controversy as to whether the
virus was the sole source of these declines, but the best evidence we have to date suggests
that the declines were due to a viral problem. .
Q: Are you using IHHNV as ah example, or are you throwing it in the mix with the rest of
. the viruses?
A: [Answered by Tom Mellwain] USDA's shrimp farming program has captive brood
.stocks that are used to produce Specific Pathogen-Free (SPF) shrimp. These stocks are
screened for IHHNV, among other viruses.
Q: Can you elaborate on the technical workshop to be held later this year?
A: The Shrimp Virus Work Group is putting together a plan to develop a workshop that we
hope will occur in November 1997. We expect to invite 15 to 20 technical experts. They
will consider the report itself and public comments that are received in response to the
report, both in writing and at these four stakeholder meetrngs. This group will develop
the plan to conduct the risk assessment. •
Q:, When you do a risk assessment, how will you express the rjsks to aquacultufe? Will it be
in generic, qualitative terms, or will you be able to quantify the risk?. , . '.
• . . " : )'-,-- ' , -
A: The ISA would like to see a tiered risk assessment done. The initial risk assessment will
be qualitative. This report goes a long way toward this goal, but it has some inadequacies
-------
and uncertainties that we hope this process will help to eliminate. An actual quantitative
assessment would still be difficult, although we hope that we will be able to begin work
on that. The report lists numerous uncertainties and data gaps, and we will need new
research at some point to fill in some of these holes.
Q: How can you do a risk assessment if all these data gaps exist? What will you base the
risk on?
A: [Answered by Bill van der Schalie, EPA] Risk assessment is always done in the face of
uncertainly. With respect to the shrimp virus problem, the uncertainties are rather large.
USDA has used a risk assessment approach, with respect to introduced species, that
follows a formalized process that begins with a qualitative assessment based on expert
X
judgment. This process can be useful to help reach conclusions about risk, identify data
gaps and major areas of uncertainty, and make intermediate policy decisions about how to
deal with problems. As the risk assessment process goes forward, it doesn't preclude
taking management actions that may be necessary or doing the important research that is
required.
Q: From the processor's standpoint, the worst-case scenario would be stopping imports from
certain countries because of virus possibilities or making processors implement expensive
procedures. Can we expect that management recommendations will come out of the risk
assessment?
A: The risk assessment will evaluate the scientific aspects of the issue. Management issues
will be handled separately from the risk assessment process. •
• , f ' .
Q: I am concerned that the report states that IHHNV is a cause of shrimp declines in the wild
catch in the Gulf of California without examining other factors that might have
contributed to these declines. The presentation overhead that summarizes the report's
findings states, "Viral disease reduced wild shrimp harvests." This statement is
misleading.
10
-------
A: The report does not say that IHHNV was a cause. It does say that severe declines in the
wild catch were associated with the observed occurrence of IHHNV in wild shrimp
, - , s- • -. ,
populations in the Gulf of California.
Brownsville, Texas
July 23,1997 /
Q: [By Tony Reisinger, Texas A&M Advisory Service] Is there direct evidence that IHHNV
caused the decline in the population of shrimp in the Gulf of California? . ;
A: The report calls the decline an "association." Given the information we have^ the linkage
between the declines and IHHNV is fairly conclusive.
Q: So they actually did find IHHNV in the natural population? :
A: That is our understanding.
Q: Are they still detecting IHHNV in the natural population, and has the population
rebounded? .'••-
-A: I do not know if IHHNV is still being detected. It is my understanding that the
population has rebounded.
Q: [By Wilma Anderson, Texas Shrimp Association] Has the population of shrimp in the
Gulf of California returned to normal?
A: Yes, that is our understanding.
Q: What is the time frame for the risk assessment?
A: We will have a workshop in the fall of 1997 to plan the risk assessment. The JSA
Shrimp Virus Work Group advised the JSA that a tiered approach should be taken to
developing the risk assessment. The first phase would be a qualitative risk assessment
similar to the approach taken by the USDA's non-indigenous species risk assessment,
which uses ranking factors to establish where risks may be. The qualitative risk
assessment should provide a useful tool for guiding policies that might be needed to deal
11
-------
with the problem. We don't have a timetable yet, because we will rely on the experts in
the fall to help guide the risk assessment. An extensive quantitative assessment could
take one to three years. A qualitative assessment can be conducted in three to six months.
Q: Within a year then, we should have some answers.
A: Yes, I would hope so.
Q: [By Dr. Porfirio Alvarez, Institute Nacional de la Pesca] Could the decline in the shrimp
population in the Gulf of California be the result of natural causes other than the virus?
A: The severe declines were o'bserved coincident with IHHNV infection. We don't have the
information to know whether this virus occurs naturally in the Gulf of California.
Thibodaux, Louisiana
July 25,1997
Q: Have you found anything that would remove the viruses?
A: The report does not go into risk mitigation.
Q: Have techniques been developed to evaluate the contamination of shrimp feed
materials—specifically, the parts of shrimp that are used as feed?
A: At the three previous stakeholder meetings, people have spoken to this concern. I have
not heard of any recent testing, but there is some old information from the 1960s about
testing for bacterial organisms. Testimony at meetings earlier this week and last has
indicated that the feed processing temperatures are high enough to destroy viruses, but I
have not seen actual data on this.
Q: How long will the risk assessment workshop that is planned for November, 1997 take?
A: It will extend for approximately 2Vz days.
An attendee suggested that Congressional staff and the White House Council on
Environmental Quality be involved in the November risk assessment workshop.
12
-------
Review of Shrimp Virus Report Management
Goal and Assessment Endpoints
• • . • '.''.. ',
At each meeting, Dr. Charles Menzie reviewed the report's management goal and
assessment endpoints and invited meeting attendees to comment on these components of the
report. J
Management Goal:
Assessment Endpoints:
To prevent the establishment of new disease-causing viruses in
wild populations of shrimp hi the Gulf of Mexico arid southeastern
U.S. Atlantic Coastal waters, while minimizing possible impacts
on shrimp importation, processing, and aquaculture operations.
1. Survival, growth, and reproduction of wild penaeid shrimp
populations in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S: Atlantic
coastal waters.
2. Ecological structure and function of coastal and near-shore
marine communities as they affect wild shrimp populations.-
Charleston, South Carolina ~
July 15,1997
Attendees did not comment, but one individual asked for clarification of the meaning of
the second assessment endpoint. .. - -
Mobile, Alabama .
July 21,1997 •
There were no comments.
13.
-------
Brownsville, Texas
July 23,1997
A participant stated that underlying the report is an assumption that there are no existing
viruses or diseases in the wild. He stated that this assumption is not valid and that it is necessary
to know what exists before we can know what is new. Another participant noted that there have
been scientific publications about diseases in shrimp hi the Gulf of Mexico. Yet another
participant commented that we need to develop a better sense of what viruses are present in wild
populations. He stated that a monitoring program is necessary to establish a baseline.
Thibodaux, Louisiana
July 25,1997
There were no comments.
14
-------
4. STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Charleston, South Carolina
July 15,1997
Stakeholder Presentations
Bill Cox, South Carolina Shrimp Growers Association
Yonges Island, South Carolina
Aquaculture Industry Representative
Mr. Cox made several key points:
• Shrimp aquaculture is helping to meet market demand and is reducing U.S. reliance on
imported shrimp. .
• The aquaculture industry has worked closely with the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources during 1996 and 1997, and these efforts appear to have produced
results. In 1996, several farms were infected withTaura Syndrome Virus (TSV). So far
hi 1997, the virus has been detected on only one farm in a single containment area.
• Working as a team with South Carolina state government, the aquaculture industry has
put management controls in place to minimize the impact of the virus!
• The South Carolina Shrimp Growers Association supports a modified risk assessment
- focused on discovery of facts about the virus.
• The aquaculture industry has a responsibility to support efforts ,to keep existing or new
viruses from entering the wild or from entering the farm from the wild.
• Shrimp farming is dependent upon .a clean environment free from viruses, disease, and.
pollutants.
• There is no new information in the report; it simply provides a recap of what we already
' know. ISA needs to expend funds on research and development to Combat these viruses,
not merely to develop more reports and assessments. The industry needs facts, solutions,
and management plans, to eliminate these viruses in the United States.
• JSA needs to secure funds for research and development to answer the following
questions: » ,
Do the viruses really have an effect on wild stock?
. ' • ' • .'•'.. 15 .-- •• .. .'
-------
Where do the viruses come from? Have they been here all along?
What can we do as farmers, processors, and commercial shrimpers to prevent the
spread of the virus?
Mr. Cox made the following specific comments on the report:
• The report states that the White Spot Syndrome Virus was diagnosed at the Waddell
Mariculture Center in South Carolina. The report should clarify that, to date, the White
Spot Syndrome Virus has not been diagnosed on a farm in South Carolina and that the
infected shrimp diagnosed at Waddell were in fact taken from the wild,
• The report belittles the importance of aquaculture in the U.S.
• The term "exotic" viruses has negative connotations. Referring to viruses as "exotic"
sensationalizes the issue. It can also imply that the use of non-native shrimp species in
aquaculture is negative. '
• The statement that the U.S. domestic market is dominated by the wild shrimp industry is
not true. The market is in fact dominated by imported shrimp.
• The report downplays the significance of the Specific Pathogen-Free (SPF) program.
Had South Carolina been more vigilant about preventing non-SPF shrimp from entering
the state, TSV may not have occurred in the state.
• It is important to distinguish between "risk" and "real impact." There is no evidence that
'" t -
aquaculture has affected the wild catch.
• The report identifies aquaculture and processing as the two major vectors for the virus.
Recreational fishing and birds should also be added as major vectors.
• The report identifies laws and regulations that can serve as tools for stopping the spread
of the viruses. Laws and regulations should not be put in place until the risk assessment
is complete and the relevant facts are known.
David Cannon, Edisto Shrimp Company
Edisto Island, South Carolina
Aquaculture Industry Representative
Mr. Cannon made several key points:
• Contrary to what has been published at least twice, manufactured feed cannot be a source
ofvirus.
16
-------
Last year, Edisto Shrimp Company experienced a devastating attack of TSV, made worse
by having to operate on a very limited water exchange mandated by permit conditions.
< i
The lack of disease-free or disease-resistant stock has been a major impediment to
success. In 1996, Edisto Shrimp Company received SPF shrimp from two hatcheries,
both supplying P. vannamei. None of this stock had any significant TSV resistance, and
both hatcheries were located in areas where TSV was present in 1995. One of the
hatcheries became reinfected with TSV, which caused all of Edisto Shrimp Company's
ponds to become infected, with a 13 percent survival rate. All this shrimp was .supposed
to have been inspected under the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources'
importation permit program.
; ' - --.',-' , -
This outbreak, which represents the worst-case scenario, had no measurable effect on
wild shrimp populations. Furthermore, TSV has never been detected in South Carolina's
wild shrimp populations.
In 1997, Edisto Shrimp Company decided to stock its ponds with P. stylirostris, which
has a well-founded reputation for high resistance to TSV.
Shrimp farmers need stock that is pathogen-free and pathogen-resistant. "
Shrimp farmers are interested in a better understanding of shrimp viruses, and they have
incentives that go beyond those of traditional livestock producers:
Shrimp farmers are not compensated if they are required to destroy crops because
of disease.
-. Because their crop is similar to creatures found in. the wild, shrimp farmers are
subject to unsubstantiated speculation in the press regarding the effect of pond
viruses on'wild shrimp populations.
Shrimp populations in the Gulf of Mexico have not declined after three years of TSV
infection in Texas shrimp ponds. The 1996 TSV outbreak does not appear to be having a
negative effect on South Carolina's wild shrimp populations. The 1997 shrimp catch in
South Carolina is expected to be up from previous years.
Shrimp have been farmed in South Carolina since 1987. IHHNV has been documented in
aquaculture ponds, but to date, no IHHNV has been detected in wild stock. *
17
-------
• The practical effect on wild stock must be the final criterion in any studies that are done.
So far, there is no evidence that TSV or other pond-type viruses are present in the Gulf of
Mexico, nor has there been a diminished catch in the Gulf.
• Shrimp farmers and the processing industry need to have the threats from shrimp viruses
quantified. The following questions must be answered:
Can the virus be spread to wild populations by particles of infected shrimp?
Can the virus live outside a host and be transmitted to wild shrimp?
How does the disease spread in the wild under natural conditions?
What concentration of the virus is required to affect wild stock?
• If regulators insist on the use of strictly virus-free shrimp without virus resistance, South
Carolina will be left vulnerable to another widespread viral outbreak. This is happening
in Texas, which has mandated the use of SPF P. vannamei, or native species only, and a
TSV outbreak is now underway there,.
• Farms are not the only source of viruses. The White Spot Virus found in wild P. setiferus
could not have come from the farm. In 1996, every shrimp pond in the state was tested
for every known virus, and the only virus present in ponds was TSV.
Following Mr. Cannon's comments, Craig Dopson, a commercial fisherman, stated that
there are no longer any wild shrimp in the intercoastal waterway near the Edisto River, near
where a shrimp aquaculture facility discharges its wastewater.
Steve Kerchner, South Carolina Shrimp Association (Southern)
St. Helena, South Carolina
Wild Fishery Industry Representative
Mr. Kerchner made the following key points:
• In the past, NMFS has been unreceptive to the concerns of fishermen.
• Fishermen are increasingly worried that viruses will infect wild shrimp populations.
• Fishermen were once told that TSV does not affect wild shrimp; however, a study by Dr.
JeffLotz indicates that.TSV has infected native species in a laboratory setting.
• We know that the White Spot Virus, or White Spot-like Viruses, can kill native white
shrimp.
18
-------
• We have not seen, hard evidence of a drop in shrimp production from the southern area of
the state due to shrimp virus; however, there appears to be a slow, steady decline in
production from the two southern sounds. Intense growth and development in these areas
may be a factor in these declines. Shrimp is an annual crop, and variations from year to
'
year are normal. . ,
• The utmost caution is warranted, given that the viruses are said to be in our waters, that
various aquaculture facilities use these waters, and that viruses flourish in the denser
populations found in shrimp ponds.
Rutledge Leland, Carolina Seafood
McClellanville, South Carolina
Processing Industry Representative
Mr. Leland made the following key points:
• In South Carolina, the processing industry is limited in scope. Carolina Seafood is
basically an unloading and shipping operation.
• liaising shrimp in a pond is an unnatural process that does not result in the best product,
but it is necessary because there are not enough shrimp in the oceans to meet demand:
• The virus could also affect crabs, which is a concern.
• The aquaculture industry needs to institute production controls so that the viruses do not
infect wild shrimp:
Attendees asked Mr. Leland the following questions:
Q: Have you seen any decline in shrimp numbers nryour area?
A: We don't have any aquaculture within 60 miles of the McClellanville area. Shrimp
populations appear to be following the normal ups and downs. I haven't seen any direct
effects of viruses in our area.
v . • • ' • '
Q: What are your thoughts about increased regulation of the processing industry? What
regulations would be acceptable to processors? For example, how would you feel if
shrimp leaving your facility had to be labeled as virus-infected? .
19
-------
A: Labeling shrimp as virus-infected would create serious public perception problems. The
public would not purchase shrimp labeled as virus-infected even if the labels provided a
clear explanation that the viruses cannot affect human health.
Q: How would the processing industry respond to a regulatory requirement that shrimp
heads be buried?
A: Such a requirement would impose added expenses, and the industry would like to avoid
this regulation, if possible.
Dr. Paul Sandifer, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Charleston, South Carolina
State Regulatory Representative
Dr. Sandifer made the following key points:
• Those who have been dealing with aquaculture policy and research and development
issues have for at least five to seven years been raising the questions that the Work Group
* i
was only recently charged to address.
• The response of Federal agencies to the issues raised has been "underwhelming." At the
state level, we have been left struggling with far less than perfect science and little to no
guidance from Federal partners.
• With the exception of the aquaculture research community, no one has put technical
information on the table to help answer questions about how much of a problem these
viruses pose beyond the aquaculture ponds themselves.
• The following actions should have been taken by a variety of Federal agencies long
before now:
Monitoring of wild stocks to determine what viral diseases, either native or
introduced, are already present.
Monitoring of imported frozen product brought into the U.S. for processing or
resale.
Refinement and further development of detection and diagnostic methods.
20
-------
Development of national certification standards and processes, and designation of
an entity to serve as a certifying agent for the disease status of stocks, whether
imported or not. •
- Development of reasonable approaches to handling virus-affected product in
processing plants, whether the product is used for human consumption, bait, or
animal feed. , .
. " v Provision of realistic guidance to farms and hatcheries on ways to contain and
disinfect when a disease outbreak occurs. •
- An assessment of the relative risks to wild stocks of the various pathways of the
viruses, including natural pathways. •
-' Development of guidance or national standards related to certification, disease
.management, and issues of relative risk.
Attendees asked Dr. Sandifer the.following questions:
Q: When were wild shrimp first tested for viruses in South Carolina?
A: , Tests were first run in March 1997; but some of the samples used in these tests are one or
two years old. '
Q: For how long have tests been run on farm-raised shrimp?
A: Since the late 1980s. '
Q: Hasn't one of the tests used to detect viruses been shown to be ineffective?
A: More than one test has been ineffective. Good diagnostic tests do not exist for all these
viruses. ;
* " • -i • -
Public Comments
Dr. C. Holland Laramore
Bonney, Laramore & Hopkins, Inc.
Vero Beach, Florida
Shrimp Pathologist
Dr. Laramore made the following key points:
1 • . .- . 2i . ' '•.•'''•
-------
• The ISA report is a good effort and long overdue.
• JSA must exercise greater care in reporting observations and hypothetical statements as
scientific fact.
• The report states that the impact of one virus on a wild shrimp fishery in Mexico has been
documented. As "proof," the report discusses a decline in the harvest of P. stylirostris in
the Gulf of California, attributed to the IHHN virus. The report does not cite a reference
to support this claim. It is doubtful that these claims can withstand scientific scrutiny.
• TSV first appeared in Honduras in 1994, and some predicted that the wild population of
P. vannamei would be devastated. Instead, a survey of wild postlarvae catch based on the
number of animals caught per man-day effort showed significant increases in P.
vannamei over the next three years.
* It is ludicrous to blame the decrease in the catch hi the Gulf of California on IHHNV
without sound evidence that an epizootic .occurred.
Andrew Duda
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
Ovedo, Florida
Shrimp Farmer
Mr. Duda made the following key points:
• Additional research is needed to enhance disease resistance in SPF stock.
• Shrimp farmers, as agriculturalists, must take'certain risks. Mr. Duda stated that he feels
very comfortable taking these risks, given his experience with viral disease in his own
facility. He experienced economic losses due to IHHNV in an earlier season, but in 1997,
pond production has been excellent and the grow-out this year is on target.
• He cited USDA-APHIS's successes in controlling disease in non-native species
introduced into the U.S. (e.g., horses, cows, and pigs) and urged that these successes be
applied to address the shrimp virus problem.
22
-------
Craig Dopson
Dopson Seafood
Yemassee, South Carolina
Commercial Fisherman
Mr. Dopson made the following key points: -
• The commercial shrimp industry has been around for a very long time; fishermen are
concerned about the continued well-being of the industry.
• Fishermen don't want to see aquaculture ended, but they don't want it to hurt them either.
Douglas Rader
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), North Carolina Office
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mr. Rader made the following key points: ,
• , Stakeholders in the process include other groups that do not have a vested financial
, interest in the shrimp virus issue; hopefully these stakeholders will be invited to make
presentations at subsequent meetings. , '
• EDF endorses the process and the methodology outlined in the report. EDF supports the
fullest possible assessment of ecosystem impacts associated with shrimp viruses, analysis
of sources, and analysis of transmission pathways.
1 ' • ' '
• Further investigation of the transmission of the virus through human waste pathways
might be worthwhile. ;
• The wording of the primary management goal stated in the report should be reconsidered,
because it contains the apparently contradictory terms "prevent" and "minimize." .
' - ' • ' ' -
• No virus is "new." ., ..'... . . '
• The term "ecosystem effects" m the secondary management goal should be clarified to
include non-shrimp-based ecosystem effects.
• All analysis should be based on strong science that is precautionary in nature. The
analysis must recognize potential effects on key species in the ecosystem and interactions
among stressors, such as anoxia or hypoxia in estuarine or Gulf contexts.
• A critical component of the analysis is to characterize disease that is present in wild
populations or in imported materials.
23
-------
• Be careflil about grandiose conclusions. "No evidence" does not mean "no effect." The
current absence of effects in wild populations is not sufficient evidence from which to
draw conclusions.
• Disease resistance is not a goal. It is necessary to look beyond a single-species emphasis.
• The management of nonindigenous species is critically important to the effort's success.
• The report should use the term "nonindigenous" rather than "exotic."
BfflMcGrath
F6rt Pierce, Florida
Retired shrimp farmer
Mr. McGrath discussed initial shrimp farming studies carried out at Crystal River,
Florida, in conjunction with the Florida Power Company, and made the following key points:
• An objective of the study was to identify species of shrimp that would demonstrate
commercial potential hi ponds. Local species were studied first but were found to be
inferior in typical commercial pond conditions. In 1973, great success was achieved
using P. vannamei.
• P. vannamei has been used in aquaculture in Florida and South Texas since the early
1970s.
• In a Florida effort underway in conjunction with Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute,
P. vannamei is being raised using potable well water that has a particularly high hardness.
Shrimp growth and survival have been shown to be comparable to or better than growth
and survival in salt water systems. Shrimp farming of P. vannamei can now occur inland,
away from expensive salt Water property. ,
• By utilizing this approach, yields of farm-raised shrimp hi Florida could increase by 15 to
20 million pounds hi the next decade.
Eddie Gordon
Owner, South Carolina Crab Co.
McCIellanville, South Carolina
Mr. Gordon made the following key points:
. 24
-------
• Aquaculturists, commercial shrimpers, and commercial crabbers probably have the same
goals, although there may be disagreement about "how to get there" and "how quickly ,
you can get there.". r
• The report refers to viruses as "shrimp viruses"; however, these nonindigenous viruses
may affect other species, which is a concern.
• The effect of nonindigenous viruses on the ecology of the whole estuary needs to be
examined in great detail.
'• To avoid bias, a 'well-rounded group that includes industries other than the aquaculture
industry needs to be involved hi conducting the risk assessment arid ongoing studies.
• Time is of the essence. The priority should be taking action now rather than conducting
additional studies. It will be too late if we wait to take action until an effect is observed
in the wild. - , .
• The National Academy of Science's Web site contains a map that identifies known
, occurrences of TSVin the northern hemisphere. An aquaculture facility is located at or -
near each of these locations, which strongly suggests that aquaculture is the cause of the
outbreaks. . .
Gerald Hazen . , ,
South Carolina Conservation Association
Goose Creek, South Carolina
Mr. Hazen stated that the shrimp virus issue raises the following concerns:
•".. Cross-over of the virus to other species ., ,
• Impacts on crabbers'arid shrimpers'ways of life
• Controls for effluents discharged from aquaculture facilities and processing plants
•• Potential effects of the virus on humans
- He also made the folio whig key points:
• More research needs to be done quickly and then applied.
• , The word "may" is used too many times in the report—but few things are certain.
25
-------
Jack Whetstone
Clemson University Extension Service/Sea Grant Program
Georgetown, South Carolina
Mr. Whetstone made the following key points:
• Over 95 percent of species used in agriculture are nonindigenous. Some have been
successes, such as soy beans, and others have been failures, such as kudzu.
• State veterinary programs and USDA-APHIS have regulatory programs to deal with
introduced agricultural species. These agencies need to be more involved in the
regulation of agriculture products. -
• Over the last 20 years, four different species of non-native shrimp have been stocked on
farms hi South Carolina. Thanks to the work of the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, wild populations have been protected as the industry has developed.
However, the fact that no major disease outbreaks have occurred does not mean that there
won't be a problem at some time in the future. Continued diligence is important.
• Historically, aquaculture has had problems with disease, and disease is likely to continue
as a problem. However, the mode of disease transmission is generally from wild
populations to domestic populations (for example, avian influenza and swine brucellosis).
• More applied research is needed.
• Shrimp farmers need practical help from state veterinarians and USDA-APHIS. Like
other livestock producers, shrimp farmers need to be indemnified (i.e., receive monetary
reparations from the government) if they have to sacrifice their animals.
• More research on the virus is needed with respect to wild shrimp populations and other
crustaceans.
Rick Eager
Swimming RockFish and Shrimp Farm
Meggett, South Carolina
Mr. Eager made the following key points:
• Regulations to address the shrimp virus problem will need to be developed carefully on a
case-by-case basis. Too often, regulations are written to make enforcement easy or
convenient Regulations concerning shrimp viruses must be written to address what
biology requires, not to make it easy or convenient for enforcement.
26
-------
• A priority area for research is determining the amount of virus that's necessary to cause
infection in wild shrimp populations. The assimilative capacity of receiving waters is the
key to aquaculture problems. • .
• The wild harvest has remained flat for years, and it will not increase. Aquaculture is the
1 way that we can produce the food we need to meet demand. "Intensification" is not
necessarily a dirty word. Aquaculture can be controlled and managed.
Jesse Chappell
Southland Fisheries Corporation
Hopkins, South Carolina
Finfish Producer
Mr. Chappell made the following key points:
• There is no such thing as a disease-free stock of animals. Viruses, parasites, and bacteria
' are always present in confinement agriculture. ; .
• It is important to be sure that a disease is caused by'a specific organism of concern.
There can be look-alikes. , .
• We need to decide if we want inexpensive sources of food or not. Farming provides a
more economical source of food than wild stocks. ' .. , -
• We need to become more proactive in addressing disease concerns, since these organisms
are evolving faster than our ability to produce tools for managing them..
• We need to develop effective therapeutants and animals resistant to bacteria and viruses.
f
• The press needs to present the shrimp virus issue factually and avoid the temptation to
sensationalize the issue.
Cheryl Shew
, Zeigler Brothers, Inc.
Gardener, Pennsylvania
Feed Industry
Ms. Shew read a statement by Dr. Thomas Zeigler, CEO of Zeigler Brothers, Inc. Dr.
Zeigler's comments .addressed the question "Can viral diseases be transmitted to shrimp through ':
feed?" He made the following key points:
27
-------
• There are few if any known scientific studies dealing with the transmission of viral •
diseases by way of feed.
• In the U.S., an estimated 99.9 percent of all prepared shrimp feed is processed into
particles or pellets and subjected to temperatures of 170 to 280 degrees Fahrenheit. Most
feeds are subjected to temperatures of 190 to 230 degrees Fahrenheit. It is assumed that
harmful viruses are rendered inactive by these processing conditions, but documentable
evidence could not be located to support this assumption.
• If we are asked to prove that feed is not a vehicle for disease transmission, we are unable
to do so, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, it is perhaps best to list
feed among hundreds of other possible transmission agents, including people, vehicles,
the wind, and rain.
• We believe that the shrimp virus study should have been done about 15 years ago, before
the problem reached these magnitudes. Because these diseases are now endemic
worldwide at varied levels of intensity, the best long-term solutions to the problem are
mother nature, serious scientific exploration to find solutions, and reasonable regulations.
QUESTIONS
Dr. Charles Menzie asked attendees if they had any final questions for representatives of
the JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group.
An attendee asked if a mechanism exists to include biological science in the management
actions that may be taken prior to completing the risk assessment. William van der Schalie of
EPA's Office of Research and Development, and member of the Shrimp Virus Work Group,
responded. He stated that undertaking the risk assessment process does not preclude either doing
additional research that we know is needed or taking management actions. He added that
research, the risk assessment process, and the management process can occur in parallel. Linda
Chavez of NMFS and a member of the JSA stated that the JSA wants to ensure that research
efforts are coordinated and that any management or regulatory actions taken are based on the best
possible science available. She will report back to the JSA on research needs mentioned by
speakers and commentors during the day's meeting.
28
-------
5. STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Mobile, Alabama
July21,1997
i , ,. ,
Stakeholder Presentations
Richard Gollot
Biloxi, Mississippi
Processing Industry Representative
Mr. Gollot was unable to attend because of problems related to the weather. Tom
Mcllwain (NMFS) read Mr. Gollot's bomments into the record. They contained the following
key points:
• Shrimp viruses do threaten the shrimp industry; however, the greatest threat is to those
involved in shrimp aquaculture production around the world, not to the processing
industry, the U.S. shrimp industry, or even to the wild stocks of shrimp.
• In any newly cultivated crop, the development of disease is not unusual. Therefore, we
should not be surprised to find diseases developing as shrimp production increases
throughout the world.
• As a shrimp processor, I am concerned about shrimp viruses, because they could have a
serious impact on the supply of cultured shrimp available to the world. This decline in
supply would result hi significant price increases and possibly a collapse in the industry
itself . - '• • '
• In Biloxi, imported shrimp have been processed for more than 20 years. If shrimp viruses
were to be introduced into the wild population, it would have happened long ago.
• Viruses are probably not affecting shrimp fora number.of reasons:
- Domestic stocks may have some natural immunity to these viruses.
The viruses may be concentrated in such low numbers that their spread is
unlikely.
The infection may already have occurred, but shrimp quickly developed
immunity. ,
29
-------
• Wastewater discharge permits for shrimp processing plants depend on available water
sources (such as rivers) and can vary from location to location and state to state. Before
we declare whether or not a wastewater stream can be used for this purpose, we should
determine whether a threat exists, and if so, whether new regulations would make any
difference.
• If we can show that these viruses pose a threat to our native stocks, and that disease-
carrying organisms have not been introduced so far, or if we can explain why the
introduction of these disease-carrying organisms has not had any effect on the shrimp to
date but would have an effect in the future, then I would be concerned.
• My primary concern is how these viruses could affect the availability of imported shrimp.
Domestic shrimp stocks and domestic shrimp aquaculture are small in number and are
unlikely to significantly affect the availability of shrimp for the U.S. or world market.
• I can think of no instance where disease in domesticated stock devastated wild stock.
Becky Gillette
Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club
Ocean Springs, Mississippi
Environmental Representative
Ms. Gillette made the following key points:
• The report is comprehensive and contains the kind of scientific information needed to
evaluate the sources of potential problems. It provides a good research base from which
to make recommendations.
• The report states that foreign shrimp viruses pose no risk to human health. At best, the
threat of these viruses to human health is not known. Aquaculture operations are
breeding grounds for new and more virulent forms of viruses. To date we know of no
shrimp viruses that can affect humans, but this does not mean that a new or mutated virus
that could affect humans could not emerge from aquaculture. (A few years ago,
Pfiesteriea piscicida, a toxic algae, was unknown but probably present in the
environment in small enough quantities that it caused no damage. After wastewater
lagoons containing hog waste broke and discharged into North Carolina streams,
Pfiesteriea caused serious human health problems.)
30
-------
In Mississippi, processing of foreign shrimp is a major industry. The wastewater from
processing the shrimp is screened to remove solids and then discharged into the Back Bay
of Biloxi or other coastal waters. We know that foreign, aquaculture operations will .
harvest a pond when a virus first appears, in order to minimize loss. Therefore, it is likely
that viable shrimp viruses have been discharged into Back Bay. Researchers say that
there is no evidence here that native shrimp have contracted foreign disease. This simply
means that disease has not been detected; not that it has not occurred. '
One management option would be to prevent the import of foreign shrimp. However, 65
• . > ' * - p. "
to 75 percent of the shrimp consumed hi the U.S. is imported, and thousands of people
are employed by the industry.
Wash water from seafood processing houses should be collected and treated, not only to
destroy viruses, but also to improve water quality. The large amount of organics in the
wastewater contribute to poor water quality in Back Bay. There is little hope that seafood
operations in Mississippi will be required to provide further wastewater treatment. The
processors consider this too expensive, and the state is unlikely to require treatment.
Since it is unlikely that further treatment of wastewater will be required, we must ensure
mat foreign vimses are not present in imported shrimp.
Recommended procedures for preventing the spread of foreign shrimp from imported
shrimp and from U.S. aquaculture operations include:
Periodically test shrimp from all foreign and domestic shrimp farms for viruses.
Infected shrimp must becooked prior to washing so that no viruses escape.
Require that shipments of shrimp from each point of origin be kept separate for
testing and tracking purposes. -. .
Require all shipping bills to indicate farm of Origin, packer, and shipper.
Place the burden of proof on the country of origin. Their seafood inspectors must
certify that shrimp are virus-free. Periodic random testing would be necessary to
measure compliance with virus-free shrimp certification programs.
Ban the use of imported shrimp as bait
-'•'• Implement the Lacey Act to address the issue of shrimp viruses.
31
-------
Impose an import duty of one cent (or more) per pound to fund shrimp inspections
and research on effective methods for killing viruses in wastewater.
Consider whether aquaculture farms are worth the risk in the United States. If
new aquaculture facilities are allowed, far stricter controls are needed. Farms
should be located inland, far from the coastal environment.
For existing contaminated domestic ponds, require holding ponds to prevent
contaminated runoff from entering the environment. Also, require netting to be
placed over ponds to prevent transfer by birds. Require ponds to be fenced to
prevent wildlife from transferring viruses from ponds to the environment.
Require that NPDES permits for aquaculture and processing plants include
measures for the control of foreign shrimp viruses.
Address the issue of ballast water, which is a potential source for introduction of
foreign viruses as well as other foreign species.
Ms. Gillette provided attendees with copies of an article from the July/August 1997 issue
of Tide, the magazine of the Coastal Conservation Association. The article, entitled "Texas
Shrimp Farming: Promises, Promises," questions whether shrimp aquaculture can successfully
operate in coastal areas of Texas without posing threats to native shrimp, fish, and wildlife stocks
in surrounding bays and estuarine ecosystems.
Ms. Gillette concluded her presentation by stating that we must not wait until our wild
fishery industry collapses before taking action.
Stevens Heath
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Gulf Shores, Alabama
State Regulatory Representative
Mr. Heath was unable to attend because of problems related to the weather. Tom
Mcllwain (NMFS) read Mr. Heath's comments into the record. Mr. Heath's comments
contained the following key points:
• The JSA should determine the status of the virus in native stocks before taking any major
action. There are probably native viruses that we do not know about. Care should be
taken not to overreact with respect to aquaculture.
32
-------
• The risk assessment process should continue, but it is important to err on the side of
caution. .
Tom Van Devender . ,
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Biloxi, Mississippi
State Regulatory Representative
Mr. Van Devender made the following key points:
, • The direction that the report takes is good; however, it is important not to' get too "carried
away." " .
• We need to look closely at the possibility of endemic viruses in the Gulf of Mexico.
• The term "exotic virus" used in the report is not entirely appropriate., ,
• There is some doub't about the use pf me legal authorities cited in the report (e.g., the
Lacey Act and other statutes) to control shrimp viruses. The Lacey Act would require
one of the states whose border is being crossed to have laws specific to viral disease in
shrimp, and currently, no state has such a law. '
• Mississippi has no shrimp mariculture facilities other than a research facility at the Gulf
Coast Research Lab. Water from the lab is treated and then sent to the Ocean Springs
Sewage Treatment Facility, so there is no possibility of viruses escaping into the wild
from the lab.
Public Comment
MarkBerrigan
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Tallahassee, Florida
Mr. Berrigan made the following key points:
• Unlike Mississippi and Alabama, Florida has been involved in shrimp aquaculture for a
number of years. P. vannamei and P. stylirostris have been cultured in Florida for
approximately 25 years. . '
» Florida has a functional industry that employs several hundred people.
,33
-------
• Much research on shrimp aquaculture has been performed in Florida at the Crystal River
facility. Many of the findings from this research were used to build the aquaculture
industry in Latin America.
• An aquaculture facility has been active hi the Florida Keys for at least 20 years. No
«• "'
known environmental problems have been associated with this facility.
• Because of the problems associated with shrimp diseases over the last five or six years,
Florida has made considerable efforts to tighten protocols and management practices for
facilities that hold normative shrimp. Current requirements include the following:
Shrimp must come from sources or facilities that are approved by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Production facilities cannot discharge directly into state waters. Management
plans include specifications for confinement, escapement, and crisis situations.
Management plans include commitments from growers to eradicate their stocks
completely if disease is manifested or if an impending storm will result in
escapement.
• Florida has worked with two companies with holdings in Central and South America to
design a model for hatchery systems.
• Without further evidence, Florida is reluctant to "throw rocks" at the aquaculture
industry.
A participant asked Mr. Berrigan if Florida has a state law to prevent the importation of
shrimp viruses. Mr. Berrigan said that currently there is no such law in Florida.
James Heerin
Shrimp Culture, Inc.
Roswell, Georgia ' .
Mr. Heerin made the following key points:
• Shrimp Culture, Inc., recognizes the importance of research and careful scientific inquiry
into the whole range of shrimp health issues, which may inhibit or encourage the
development of a healthy and economically viable shrimp farming industry.
• Shrimp Culture, Inc., is concerned that this inquiry and the possible development of
guidelines or regulations be based on sound scientific investigation and unbiased
34
-------
analysis, rather than preconceptions or anecdotes—or worst of all—the unsupported
claims of advocacy groups.
• Shrimp Culture, Inc., has the following concerns about the report:
It mentions catastrophic economic losses to the shrimp aquaculture industry, but
makes no mention of economic successes.
The characterization ofxthe cause of the reduced shrimp catch in the Gulf of
. • California in the early 1990s is questionable.
• The report is only the first step in an important process to assist the development of a
t '
healthy shrimp aquaculture industry.
• . The stewards of the. risk assessment process must adopt a measured, unbiased scientific
.approach.
• What is needed is a collaborative effort of genuinely concerned stakeholders searching
for sound scientific approaches to disease and related health problems in order to foster
the development of aquaculture as a means of improving and increasing the supply of
, wholesome and economical aquatic food products to U.S. and world consumers.
• In the areas of shrimp genetics, breeding, hatcheries, nutrition, and health research, the
United States can be a world leader; however, the necessary investment and leadership
will dry up if issues such as the potential impacts of shrimp viruses are not addressed in a
careful, unbiased, scientific manner, with the same problem-solving attitude that has
characterized the regulatory agencies' attitudes to date.
Charles Evans
DelfemarS.A. ;
Pensacola, Florida
Mr. Evans explained that he is a member of a group that is attempting to raise Australian
red claw crayfish in Ecuador.
He made the following key points: ,
• To raise red claw crayfish, it will be necessary to protect against TSV.
• As we talk about prohibiting imports from foreign countries such as Ecuador, it is
important to bear in mind that people from these countries need help and support.
35
-------
• Originally, shrimp farmers in Ecuador were interested in "production, production,
production." Apparently, the proper precautions were not taken and management
practices allowed TSV to spread. Now, what these individuals would most like are
education and access to information.
• We should demonstrate the patience to help educate foreign aquaculturists, rather than
simply prohibit imports.
RJX Ellender
University of Southern Mississippi
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Dr. Ellender made the following key points:
• Industry does not have the tools it needs for shrimp virus diagnosis.
• Some work is being done by the GCRL and by Dr. Don Lightner. Also, good research has
been done in Asia. Overall, however, there is a tremendous lack of research on shrimp
virology.
• Given current science, it will be difficult to answer questions about carrier status and
about viruses in wild shrimp populations.
• Serious research efforts need to be made in the area of shrimp virology and shrimp
*• "
immunology. '
QUESTIONS
Dr. Charles Menzie asked attendees if they had any final questions for representatives of
the JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group.
Q: Did the Shrimp Virus Work Group include industry representatives?
A: [Torn Mcllwain (NMFS)] It was a multi-Federal agency work group, so industry was not
represented. This meeting and the other stakeholder meetings are intended to gather input
from other stakeholder groups to help provide a balanced risk assessment.
Q: What is the production of domestic shrimp in Florida?
36
-------
A: [Tom Mcllwain] The primary fishery in Florida is for pink shrimp, which are harvested
off the southwest coast of Florida. In 1996, production of pink shrimp was
approximately 19.1 million pounds. •
37
-------
-------
6. STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Brownsville, Texas
July 23,1997
Stakeholder Presentations
Larry McKiriney
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Austin, Texas -
State Regulatory Representative
Dr. McKinney made the following key points:
• The Shrimp Virus Work Group is to be commended for its efforts to address this.very
serious issue.
• The potential transmission of exotic diseases, specifically shrimp viruses, into native wild
stocks is the single most'serious issue faced by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) in its management responsibilities related to shrimp and aquaculture.
• TPWD does not have the resources to assess the degree of risk associated with any of the
several transmission pathways described in the report. The fact that acknowledged
experts disagree on the potential of such risks compounds the concern. Such conflict
makes it difficult for resource management agencies such as TPWD to take appropriate
action. .
• Each of the four known exotic shrimp diseases has occurred in Texas aquaculture
facilities. Despite claims to the contrary and very real efforts by the industry, the industry
. ' ! ' '
cannot eliminate the potential for introduction of disease into the surrounding
environment. • - .
• Key elements of TPWD's management strategy includes the following:
Allowable Exotic Species. Only one exotic shrimp species, P. vannamei, is
currently permitted for commercial aquaculture in Texas. In the fall, TPWD may
consider a petition to allow the use of P. stylirostris, a species more resistant to
disease, especially TSV. At present, TPWD is considering its use only in closed
systems outside the 200-mile coastal exclusion zone.
38
-------
Disease Management. The aquaculture industry has worked cooperatively with
TPWD to manage TSV, and together they have adopted a response plan that
requires reporting of mortalities, disease testing, and non-discharge of affected
waters within specified time frames. This fall, TPWD will consider new ,
regulations to enhance its disease management capabilities.
Native Species. TPWD supports the use of native shrimp in developing
aquaculture options that reduce both disease and escapement concerns.
Coordinated Permitting. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
has adopted rules to address discharge concerns associated with shrimp
mariculture facilities. TPWD has a formal role in that process and will consider
adoption of complimentary rules this fall.
The report states that recently discovered Asian viruses appear to be more virulent in
domestic shrimp than those thought to be endemic to South and Central America. If this
is the case, it reinforces a conservative approach to disease management.
The report does not adequately describe the significance of the role of states in
aquaculture management The management and permitting approaches of states may
vary widely, and these uncoordinated actions may increase disease risk.
The risk assessment should address two areas that are not addressed in the report:
What has been the impact of U.S. assistance to foreign countries to develop
aquaculture? If these countries are sending diseased shrimp to U.S. processors,
how might the U.S. inadvertently be contributing to the problem?
What are Federal agencies doing to address the use of exotic species in Federal
waters? If open-water aquaculture develops in the future, who will have
permitting authority?
The two most important research needs are:
To assess the presence and distribution of pathogenic viruses in wild stocks.
To assess the risks associated with the processing of imported shrimp. (Based on
volume, this could be the risk that overwhelms all others.)
39
-------
• A number of the research needs listed in the report are very broad in nature. These issues
- - * -. - ••''--,
need to be addressed, but the research needs that contribute to completing the risk
assessment must be the first priority.
• TPWD supports the goal, stated on page 14 of the report. The assessment endpoints also
seem appropriate, although the second assessment endpoint (The ecological structure and
Junction of coastal and near-shore marine communities as they affect wildpenaeid
shrimp populations) may be too broad and long-term to be useful in an assessment
process that must deliver results in short order.
• It is advisable to adopt a tiered approach to the risk assessment.
Cynthia Sarthou ,
Gulf Restoration Network
New Orleans, Louisiana
Environmental Representative
Ms. Sarthou made the following key points:
• The Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) believes that the use of non-native shrimp in live
, mariculture and processing operations poses a threat to the Gulf marine ecosystem. This
' threat comes in two forms: escapement of foreign shrimp and insufficiently treated
effluent. . " • ~ .
• The report indicates that the potential for transmission of viruses to native shrimp
populations is largely unknown. This is contrary to information published in a June 18,
1997 article hi the Port Lavaca News* which states that Dr. Addison Lawrence, director
of the shrimp mariculture project of the Texas Agriculture experiment station, reported
that a white spot-like virus caused a significant die-off of native white shrimp (P.
setiferus) held at the research lab. Although Dr. Lawrence has no information on the
source of the exposure, the article indicates that viruses pose a threat to native shrimp
stocks.
• Protection of wild shrimp must take precedence over shrimp aquacuiture.
• A risk assessment is needed, but it is a long and involved process. Precautionary,
measures need to be implemented now.
40
-------
The report states that "costs to U.S. processors will increase if new detection, control, and
treatment measures are implemented to prevent the environmental release of
contaminated wastes." It is true that these measures may add to the costs incurred by the
processing industry; however, it is only equitable that those who benefit from the industry
creating the risk bear the burden of the cost of measures needed to prevent environmental
contamination associated with their operations.
Federal agencies must involve a wide variety of interested stakeholders in all phases of
the process—from risk assessment to management. The report must include a discussion
of the participation by these diverse groups in all phases of the risk assessment and
management process.
The report should mention the responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and its efforts to date in dealing with the shrimp virus problem. Because FDA is
responsible for regulation and inspection of all imported shellfish, it is the front line
agency for detecting viral agents in imported shrimp. If FDA is not yet involved, it
should be brought into the process.
A mandatory specific pathogen-free (SPF) brood stock program may be the only effective
method of ensuring that aquaculture operations use only pathogen-free stocks. The
possibility of a mandatory SPF program should be mentioned in the report.
The report places too much emphasis on the primary assessment endpoint. Impacts on
wild penaeid shrimp cannot and should not be the major focus of the report. Viruses pose
a threat to other marine species and to the ecosystem as a whole. Thus, the second
endpoint, pertaining to the affects on the ecological structure and function of coastal and
near-shore marine communities, is an equally important endpoint.
Section 7 (Discussion of Action Items) is the weakest section of the report. Although the
report recommends a few action steps that might be taken, the impact of these
recommended steps will not be seen in the short term. Action is needed now to protect
vital marine species and ecosystems.
Gulf Restoration Network recommends that Federal agencies, including USD A-APHIS
and FDA, take the following actions:
41
-------
Require that shrimp from each foreign and domestic shrimp farm be tested for
viruses. ' . . •
Require that infected shrimp be cooked prior to sale or processing:
Require that.shipments of shrimp from each point of origin be kept separate for
- t > . •
ease'of tracking and testing. .
Insist that countries of origin bear the burden of having their seafood inspectors!
certify that shrimp are virusrfree. .
Ban the use of imported shrimp as bait. '
. - • Amend the Lacey Act to include shrimp viruses in order to provide a legal basis to
prevent import of contaminated shrimp. ,
Require virus-contaminated domestic aquaculture facilities to use holding ponds
to stop runoff into the natural environment, net over ponds to prevent transfer by -
birds, and fence ponds so wildlife cannot transfer viruses from ponds to the^
environment.
Require treatment of wastewater from shrimp mariculture facilities and seafood
processing plants, as well as treatment and proper disposal of waste products from
processing facilities.
' " ' ^
Focus research efforts on developing the most effective and inexpensive methods
of treating waste products. •
Impose a duty on imported shrimp to provide a funding source for inspection and
research. , . ' . . '
Increase research on potential effects on me coastal community as a whole.
Federal agencies must focus significant research efforts on methods to contain shrimp
viruses. Information is also needed on the potential impact of introducing these viruses
into the Gulf ecosystem. '
f
Research efforts must focus on the greater ecological impact of these viruses, including
their effects on ecosystem structure (e.g., species composition) and function (e.g.,
predator-prey relationships). , ,
42
-------
* Agencies must determine the full range of risks to the marine environment posed by the
processing of contaminated shrimp. They must also determine appropriate treatment
processes to eliminate viral agents from wastewater discharges.
• Agencies cannot sit idle while this research is being completed. Action is needed now to
prevent the import and possible spread of potentially devastating viruses.
Wilma Anderson
Texas Shrimp Association
Aransas Pass, Texas
Wild Shrimp Fishery Industry
Ms. Anderson made the following key points:
• Exotic shrimp viruses could potentially decimate the wild production of shrimp and
threaten the livelihood of shrimpers. Expedient resolution of this problem is necessary.
• In September 1992, the Texas Shrimp Association identified shrimp aquaculrure as an
activity likely to affect coastal habitat. At this time, no regulations were in place, nor was
a state or Federal agency designated to control this new activity.
• In November 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held a workshop on shrimp
farming on the Texas coast. The Corps had determined that the construction of shrimp
farms in dredge disposal areas was a beneficial use of dredged materials. The workshop
included sessions on how to access Federal start-up funds for shrimp aquaculrure.
• Midway into this meeting, it was announced that exotic shrimp had been accidentally
released from a shrimp farm into the Arroyo Colorado during harvest activities.. Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department took immediate action to control the effects of release
into the Arroyo and the Laguna Madre, which included attempts to recover as many
exotic escapees as possible. Off-shore vessels caught exotic species at Port Mansfield as
late as January 1993. This was the second escapement of exotic shrimp. Another
escapement occurred at a Corps of Engineers shrimp farm along the Brownsville Ship
Channel.
• In 1994, eels were found infected with nematodes.
• In 1995, TSV was identified on the Texas coast.
43
-------
• In 1995, shrimp farmers proposed legislation to exempt until 1999 the discharge of spent
shrimp-growing waters from permit requirements. The proposed legislation failed.
• In 1995, white shrimp were taken from the Gulf of Mexico and stocked in aquaculrure
ponds where diseased shrimp had just died. The native white shrimp likewise succumbed
to TSV, and those shrimp were placed on the market for consumption. The Texas Shrimp
Association protested, but there was no authority to stop this action.
The Texas Shrimp Association filed suit against EPA, asking that action be taken against
the shrimp farms that were operating without wastewater discharge permits.
• In 1997, Texas's lieutenant governor ordered a special subcommittee to develop new
legislation addressing aquaculrure. However, these new aquaculrure bills were killed by
me abrupt adjournment of the state legislature.
• Researchers have recently determined that native species are susceptible to a, variety of
exotic shrimp diseases. .
• The Texas Shrimp Association's primary concerns are:
- The effects on native shrimp of virus and disease from production facilities
The dumping of silt and waste into native shrimp nurseries
- The taldng of native shrimp from the wild
The credibility of researchers
• The Texas Shrimp Association requests that the Federal government stop investing
taxpayers' money in shrimp farming activities and closely monitor overseas participation,
both government and private, in shrimp farming. '
Fishermen feel that we must not sacrifice the many for the few. We must therefore
conserve and protect our marine and estuarine habitat. Immediate action is necessary to
address this serious situation. . '
Dr. Porfirio Alvarez Torres
Institute Nacionalde la Pesca
Mexico
Mexican Representative
A ' ' . ' '
Dr. Alvarez began his presentation by describing the structure of the Instituto Nacional de
la Pesca (the National Institute of Fisheries) and its relationship to other Federal Mexican
44
-------
agencies that deal with aquaculture and fisheries. He explained that the agency's current policy
is to balance natural resource conservation and economic development. The Institute is in charge
of aquaculture research. The main objective of this research is to determine the actual status of
disease in both wild and cultured shrimp in order to develop a strategy of control and mitigation.
Dr. Alvarez made the following key points:
• The shrimp industry is economically very important in Mexico, and Mexico is concerned
about the potential impacts of disease on the industry.
• Aquaculture in Mexico has been growing steadily since 1987.
• The wild catch has decreased from levels of the 1980s, but volumes have been quite
variable.
• In 1995, there were 231 aquaculture farms and 2,235 fishing vessels.
• We need to determine if these viruses have existed in the wild or if they emerged as a
product of aquaculture.
• In the Gulf of California, data show a decrease in 1991 hi the blue shrimp catch both in
the deep sea and in bays and protected waters. We have created a model that simulates
the effects of different factors, such as surface water temperature. Over-exploitation by
fishermen may be a factor in these declines.
• The recovery of blue shrimp populations in the Gulf may be attributable to adaptation to
the virus or to the stabilization of other external factors. Additional rigorous studies are
needed.
• A publication by Dr. Lightner contains information on the natural presence of White Spot
Syndrome Virus in native U.S. shrimp and crayfish populations. This information should
be included in the report of the Shrimp Virus Work Group. It is important that additional
research be done on the presence of these viruses in nonshrimp species in the Gulf of
Mexico.
• We refer to these viruses as "new," but we need to determine how long they have been in
existence.
}
• We also refer to these viruses as "exotic." However, TSV is native to this continent.
45
-------
• We have data that could help close some of the gaps in the report (e.g., data on genetic
variability in natural and cultured shrimp populations in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Pacific coast, particularly for white and blue shrimp.) '
• Mexico is developing laws' and regulations that will establish quarantine and certification
procedures. In the United States, laws regarding aquaculture vary widely from state to
state; however, in Mexico, quarantine and certification procedures will be consistent
among states.
• Mexico is currently developing a very large database on shrimp populations. This • ;
database will provide vital baseline information that we can use in resource management
decision-making and additional research efforts. The database project will be coordinated
among several Mexican agencies.
Attendees asked Dr. Alvarez the following questions:
Q: Pr. Paul Freiier, Texas A&M University]. You do not feel that IHHNV was the major
cause of the decrease in production of P. stylirostris in the Gulf of California. Is that
correct?
A: We believe that the decline was due to; a combination of different factors, not to one
factor, as reflected in the report of the Shrimp Virus Work Group. More analysis is
needed of other factors that may have contributed to the decline. The model that we are
creating may help answer these questions, but now is not the time to have an hirdepth
discussion of this model. . .
Q: [Bill Hoenig, Rich-SeaPak] The report deseribes a crash in shrimp production in 1984,
yet Dr. Alvarez's presentation shows that aquaculture in Mexico did not start until 1987.
What then is the relationship between aquaculture, IHHNV, and the decrease in shrimp
populations in 1984? ,
A: This is an important point that needs additional study. Commercial aquaculture did not- •
really begin until 1986. We need to study the factors that contributed to the decline. At
me time, discussions of the decline focused on over-exploitation of the shrimp resovirce,
not on viruses. '
46
-------
Fritz Jaenike
Harlingen Shrimp Farms
Los Fresnos, TX
Aquaculture Industry Representative
• Mr. Jaenike made the following key points:
• One of the greatest challenges for the shrimp aquaculture industry has been viral disease.
Almost rivaling the viral challenges have been pressures that opposing interest groups
and the misinformed public have placed on regulators.
• Shrimp viruses have affected the shrimp aquaculture industry for over a decade, and the
industry has devoted considerable effort to understanding the viruses.
• One of the most straightforward ways for a shrimp farm to prevent the occurrence of
disease is to avoid introducing the virus in the first place. It is ironic that virus
\
introductions have occurred in spite of efforts to remain virus free through the use of SPF
starter stocks. The industry has been the victim of incidental virus infections, the sources
of which have not been identified. Without an understanding of the sources, it has been
difficult to guard against the occurrence of viruses.
• The use of virus-resistant strains and species of shrimp is the safest way to proceed when
incidental infections cannot be controlled. The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program
has devoted considerable resources to developing SPF strains of P. vannameiihat are also
resistant to TSV. It takes years to accomplish such a goal, and these strains are
considered a work in progress. Currently the degree of Taura Syndrome Virus-resistance
is not guaranteed, however, these strains remain the only option that Texas shrimp
farmers can utilize in 1997.
• Harlingen Shrimp Farms has done considerable work with native P. setiferus, and we feel
that this species has merit in aquaculture, but it is not a species of choice in all situations.
In less intensive situations, P. setiferus is an option, but in more intensive operations,
more work needs to be done to learn what management techniques are necessary for this
species to perform well. P. setiferus males can experience reproductive problems when
held in captivity.
47
-------
The development of SPF populations of P. setiferus will be the focus of continued work
with this species. Harlingen Shrimp Farms is trying to facilitate this effort by providing
starter populations of virus-free P. setiferus.
Much of the Latin American shrimp farming industry has converted to using P.
stylirostris, which is a species with natural resistance to Taura Syndrome Virus. In
previous years, this species was utilized in Texas, but was discontinued due to its
' - . i
susceptibility to IHHNV. SPF stocks of P. stylirostris with resistance to IHHN Virus are
now available for aquaculrure use; however, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
refuses to allow its importation.
I have spent two years compiling data that indicates that there is no additional risk to the
state of Texas from importing P. stylirostris. I believe that use of this species would
actually lower the risks from TSV, rather than increase risks to native species.
This year, all shrimp farms on the upper coastal bend of Texas have experienced
' " ' • i ' •. " , • ; .
significant losses of P. vannamei because of TSV. Shrimp farms in the^Rip Grande
, Valley have not been challenged this year with TSV, but the situation remains risky.
The aquaculrure section of the Shrimp Virus Report (3.2.1) states that White Spot Virus
and Yellow Head Virus occurred in Texas aquaculrure facilities in 1996. This is not the
case. During 1996, bioassays and several analyses were conducted on shrimp that were
grown at the facility that had been diagnosed with White Spot Virus in 1995, and no signs
of the virus were found hi 1996 or have been found this year.
The same section of the report states that no Federal program currently certifies facilities;
-. • J • • "' "
however, it is worth noting that the Harlingen Shrimp Farms hatchery conducts routine
diagnostic programs that have been reviewed by the world's leading shrimp pathologists.
The shrimp processing section of the report (3.2.2) refers to the use of contaminated feed.
All shrimp farms in the U.S. utilize a manufactured, pelleted shrimp feed. The statement
that processed shrimp meal can be a source of virus to the farms is not factual,
considering me temperatures involved during feed manufacturing.
In the viral stressors section of the report(3.3), it is important to distinguish between.
. infectivity by a virus and possibilities for disease caused by a virus. The section of the
report that addresses IHHNV states, quoting work by Dr. Lightner, that all three native
48 .
-------
U.S. shrimp species have been infected experimentally. -The report should note that these
infections were accomplished either by injection or by offering virus-infected tissues to
shrimp as their sole food source. The report should also note that mortalities or disease
did not occur in these shrimp despite the viral challenges. In other words, all three native
shrimp species are fairly tolerant to IHHNV, and to state that the native shrimp can be
infected gives the impression that they are in some danger froni IHHNV when they are
actually not. The same types of statement—that all three native shrimp species have
been experimentally infected with TSV—are made in the TSV section of the report. Here
again, the chances for disease are either not existent or highly unlikely. Neither P.
aztecus nor P. duorarum has been shown to exhibit disease symptoms, despite aggressive
challenges with TSV. The same section states that, once infected, P. setiferus
experiences heavy mortality. This is true in a portion of laboratory experiments but has
'not been shown to occur in the field.
Harlingen Shrimp Farms has done numerous evaluations of the susceptibility of P.
setiferus to TSV. The data generated indicate little if any risk to this species from TSV.
Data to support this conclusion include:
A controlled study done in conjunction with Texas A&M University at Harlingen
Shrimp Farms. In this study, all three native shrimp species were fed TSV-
infected tissues. The P. vannamei control group remained the only shrimp that
exhibited mortality in numerous trials.
Pond production trials done by Harlingen Shrimp Farms in 1995. In these trials,
millions of P. setiferus postlarvae were stocked into the same ponds that
contained P. vannamei survivors of a TSV epidemic. The average survival of the
P. setiferus to harvested shrimp was 70 percent.
Several farms in Texas have raised P. setiferus in ponds adjacent to ponds stocked
with P. vannamei that became infected with TSV. I have not yet heard of one
instance in which P. setiferus have become diseased with TSV in a pond situation.
The wild shrimp populations section of the report (3.7.1) contains subjective statements
that are negative toward aquaculture. The statement that aquaculture is the cause of the
spread of viruses is subjective. The assumption that P. stylirostris in the Gulf of
49
-------
California suffered mortalities from IHHNV is a correlation but not a conclusion. Several
stressors or conditions could have contributed to this decline. ,
• The report should include retailers among the list of. stakeholders. Retailers are not
mentioned in discussions of potential pathways of the virus to the United States. The
importation and distribution of raw frozen seafood by grocers and restaurants occurs
independently of any processors and represents a significant pathway to municipal
landfills and waterways. . '
• The discussion of the management goal states that the: focus of the report is on wild
populations. The report's title references the impact on cultured shrimp. Why is the focus
of the management goal removed from the impact of pathogenic viruses on the
aquaculture industry? During the discussion of assessment endpoints, all focus is on wild
populations, and aquaculture is not even mentioned as a stakeholder at risk.
• The task of completing a risk assessment and setting management goals with such a
widely based input system is ungainly at best. Who will determine the most appropriate
and practical management goals? Will the risk managers have an in-depth knowledge of
.me biology of shrimp and shrimp viruses?
• One of the best outcomes of the risk assessment effort would be to organize and generate
sound scientific information on viral epidemiology, then use this information as a basis
for realistic management recommendations. • . • -~
• Given the current size of the aquaculture industry, it would be very easy to put tough
restrictions on aquaculture and perhaps not on other potential sources. This treatment
would be neither fair nor logical. :
Attendees had the following questions for Mr. Jaenike: .
Q: [Deyaun Boudreaux] I am familiar with one.stocking of P. setiferus. after the die-off of
shrimp in May1995. These P. setiferus were supposedly collected fromthe Gulf of
Mexico in May and stocked in June in the ponds where the P. vanhamei had died. You
said earlier that you had stocked P. setiferus postlarvae; Are we talking about the same
stocking?
A: We are talking about the same stocking. We actually stocked them in July. We harvested
them in October and very early November.
50
-------
Q: And were these shrimp that you got from the Gulf of Mexico the sole source of your
shrimp in 1995?
A: Yes. •
Q: In 1995, were you able to over-winter any brood stock from the P. setiferus!
A: Not at our facility. We dry out everything.
Q: Where did you get your start for the brood stock of P. setiferus that you supplied to other
farms in 1996?
A: We received those from South Carolina.
Q: Did you at any time ever ship any P. setiferus back to South Carolina for stocking?
A: In 1996 yes, but not hi 1995. ,
Julius Collins
President, Gulf Shrimp, Ice and Fuel, Inc.
President, Texas Shrimp Association
Brownsville, Texas
Processing Industry Representative
Mr. Collins made the following key points:
• We are alarmed by evidence that viruses may have been released into the wild population
of our valuable native shrimp. More alarming is the disclosure of uncontrolled
experiments with our native shrimp, whereby they were captured and stocked in open
ponds where cultured species had previously died from non-native viruses. These
infected native shrimp were then processed, placed on the' market, and sold for human
consumption.
• Processors have been suggested as a vector for transmission of shrimp viruses. This has
prompted processors to carefully evaluate their procedures for handling domestic and
imported shrimp. , •
• In the Rio Grande Valley along the Gulf of Mexico, we have the world's largest off-shore
shrimp fleet. Many processors are located here to process both native wild-caught and
imported shrimp. Much imported shrimp comes first to Mexico before its arrival in the
51
-------
U.S. for processing. The largest processors of these shrimp are located in Brownsville.
While some imported product is processed in Brownsville, the majority is processed in
Matamoros, Mexico, before coming across the border. The wastewater from the
Matamoros plant, although untreated, does not flow into the Rio Grande or the Gulf of
Mexico but into El Barril de la Laguna Madre, which has no outlet to the Gulf.
• Wastewater from the Brownsville processing plants is treated at the city's wastewater
treatment plant before being discharged into the Brownsville Shipping Channel. All
shrimp processing facilities in Texas are required to have their wastewater discharged to
sewage treatment plants.
• We strongly oppose proposals by the shrimp aquaculture industry to de-list shrimp
species whose importation to Texas is currently prohibited
• We also adamantly oppose the taking of wild shrimp for the purposes of aquaculture
research. .. " . ,
• Concentrating on vectors such as processors and sea gulls is a smoke screen that does
nothing to bring about the basic reforms that must be implemented.
• We recommend that cleanup of all contaminated farms be required and that field research
with native and exotic shrimp be ceased.
• The introduction of exotic species by aquaculture should be considered a violation of law
under the Non-Indigenous Species Act
• Domestic shrimp farming represents less than one percent of all U.S. shrimp production.
The wild shrimp population is of utmost importance to the fishing and processing sectors.
• Texas processors recommend that processors of imported shrimp in other Gulf Coast
states be required to discharge their wastewater to sewage treatment plants and to
properly dispose of by-product.
We must cease the frantic push to build more and more shrimp farms in the United States,
until the problems of virus and disease are fully understood!
Attendees had the following questions for Mr. Collins. Deyaun Boudreaux of the Texas
Shrimp Association answered on behalf of Mr. Collins:
Q: [Fritz Jaenike] Can you tell me what the basis is for the information you have presented
today about the Texas aquaculture industry?
52
-------
A: This information is contained in Shrimp Capture and Culture Facilities of the United
States* by E.S. Iversen, D.M. Allen, and J.B. Higman, published in North America by
Halstead Press, in 1993.
Q: [Dr. Paul Frelier, Texas A&M University] You made the comment that P. chinensis that
were imported from China went to Dr. Lawrence's facility? Do you have any proof of
that?
A: Several species were involved, but not P. chinensis.
Dr. Fernando Jimenez Guzman
Director de Sanidad Acuicola de la Direction General de Acuacultura
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca
Mexican Representative
Dr. Jimenez provided information on the shrimp aquaculture industry in Mexico. He
explained that shrimp aquaculture hi Mexico began hi 1977. Currently Mexico has two large
zones where shrimp farming is located: 268 farms are located on the Pacific Coast (primarily in
the states of Sinaloa, Nayarit, and Sonora), and 11 farms are located on the Gulf of Mexico
(primarily in the state of Tamaulipas). Mexico is the second largest producer of cultured shrimp
in Latin America.
Dr. Jimenez made the following key points:
• Most postlarvae come from laboratory-reared stock. Wild-captured and imported stock
are less significant sources of postlarvae.
* Mexico allows the cultivation of only native Mexican species: blue shrimp, white
shrimp, and brown shrimp. The cultivation of exotic shrimp is prohibited.
* There is a feeling that the industry in Mexico is over-regulated, which can discourage
investors.
• Mexico has a national initiative in place relating to shrimp aquaculture, extending from
1995 to 2000. The initiative has two subprograms, one dealing with the modernization, of
the industry and the other with sanitary issues. Several government agencies are
involved. Each of these agencies are located under the same secretary.
53
-------
• The Mexican government has contracted with Mexican universities to conduct research
on shrimp viruses and to monitor shrimp disease. Many shrimp farms have been
sampled, as well as laboratories producing postlarvae. The government subsidizes
diagnostic services to aquaculture facilities. .
• Mexico analyzes samples of postlarvae imported from other countries, mainly Nicaragua,
Ecuador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and the United States, to assess hygiene conditions in
these countries.
• Mexico has conducted studies of shrimp populations in the Laguna Madre and other
locations in the Gulf of Mexico. As of 1996, no viruses have been identified in these
wild populations.
• We are .conducting laboratory research on viruses such as IHHNV and TSV. Efforts with
respect to IHHNV are focused on preventing the virus in blue shrimp populations,
because this species is particularly vulnerable to IHHNV. Currently, we do not have
problems with IHHNV, but we recognize that problems could possibly develop at any '
tune. We have studied TSV since 1995.
r • ' ---,-"
• : We have discovered that another pathogen, rickettsia, also poses threats to cultured
'shrimp. Rickettsial disease can result hi losses of up to 80 to 90 'percent.
• Mexico is working with the World Bank to develop two laboratories that will support the
aquaculture industry.
• Research efforts for 1998 will include.additional studies on rickettsial disease and a study
of the ecology of P. aztecus in the Laguna Madre. We will also work on developing a
vaccine for TSV and on developing GIS/remote-sensing technologies to help prevent
diseases in shrimp farms.
Attendees asked Dr. Jimenez the folio whig questions:
Q: Have you looked into potential human health problems related to any of these viruses?
A: All viruses are very specific. They become more specific the longer they are associated
with a carrier. We have hot detected any viruses that could be transmitted to humans
through the consumption of shrimp. Certain viruses can be transmitted to humans
through oysters, for example,,but again, shrimp viruses are very specific.
54
-------
Q: [By Heidi Lovett, Texas A&M University] Could you provide more detail on the
presence of rickertsial disease?
A: In 1998, we will conduct research on this issue. We identified the presence of rickettsia
in studies using electron microscopy. The symptoms of rickettsia infection are very
similar to the symptoms of TSV infection. We don't know if the rickettsias in the Gulf of
Mexico are the same as those found in the Pacific.
Q: [By Bill Hoenig, Rich-SeaPak] Does Mexico have regulations regarding the treatment
s
and disposal of effluent solids by processing plants?
A: Mexico does not have Federal regulations, but the Federal government has made
recommendations to states in the form of an official memo, hi order to help prevent an
outbreak. The Secretary of Health was also involved in preparing this memo. Measures
outlined in the memo include burning processing waste that is not disposed of. Also, we
have prohibited the importation of shrimp from Ecuador for aquaculture and have
prohibited the movement of shrimp from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico and vice-
versa. Shrimp vessels from the south of Mexico are prohibited to take their product to the
north or anywhere else in Mexico.
Q: [By Dave Buzan, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department] When was the first shrimp farm
established in Mexico on the Gulf of Mexico?
A: In 1984.
Q: Is the number of Mexican shrimp farms growing along the Gulf of Mexico?
A: There are currently 10 registered farms.
Q: In what year did you notice the first incidence of TSV?
A: In 1985, in farms. We aren't sure about wild populations.
f-
Q: So you have not confirmed any TSV cases in the Gulf of Mexico?
55
-------
A: There is a recent report that is not fully confirmed of TSV in white shrimp. We have not
seen TSV in blue shrimp in the Gulf. We are testing samples taken last year. We haven't
yet confirmed TSV in shrimp hi the Gulf of Mexico:
' _ . ; , \ •
Q: [By Les Hodgson, Marco Sales, Inc.] Dp you anticipate that this year's El Nino will have
an effect on blue shrimp production, and if so, what effect?
A: Water temperature is one factor that may affect shrimp populations. We are more
concerned with the effects of El Nino on sardines and other species than we are about
shrimp, • '. ,
Prior to opening the floor to public comment, Dr. Charles Menzie asked attendees if they
had any additional questions to ask presenters. Les Hodgson of Marco Sales, Inc., Brownsville,
asked Larry McKinney of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department if his agency knows which
viruses, if any, are affecting populations of wild shrimp off the coast of Texas. He also asked
what testing of wild shrimp is planned or underway in Texas. ,Mr. McKinney responded that the
status of viruses in native shrimp in Texas is unknown, although a white spot-like virus has been
observed hi wild shrimp. This lack of knowledge is a concern, but monitoring is very expensive,
especially when occurrence rates are low. The state does not have the resources to do
monitoring. Dr. Paul Frelier of Texas A&M University stated that the university is starting to
test wild shrimp, but the sample is far from statistically valid. The university will also be testing
for rickettsia. Dr. Frelier stated that the type of rickettsia that has been detected in shrimp is not
a human pathogen.
Public Comment
C.R. Mock
Aquaculture and Environmental Specialist to the Texas Shrimp Association
Galveston, Texas
During his remarks, Mr. Mock offered the following key points:
• The state of Texas should delegate regulatory, authority to the proper state agency and
pass a4aw to require that shrimp diseases be reported. Inasmuch as the Texas
56
-------
Department of Parks and Wildlife does not have a fish disease specialist or appropriate
facilities, the Texas Department of Health should be assigned this new responsibility.
• There is a concern that shrimp farmers in the United States restock SPF shrimp of high
health into diseased ponds, without taking measures to disinfect the ponds prior to
restocking. A 1992 USDA-fmanced document by Dr. Lightner entitled "Shrimp Facility
Cleanup and Restocking Procedures" contains important information on cleanup
procedures and disease prevention measures. The state of Texas should adopt and
implement the procedures set forth in this document.
Robert McFarlane
Consulting Ecologist
McFarlane and Associates
Houston, Texas
Mr. McFarlane spoke on behalf of the Matagorda Bay Foundation and the East
Matagorda Bay Foundation. Mr. McFarlane made the following key points:
• The Shrimp Virus Work Group is to be commended for the report; however, it contains
several omissions.
• The report does not adequately address the urgency of the issue. While further work is
being done on the risk assessment, exotic shrimp will continue to be imported, cultured,
and die of their accompanying diseases. Imported shrimp products, some known to be
infected, continue to find their way to our waters, threatening our native species and
ecosystems. It is ludicrous to allow foreign producers to harvest diseased shrimp and
export them to our markets.
• It is urgent that the following emergency procedures be implemented as rapidly as
possible, using existing laws and controls:
Declare an immediate temporary ban on the importation of exotic shrimp species.
Declare an immediate temporary ban on the importation of diseased shrimp
products.
• The report does not recognize that current U.S. shrimp mariculture policy and practice are
fatally flawed. The development of SPF brood stock and high-health rearing facilities are
high-technology solutions to low-technology problems. The root cause of disease
57
-------
, epidemics is rearing shrimp at high densities. Until methodologies have been developed
to economically raise shrimp at lower densities less susceptible to disease epidemics, we
will continue to experience disease outbreaks.
• The report does not adequately consider the full ecological consequencesof a shrimp
Virus epidemic on the estuarine and near-shore ecosystems. The report does not consider
the role of native penaeid shrimp as "keystone" species. The loss or decline of these
shrimp will trigger widespread and essentially unpredictable negative indirect effects in
coastal ecosystems. As benthic detritivores and scavengers, shrimp play a vital role in the
recycling of nutrients in our estuaries. As prey species for many fishes, invertebrates, and
birds, shrimp are a vital link in aquatic food webs.
•, We recommend that the tiered approach to risk assessment be utilized.
• Establishment of an exotic virus may be an improbable event. Repeated often enough, it
becomes probable and eventually inevitable.
BillHoenig
Rich-SeaPak
Brownsville, Texas
Mr. Hoenig explained that Rich-SeaPak is a frozen food processor that processes shrimp,'
among other foods. Mr. Hoenig made the following key points:
• We are interested in facts. There is much that we dp not know. Unknowns include
infection vectors, what diseases or viruses already exist in the wild, or where the viruses
come from. The course of action should be dictated by the answers to these questions.
•'•-'' " \ ' '
• The report leaves out two major stakeholder groups—retailers and the food'service
industry. •' • _ '•'
• " . '.
• Rich-SeaPak's effluents are treated by the city of Brownsville, and solid wastes are
disposed of at a rendering plant.
58
-------
Lin Turner
Coalition for the Protection of Copano Bay
Fulton, TX
Mr. Turner explained that his organization was formed in May 1995 in response to the
establishment of a semi-intensive conventional shrimp farm on Port Bay, which intended at that
time to discharge into a one-foot deep estuary. Mr. Turner made the following key points?:
• Much good bay habitat has disappeared, and we can afford no more habitat losses.
• We want to prevent our bays from being degraded by the discharge of shrimp farm
effluent. We want to prevent the transmission of these viruses—Taura, White Spot, and
Yellow Head—to our native shrimp and other bay organisms because of the possibly
catastrophic consequences.
• The economic benefits of the shrimp aquaculture industry are minimal compared to the
economic benefits of the wild-caught shrimp industry, yet the aquaculture industry poses
tremendous risks to wild shrimp populations. The risk-benefit ratio is "out of whack" and
needs to be addressed. ,
• If viruses enter wild shrimp populations, the results could be catastrophic.
• We appreciate the Shrimp Virus Work Group's report, and we support research efforts.
However, more is needed from the Federal government, and it is needed now, not three
years from now.
• EPA needs to enforce NPDES (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) for
shrimp farms as the law requires. EPA has responded that it does not have the money or
personnel to do so. EPA needs to examine its priorities, reorder them appropriately, and
take action.
• The U.S. Department of Commerce has extended loans to shrimp farmers. Given the
precipitous decline in the productivity of these farms in 1995 and 1996, virtually solely
due to viruses, it makes no sense to continue to loan money for shrimp farming unuTthe
industry can develop methods to contain these viruses.
• There are other ways to grow shrimp. In Rockport, a venture is underway to build a
raceway farm for shrimp. No .discharge is planned, and the entire operation will be
indoors. This type of shrimp farming may solve a lot of our problems.
59
-------
Pamela Baker
Environmental Defense Fund, Texas Office
Corpus Christi, Texas
Ms, Baker made the following key points:
• The Environmental Defense Fund supports the ecological risk assessment proposed by
theJSA. , .
• The management goal should be broadened to attempt to prevent the establishment of
viruses in all marine species, not just shrimp. We already know that viruses can affect
other species, such as crabs. The establishment of these viruses could substantially harm
fisheries and have severe ecological consequences.
• The management goal must clearly emphasize that the goal is to prevent the
establishment of viruses in the Gulf and southeast Atlantic. The management goal
currently gives equal status to minimizing potential impacts on shrimp importation,
processing, and aquaculture operations. This split emphasis creates a potential conflict
.that may severely inhibit the assessment process.
• The JS A should consider the indirect ecological effects from the establishment of shrimp
viruses.
• The ISA should place greater emphasis on shrimp import and retail industriesjn order to
avoid virus introductions in the first place.
• The JS A should follow a tiered approach for conducting the ecological risk assessment.
• The ISA should also develop a tiered approach to implementing its findings, because of
the urgency of the issue and the time it will take to complete the risk assessment and
implement the relevant policies. .
• , Already, there is adequate evidence to take these actions now: ,
Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for coastal shrimp farms,
including exclusive use of high-health postlarvae from certified facilities, - .
biosecurity measures to control vehicular and personnel traffic, and regularly
scheduled disease monitoring. '
Processing plants should treat their wastewater and dispose of shrimp wastes in a
manner that prevents access by animals.
\ . ' • . •• • • - •
• ' , 60
-------
Disease diagnostic procedures should be improved.
Deyaun Boudreaux
Texas Shrimp Association
Port Isabel, Texas
Ms. Boudreaux made the following key points:
• The report of the Shrimp Virus Work Group contains much valuable information and
does a very good job defining authorities over shrimp farming.
• The Federal government has a duty to ensure the well being of the shrimp fishery
resource. The Federal government must require states to develop guidelines for the
"taking" of shrimp to prevent their exposure to viruses in laboratories, hatcheries, and
farms where exotic, species have been held for shrimp farming and production.
• Shrimp viruses can mutate and adapt to new hosts and new environments. The medium
of water provides many opportunities for exposure to mutated viruses.
• Work should be done by Federal agencies to inventory applicable laws in each state and
to develop standards for implementing the Clean Water Act. Site surveys should be
required, pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
• We could help shrimp farmers learn to practice water stewardship, which could enhance
their chances for healthy, viable shrimp with few losses associated with pollution.
61
-------
7. STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Thibodaux, Louisiana
July25,1997
Stakeholder Presentations
L. Brandt Savoie
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
State Regulatory Perspective
Mr. Savoie made the following key points:
• Louisiana has very little experience with this issue, because there are no shrimp
aquaculture facilities in the state. ,
• Shrimp cannot be raised in ponds in the coastal zone of Louisiana without permits from
both the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources.
The total economic impact of commercial marine shrimp and shellfish harvest to the state
of Louisiana is estimated to be $1.9 billion. According to 1996 NMFS data, the
commercial dockside harvest of marine shrimp and shellfish.in Louisiana is estimated to
be $179.3 million. In 1996, 90.2 million pounds of shrimp were landed. Approximately
22,000 jobs in Louisiana are supported by the domestic commercial marine shrimp and
shellfish harvest.
* ' \ •
• The following three areas are of concern: '
Transport of imported shrimp to the United States. No nationwide standard
appears to exist. Louisiana currently does not allow live specimens for culture,
but does allow imports for processing.-There also appears to be no nationwide
standard to govern what happens to wastewater during transport.
Processing. Currently in Louisiana, processed shrimp parts are screened and
.landfilled. Wastewater is currently not checked or treated for viruses.
62
-------
Pond culture. Currently, there is no pond culture in Louisiana. If allowed, would
postlarvae and juveniles be guaranteed disease free, and if so, by whom?
Currently, aquaculture operations are not checked for viruses.
• Shrimp viruses are widespread throughout the world. There is no reason to suspect that
viruses would not occur in Louisiana.
• The report suggests that viruses were responsible for reduction in wild stock in the Gulf
of California. There is no reason to think this could not happen in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Viruses have not been identified in native U.S. shrimp. There is no documentation, but
we have recently been advised that Texas A&M University recently found White Spot
Virus hi white shrimp brood stock.
• We are concerned that foreign aquaculture operations harvest ponds when diseases are
found. Infected shrimp end up hi Louisiana processing plants still carrying viable
pathogens.
• Species other than shrimp may be at risk. Crabs and crawfish hi particular have been
found with these viruses. Both are important in Louisiana. We are particularly
concerned about risks to crawfish ponds. -
• The most important weapon needed to control diseases is knowledge. Without knowledge ,
of the distribution of these viruses, sound decisions about control or containment cannot
be made.
• We need to learn if poor production years are linked to viruses that may already be
present in wild stocks but have not been observed.
An attendee asked if the White Spot Virus that has turned up in the Gulf of Mexico'is the
same virus as has been seen in Asia. Mr. Savoie responded that he believes the virus is similar to
but not the same as the White Spot Virus hi Asia.
William Chauvin
Shrimp World, Inc.
New Orleans, LA
Processing Industry Representative
Mr. Chauvin explained that Shrimp World, Inc., is the management firm for the
American Shrimp Processors Association. He made the following key points:
63
-------
Members of the American Shrimp Processors Association are very concerned about the
issue of shrimp viruses.
We have experienced wild swings in supply and particularly in shrimp prices throughout
the world, nearly all resulting from the successes and failures of aquaculture operations
throughout the world. ,
Nearly 80 percent of shrimp processed in the United States is imported.
Many of the operations in the Gulf Coast area continue to be dependent on domestic
shrimp production for profitability hi their business. In both the Atlantic and the Pacific
regions, many processors utilize nearly all imported shrimp.
The leading shrimp supplying countries, Thailand and Ecuador, supplied 44 percent of
last year's shrimp imports. Nearly all these shrimp are cultured.
Processors depend on both imported shrimp and shrimp from the aquaculture sector for
their supplies. We are concerned that overreaction to the shrimp virus issue may
endanger a significant portion of our supply. Already, South Carolina has quarantined
some shrimp farms and ordered the destruction of shrimp in others. This measure may
have been premature or unnecessary.
The Shrimp Virus Work Group is to be commended for the report; however, additional.
research and supplementary data are needed.
Except for the conclusion that indigenous P. setiferus, P. aztecus, and P. duoraruni can
be infected by viruses under laboratory conditions, there has been no research that
concludes that these shrimp can assimilate the virus in the open waters of the Gulf.
The only instance where wild shrimp were thought to be infected by a virus was in
Mexico's Gulf of California, where the species is the same as those utilized in
aquaculture operations. The decline in Mexican Pacific shrimp ;stocks beginning in 1987
may have been due to circumstances other than viruses. An El Nino occurrence possibly
could have altered water temperatures and affected predation of shrimp or changed the
ecology of the bay and estuary nursery areas. Additionally, along the west coast, there
are many "tapos," which are berrhs that trap the juvenile shrimp and prevent them from
emigrating into the open ocean. It is also possible that an abnormal ecological and
environmental situation could have reduced the shrimp's immunity to the virus.
64
-------
• We urge that more research be undertaken to look at the natural stocks in the Gulf and
South Atlantic areas to determine if any virus is endemic to these species.
• The report discusses possible introduction of pathogenic viruses from ship ballast water.
The species cited are not only different species from those we know may carry a virus,
but are also of a different superfamily than the Penaeoida. More research is needed here.
• We are pleased that the Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends that a workshop be
convened to further examine this issue and to produce a risk assessment using the
information from the stakeholders meetings. We urge that industry representatives
participate in this meeting.
Esther Boykin
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
New Orleans, Louisiana
Environmental Representative
Ms. Boykin made the following key points:
• The report of the Shrimp Virus Work Group is very readable and contains a useful
summary of current information on shrimp viruses and their potential impacts., However,
t
we have serious concerns about aspects of the report.
• The report states that "threats to the sustainability of U.S. marine resources due to exotic
shrimp viruses are increasing." We therefore question the necessity of completing any
major analysis document, such as a risk assessment, before taking action to protect
indigenous species. Although there are some data gaps and research needs, it is
unreasonable and imprudent to require that the science be conclusive before acting. By
the time there is absolute proof that our wild shrimp populations are at risk from exotic
shrimp viruses, it will be too- late. The report does not reflect the urgency for action that
this problem demands. We urge the JSA to act swiftly for "real world" protection of
these valuable marine resources. . ,
• We urge that the management goal be redrafted to be more protective of wild shrimp
populations and aquatic ecosystems and to retain all potential alternatives for such
management. Such a goal might read: "Prevent the introduction of disease-causing
shrimp into the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters."
65
-------
• We urge the JSA to consider adopting a precautionary approach rather than an
assimilative capacity approach. We do not suggest that a precautionary approach would
lead to a "no harm" situation. It should, however, aid in identifying the most feasible
precautionary alternatives.
• The JSA should conduct an alternatives assessment rather than a risk assessment. A full
range of alternatives for the control of shrimp viruses should be identified. The
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative should be reviewed on a number of
parameters, including short-term and long-term effects, biological factors, economics,
and degree of control.
• One of the most striking deficiencies in the report is the incomplete analysis of the
. > v • -
currently available legal mechanisms for addressing the shrimp virus problem. It is
helpful that the report outlines the Federal agencies that may have a role hi addressing the
shrimp virus problems and the potentially relevant legal authorities. Only in reference to
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), however, does it state that the
appropriate legal staff is "currently investigating whether existing statutes and executive
orders can be interpreted to provide the authority to regulate the importation and
interstate movement of shrimp and shrimp-products to prevent and control shrimp
viruses." Such legal research should have been requested from the General Counsel's
office of each potentially relevant department and independent agency long ago. It is
, likely that legal mechanisms currently exist to address some aspects.of the problem
immediately.
.« We urge the JSA to request assistance immediately from the offices of General Counsel
of the following Federal agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture.
An attendee asked Ms. Boykin how countries that are affecting our shrimp populations
could be made accountable. She responded that she did not have a specific mechanism to outline
or suggest. She stated that we currently have mechanisms in place for similar situations, such as
Newcastle Disease, which is a viral disease that affects both domestic and wild birds. We do
make an attempt to test and quarantine incoming animals that may be carrying this virus in order
to protect both domestic and native species.
66
-------
An attendee, Donald Lirette, stated that a cholera outbreak in shrimp occurred several
years ago in Louisiana, coincidentally in the same area where shrimp are processed. ,He then
asked Ms. Boykin if a mechanism exists, perhaps through the Food and Drug Administration, to
try to curb the importation of infected shrimp from other countries or states. Ms. Boykin stated
that she was not sure, but that this kind of question should be referred to the Shrimp Virus Work
Group.
Another attendee asked Ms. Boykin what the liability would be if viruses originating
from a shrimp farm were to infect the wild shrimp population and cause direct economic losses
to shrimp farmers. She stated that she would assume that there would be some liability, but there
would be major problems proving it.
George Barisich
United Commercial Fisherman's Association
Violet, Louisiana
Commercial Fishing Industry Representative
Mr. Barisich made the following key points:
• I hope-that this exercise will not be another exercise in futility. The commercial fishing
industry has repeatedly supplied dates, opinions, and assistance in matters related to
fisheries, only to have most of this information basically ignored. Many in the industry
feel that NMFS will do whatever it wants regardless of how unfair or burdensome the
actions are to the fishing industry.
• The commercial fishing industry is very concerned about the virus issue.
• Not enough is being done to stop the importation of virus-affected product into the
United States. Once a virus is discovered in foreign shrimp farms, the practice is to
harvest as soon as possible to cut the losses. This in turn increases the amount of
potentially infected product. This issue must be addressed in the risk assessment.
• We must aggressively pursue more ways to test for these viruses and develop ways to ,
prevent their introduction into the wild shrimp harvest areas.
• It is likely that scientists will be asking for more money to study the shrimp virus
problem. Some of these funds should be placed in escrow hi the event that a shrimp virus
67
-------
decimates the wild shrimp crop. These funds should be used to compensate the
fishermen who will be unable to turn a profit through no fault of their own.
If a large-scale virus epidemic were to significantly reduce our shrimp crop for even one
year, the industry would collapse, the economies of the coastal communities would be
devastated, and people would lose their vessels and their homes. The bottom line is that
the industry must be protected. ......
If the virus remains contained in foreign aquaculture facilities and their production
capabilities decrease, or they are banned from shipping into the United States,
commercial shrimp fishermen will once again get a decent price foftheir product.
.The Shrimp Virus Work Group report provides a reference point for identifying and
starting work on the problem. Positive aspects of the report are that it identifies several
possible'ways the viruses could be introduced into the wild, recognizes the need for
commercial representation, and identifies agencies that should be involved in regulating
to prevent the spread of the virus.
1 ' ' '
On the other hand, the report is extremely repetitious. The subheadings make statements
. that do not appear to be substantiated in the report. Also, the fact that NMFS had a great
deal to do with the report makes its credibility to the commercial fishing industry slim to
none;
More research needs to be initiated, but NMFS should not necessarily be given control of
the research. .
Emphasis should be placed on eliminating the introduction of infected product into the
United States, coupled with securing some funding to support the industry if and when
the wild crop is affected. , . • •'.
Public Comments
Toby Gascon
Office of U.S. Congressman Billy Tauzin
Gonzales, Louisiana
Mr. Gascon stated that Congressman Tauzin is concerned about the economic and
environmental impacts that the virus can pose. He is willing to work with both state and Federal
. 68 ''.""'."."-
-------
agencies to correct the problem, or potential problem, either through the funding of research or
through corrective measures. Gatherings like this stakeholder meeting will help the
Congressman develop an educated opinion about the most feasible action that should be taken to
remedy the problem.
Donald Lirette
Terrebonne Fishermens' Organization
Montegut, LA .
Mr. Lirette submitted for the record a copy of minutes of a November 1989 meeting of
the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Gulf of Mexico Program. He stated that the minutes
show the first time the problem was presented publicly to NMFS and EPA.
Mr. Lirette made the following key points:
• Not many shrimpers attended today's .stakeholder meeting because they do not trust
NMFS, largely because of the way NMFS handled the by-catch issue.
• Statistics in the Shrimp Virus Work Group's report conflict with other data contained in a
fish farming magazine. As reported in this magazine, the actual wild shrimp catch
throughout the world is far greater than statistics contained in the Shrimp Virus Work
Group report.
• Shrimp farms are causing a near collapse of the World Bank.
• There is concern about experimental work with "surrogate" shrimp.
• Shrimp from Texas processed in Louisiana were responsible for a cholera outbreak in the
wild Louisiana shrimp population.
• Ship ballast water was responsible for disease in oysters, shrimp, and crabs in Mobile
Bay.
• Management actions need to address the processing issue. Importation of diseased
shrimp from foreign aquaculture facilities is a concern. There is also a concern that
foreign shrimp ponds have sewage effluent running through them.
• I am not opposed to more money for research, as long as the research brings results.
69
-------
Appendix A
Stakeholder Meeting Agendas
Not available in electronic format.
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Fort Johnson Marine Resources Center Auditorium
Department of Natural Resources
217 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC
July 15, 1997
Final Agenda
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 199 7
8:OOAM Registration
9:OOAM Welcome and Introductory Remarks Dr. Charles Menzie, Meeting Facilitator
9:20AM Introduction and Background 'Dr. Kay Austin
JSA Shrimp Virus WorkGroup Representative
9:50AM Aquaculture industry Representative Mr. Bill Cox
South Carolina Shrimp Growers Association,
Youngs Island, SC
10:10AM Aquaculture Industry Representative * Mr. David Cannon
Edisto Shrimp Company,
Edisto Island, SC
10:30AM BREAK
10:45AM Wild Fishery Industry Representative : Mr. Steve Kerchner
South Carolina Shrimpers Association (Southern),
St. Helena, SC
11:05AM Processing Industry Representative Mr. Rutledge Leland
Carolina Seafood,
McClellanville, SC
11:25AM State Regulatory Representative Dr. Paul Sandifer and Dr. John Migiarese
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources,
• Charleston, SC
11:40PM Open the Floor to Scheduled Public Comments
Each commenter has been allotted 5 minutes to present comments to allow time to hear ail
those who wish to present comments. Written comments are welcomed. If time allows after all
scheduled commenters have spoken, we will entertain additional comments or questions from
the attendees. .
1:30PM Closing Remarks/Next Steps Charles Menzie, Facilitator
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Adam's Mark Mobile Riverview Plaza
Mobile, Alabama
July 21, 1997
Final Agenda
M O N D A Y , J U L Y 2 1 , 1 9 9 7
8:OOAM Registration
9:10AM Welcome and Introductory Remarks .;, Dr. Charles Menzie, Meeting Facilitator
9:25AM Introduction and Background . ....... Dr. Kay Austin,
, . JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group Representative
10:10AM Processing Industry Representative ; ;. Richard Gollot
Biloxi, MS
10:20AM BREAK ; '""
10:40AM Environmental Representative .-.'....... r . Becky Gillette
t Ocean Springs, MS
10:55AM State Representative ., ^ Tom Mcllwain,
- . Pascagoula, MS,
and Tom Van Devender,
. , Biloxi, MS
11:05AM Open the Floor to Scheduled Public Comments
Each commenter has been allotted 5 minutes to present comments to allow time to hear all
those who wish to present comments. Written comments are welcomed. If time allows after all
scheduled commenters have spoken, we will entertain additional comments or questions from
the attendees. • .
11:25AM Open Comments •
11:35PM Closing Remarks/Next Steps .. Charles Menzie, Facilitator
11:40PM ADJOURN
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Holiday Inn Fort Brown
Brownsville, Texas
July 23, 1997
Final Agenda
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1997
8:OOAM Registration
9:OOAM Welcome and Introductory Remarks Dr. Charles Menzie, Meeting Facilitator
9:20AM Introduction and Background Dr. Kay Austin,
JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group Representative
9:50AM State Representative : Dr. Larry McKinney
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
Austin, TX
10:10AM Environmental Representative Ms. Cynthia Sarthou
Gulf Restoration Network,
New Orleans, LA
10:30AM BREAK
10:45AM Wild Shrimp Fisheries Representative Ms. Wilma Anderson
Texas Shrimp Association,
Aransas Pass, TX
11:05AM Mexican Representative Dr. PorfurioAlverez Torres,
Instituto Nacional Pesca,
Mexico
11:25AM Aquaculture Representative ; Mr. Fritz Jaenike
Hatlingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd.,
Los Fresnos, TX
11:45AM Shrimp Processing Representative
Mr. Julius Collins
Gulf Shrimp, Ice and Fuel, Inc.,
Brownsville, TX
12:05PM Mexican Representative Dr. Fernando Jimenez Guzman
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca
Mexico
12:25PM LUNCH * .
Printed on Recycled Paper
(over)
-------
1:30PM Question & Answer Period . ....;......>..... Charles Menzie, Facilitator
2:OOPM Open the Floor to Scheduled Public Comments
Each commenter has been allotted 5 minutes to present comments to allow time to hear all
those who wish to present comments. Written comments are welcomed. If time allows after all
scheduled commenters have spoken, we will entertain additional comments or questions from
the attendees. , ..
2:50PM ADJOURN
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Bayou Suite at the Student Union
Nicholls State University
Thibodaux, LA
July 25, 1997
Final Agenda
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997
8:OOAM Registration
9:OOAM Welcome and Introductory Remarks Dr. Charles'Menzie, Meeting Facilitator
9:20AM Introduction and Background Dr. Kay Austin
JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group Representative
9:50AM State Regulatory Representative '. Mr. Brandt Savoie
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Baton Rouge, LA
10:10AM Processing Industry Representative Mr. William Chauvin
Shrimp World, Inc.,
New Orleans, LA
10:30AM BREAK -
10:45AM Environmental Representative Ms. Esther Boykin
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,
New Orleans, LA
11:05AM Wild Catch Industry Representative George Barisich
Violet, LA
11:15AM Question & Answer Period Dr. Charles Menzie
Open the Floor to Scheduled Public Comments
Each commenter has been allotted 5 minutes to present comments to allow time to hear all
those who wish to present comments. Written comments are welcomed. If time allows after all.
scheduled commenters have spoken, we will entertain additional comments or questions from
the attendees.
12:30PM Closing Remarks/Next Steps Dr. Charles Menzie
12:35PM ADJOURN • ' -
i Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Appendix B
Stakeholder Meeting Attendees
Not available in electronic format.
-------
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Fort Johnson Marine Resources Center Auditorium
Department of Natural Resources
217 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC
July 15, 1997
Final Attendee List
Tony Amoriggi
19355 N.E. 36th Court - Suite 27K
Miami, FL 33180
954-221-2748
Fax:305-935-0090
Kay Austin
National Center for
Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and
Development
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8623)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5789
Fax:202-260-8719
E-mail: austin.kay@epamail.epa.gov
Amy Ball
Biologist
Marine Resources Division
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
P.O.,Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
803-762-5106
Fax:803-762-5110
R. Martin Bail
NRC Fellow
Natural Marine Fisheries Service
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charieston.SC 29412
803-762-8634
E-mail: marty.ball@noaa.gov
David Cannon
President
Edisto Seafarms, inc.
P.O. Box 39
Edisto Island, SC 29438-0039
803-869-3675
Fax:. 803-869-4399
Jesse Chapzell
President
Southland Fisheries Corporation
600 Old Bluff Road
Hopkins, SC 29061
803-776-4923
Fax: 803-776-4975
E-mail: sfc@aol.com
Linda Chaves
Director
Industry and Trade Program
National Marine Fisheries Services,
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-2379, Ext.: 140
Fax:301-713-2384
E-mail: lindachaves@noaa.gov,
Eric Connor
Reporter '
Beauford Gazette
1556 Salem Road
P.O. Box 399
Beaufdrd, SC 29901
803-986-5544
Fax:803-524-8728
Bill Cox
President
South Carolina Shrimp
Growers Association
Island Fresh Seafood
7575 Ethel Post Office Road
Yonges Island, SC 29449
E-mail: 76171.1720@compuserve;Com
V.A. Cox
Grower
Island Fresh Seafood
7540 Ethyl Post Office Road
Yonges Island, SC 29449
803-820-5583
David Cupka
Director ,
Office of Fisheries Management
Marine Resources
; South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 12753
Charleston, SC 29422
803-762-5010
E-mail: cupkad@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us
Susan Davis
The Miss Marilyn
4755 River Road
Johns Island, SC 29455
803-768-0670
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Rick DeVoe
Executive Director
South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium
287 Meeting Street
Charleston.SC 29401
803-727-2078
Fax: 803-727-2080
E-mail: devoemr@musc.edu
Craig Dopson
Commercial Fisherman
Dopson Seafood
Route 2-P.O. Box 159A
Yernassee, SC 29945
803-844-8483
Fax: 803-838-3281
Andrew Duda
, A. Duda & Sons, Inc.
P.O. Box 620257
Ovedo, FL 32762-0257
407-365-2143
Fax: 407-365-2147
Richard Eager
President
Swimming RockFish & Shrimp
Farm
6989 Toogoodoo Road
Meggett, SC 29449
803-889-2622
Fax: 803-889-2622
Jerome Erbacher
Office of Industry and Trade
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
1315 East-West Highway
Room 3675
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-2379
Fax: 301-713-2384
E-mail: jerome.erbacher@noaa.gov
W. Eddie Gordon
President
South Carolina Crab Company
P.O. Box 309
McClelanville, SC 29458
803-887-3296
Fax: 803-887-3544
Howard Harder
Marine Biologist
Edisto Shrimp Company
P.O. Box 39
Edisto Island, SC 29438
803-869-3675 -
Fax: 803-869-4399
Gerald Hazen
Board Member
South Carolina Coastal Conservation
Association
104 Hedge Row
Goose Creek, SC 29445
803-553-9606
David Hood
Marine Biologist
Edisto Shrimp Company
P.O. Box 39
Edisto Island, SC 29438
803-869-3675
Fax: 803-869-4399
Steve Hopkins
Wadeli Mariculture Center
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 809
Blufton, SC 29910
803-837-3795
Fax: 803-837-3487
Wallace Jenkins
Marine Biologist
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29412
803-762-5411
Fax:803-762-5110
E-mail: jenkinsw@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us
Daryl Jory
Technical Advisor
Zeigler Brothers, Inc.
400 Gardners Station Road
Gardners, PA 17324
717-677-6181
Fax:717-677-6826
Steve Kerch ner
South Carolina Shrimp Association
P.O. Box 634
St. Helena, SC 29920
803-524-3566
Fax: 803-986-0801
David Knott
Marine Biologist
Marine Resources
Research Institute
Marine Resources Division
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
803-762-5038
Fax:803-762-5110
E-mail: knottd@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us
Michael LaBoche
Owner
Cherry Point Seafood Company
2789 Cherry Point Road
Washmalaw Island, SC 29487
803-559-0858
Fax: 803-559-1069
Lynn Langley
Reporter
Post & Courier Newspapers
134 Columbus Street
Charleston, SC 29403-4800
803-937-5589
Fax: 803-937-5579
Rolland Laramore
Bonney, Laramore, & Hopkins, Inc.
443 22nd Place, SE
Vero Beach, FL 32962
407-365-2143
Fax:407-365-2147
Rutledge Leland
Carolina Seafood
-22 Oak Street
' McClellanvilie, SC 29458
803-887-3713
Wiiliam MacGrath
131 Parliament Court
Fort Pierce, FL 34949
561-466-9280
Douglas Makie
Owner
Fingerlakes Aquaculture
P.O. Box 154
Hollywood, SC 29449
803-889-9012
Fax: 803-889-9012
-------
Charles Menzie
Menzie-Cura & Associates Inc.
2 Courthouse Lane - Suite 2
Chelmsford, MA 01824
978-970-2620 •
Fax:978-970-2791
E-mail: menziecu@aol.com
John Miglarese
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
219 Fort Johnson Road
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
803-762-5058
Fax: 803-762-5001
Richard Orr
Senior Entomologist
Animal & Plant Health
Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
4700 River Road - Unit 117
Riverdale, MD 20732
301-734-8939
Fax:301-734-5899
Sarah Prior
Wadell Mariculture Center
South .Carolina Department
of Natural Resources"
P.O. Box 809
Blufton, SC 29910
803-837-3795
Fax: 803-837-3487
Douglas Rader
Senior Scientist
North Carolina Office
Environmental Defense Fund -
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
919-881-2601
Fax: 919-881-2607
E-mail: doug@edf.org
Lou Ann Reed
National Marine Fisheries Service
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
803-762-8587
Fax:803-762-8700
E-mail: louann.reed@noaa.gov
Paul Sandifer
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources,
219 Fort Johnson Road
P.O. 66x12559
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
803-762-5042
Fax: 803-762-5001
Jim Scott
Manager
Annandale Plantation '
241 Annandale Road
Georgetown, SC 29440
803-546-5976
Betsy Sheehan
Aquatics Coordinator
South Carolina Department
of Agriculture
P.O. Box11280
Columbia, SC 29205
803-734-2210
E-mail: betsy%scda@gm0.state.sc.us
Cheryl Shew
Sales Specialist
Zeigier Brothers, Inc. ,
400 Gardners Station Road
Gardners, PA 17324
717-677-6181
Fax:717-677-6826
Thomas Siewicki
Southeast Fisheries Science Center
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston Laboratory
Charleston.SC 29412-9110
803-762-8534
Fax:803-762-8700
E-mail: tom.siewicki@noaa.gov
Roger Sorg
Pathologist
Skidaway Island
, Oceanographic Institute -
P.O. 60X22524
Hilton Head Island, SC 29925
803-842-4592
Fax:803-842-5592
A/Stokes
Wadell Mariculture Center
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 809
Blufton, SC 29910
803-837-3795
Fax:803-837-3487
Kevin Westendorff
Owner >
Sand Creek Mariculture ~
405 B West Coleman Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
803-693-6732
Fax: 803-881-3127 •
Jack Whetstone
Extension Aquatic Specialist
Clemson University Extension
P,O. Box 1100
Georgetown, SC' 29442
803-546-4481
Fax: 803-546-.2243
E-mail: jwhtstn@clemsonedu
David Whitaker
Assistant Director
Office of Fish Management
Marine Resources
South Carolina Department /
of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29412
803-762-5052 J
Fax: 803-762-5001
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Adam's Mark Mobile Riverview Plaza
Mobile, Alabama
July 21, 1997
Final Attendee List
Asif Akbar
501 East Burgess Road - A6
Pensacola, FL 32504
407-491-4207
Kay Austin
National Center
for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and
Development
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8623)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5789 .
Fax:202-260-8719
E-mail: austin.kay@cpamail.epa.gov
Mark Berrigan
Environmental Administrator
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
M.S. Douglas Building (MS-205)
3900 Commonwealth Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
904-488-5471
Fax: 904-922-6398
E-mail; berrigan_m@md090.dep.state.fi.us
William Chauvin
Managing Director
American Shrimp Processors
Association
P.O. Box 50774
New Orleans, LA 70150
504-368-1571
Fax: 504-368-1573
E-mail: chauvin@shrimpcom.com
R.D. Ellender
Assistant Dean for Research
College of Science & Technology
University of Southern Mississippi
P.O. Box 5165
Hattiesburg, MS 39406
601-266-4887
Fax: 601-266-5829
E-mail: ellender@ocean.stusm.edu
Charles Evans
Delfemar S.A.
14555 Innerarity Road
Pensacola, FL 32507
904-492-1193
Fax: 904-492-0322
Becky Gillette
6104 Oliva Circle
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
601-842-3457
Richard Gollott
P.O. Box 1458
Biloxi, MS 39533,
601-374-6121
James Heerin
Chairman
Shrimp Culture, Inc.
300 Grimes Bridge Road
Roswell, GA 30075
770-238-519.5
Fax: 770-552-6577
E-mail: jheerin@aol.com
Thomas Herrington
Associate Director
Gulf of Mexico Program
Science and Applied
Technology Division
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Building 1103 - Room 203
Stemmis Space Center, MS 39529-6000
601-688-7941
fax: 601-688-2306
E-maii: henrington@pelican.gmpo.gov
Bill Holland
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 1103 - Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000
601-688-3726
Fax:601-688-2709 .
E-mail: holland.bill@epamail.epa.gov
Fred Kopfler
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,
Building 1103 - Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS
39529-6000
601-688-3726
Fax: 601-688-2709
E-mail: kopfler.fred@epamail.epa.gov
Joel Magazzu
Owner
Gulf Coast Environmental Technologies
P.O. Box 179
Escatawpa, MS 39552
601-474-3664
Fax: 601-474-3664
Printed on Recycled Paper
(over)
-------
Joseph Magazzu
President
PERC Technology
World Environmental Technology
3228 Kingsbridge Drive
Pascagoula, MS 39581
601-475-5443
Fax:601-474-3664
Roy Martin
Vice President
National Fisheries Institute
1901 North Fort Meyer Drive
Arlington, VA 22209
703-524-8883
Fax:703-524-4619
Thomas Mcllwain
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
3209 Frederick Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
601-762-4591
Fax: 601-769-9200 ,
E-mail: tmcilwai@nQaa.gov
Charles Menzie
Menzie-Cura & Associates Inc.
2 Courthouse Lane - Suite 2
Chelmsford, MA 01824
978-970-2620
Fax:978-970-2791
E-mail: menziecu@aol.com
Bob Middlebrooks
Chair, Department of
Biological Sciences
University of Southern Mississippi
P.O. Box5018
Hattiesburg, MS 39406
601-266-4748
Fax:601-266-5797
E-mail: midbrobk@st.usm.edu
Otis Miller
National Aquaculture Coordinator
National Animal Health Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture
APHIS
4700 River Road - Unit 43
Riverdale, MD 20737
301-734-4914
Fax: 301-734-7964 •'..-•
E-mail: omiller@aphis.usda.gov
Tom Van Devender
Liaison Director
Mississippi Department
of Marine Resources
151 Gateway Drive
Bilpxi, MS-39561
601-385-5860 .
Fax: 601-385^-5864 ^
William van der Schalie
National Center
for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and
Development
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8623)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260^4191
Fax: 202-260-6370
E-mail: vanderschaiie.william
@epamail.epa.gov
Rick Wallace
Extension Marine Specialist
AUMFRC
Auburn University
4170 Commanders Drive
Mobile, AL 36526
334-458-5690
Fax:334-438-5070
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Holiday Inn Fort Brown
Brownsville, Texas
July 23, 1997
Final Attendee List
Porfirio Alvarez Torres
Director General
Direccion General de Investigation
en Acuacultura
Institute Nacional Pesca
SEMARNAP
Pitagoras 1320
Col. Santa Cruz Atoyac, 03310
Mexico
E-mail: porfirfo@servidor.unam.mx
Wilma Anderson
Texas Shrimp Association
P.O. Box 1020
Aransas Pass, TX 78335
Kay Austin
Office of Research
and Development
National Center for
Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8623)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5789
Fax:202-260-8719
E-mail: austin.kay@epamail.epa.gov
Pamela Baker
Fisheries Biologist
Texas Office
Environmental Defense Fund
521 Peerman Place
Corpus Christie, TX 78411
512-853-9159
Fax: 512-853-8969
E-mail.' panddbaker@aol.com
Randy Blankinship
Bay Ecosystem Biologist
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
95 Fish Hatchery Road
Brownsville, TX 78520
210-350-4490
Fax:210-350-3470
Deyaun Boudreaux
Environmental Director
Texas Shrimp Association
BoxAF
Port Isabel, TX 78578
956-943-3932
Fax:-956-943-1743
Hugo Bridger
Vice President, Southwest Operations
Rich-SeaPac
3555 East 14th Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
210-542-0001
Fax: 210-504^401
DeWayne Burns
Coordinator of Special Issues
Texas Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 12847
Austin, TX 78711
512-463-7413
Fax: 512-463-8170
E-mail: dbums@agr.state.tx.us
Carlos Camacho Gaos
Delegacion Tlalpan
Laterial del Anillo Periferico sur
No. 4209 Fraccionamiento
Col. Jardines de la Montana
CP 14210, Mexico DF
Gary Chiang
Richy International Corporation
Box 457 - Rural Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-2620
Wen-Ling Chin
Chuang's International, Inc.
Box 452-C - Rural Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-3289
Julius Collins
President
Gulf Shrimp, Ice and Fuel, Inc.
163 Creekbend
Brownsville, TX 78521
Luis Contreras Flores
Biologist
Aquaculture Diseases
SEMARNAP-DGA
Cerrada de Trini No. 10
Col. San Jeronimo Lidice
CP 10200, Mexico! DF
Philip Crocker
Aquatic Biologist
Water Quality Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6WQ-EW)
Dallas, TX 75223-2733
214-665-6644
Fax: 214-665-6689
E-mail: crocker.philip@epamail.epa.gov
Printed on Recycled Paper
(over)
VERG
-------
Antonio Diaz de Leon
President
Instituo Nacional de Pesca
Chiipancingb No. 70,
1 Colonia Hipodromo Condesa
CP 06100, Mexico DF
E-mail: adic@servidor.unam.mx
Charles Dukes
Journalist
Tide Magazine
Texas Fish & Game Magazine
P.O. Box 7794 - Route 7
Athens, TX 75751
903-677-2486.
Fax: 903-677-5660
E-mail: cjd@e-tex.com ,
Paul Frelier
Department of Veterinary
Pathobiology
College of Veterinary Medicine
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4463
409-845-5066
Fax:409-862-1147
E-mail: pfrelier@cvm.tamu.edu ,
Buddy Garcia
Policy Advisor/Legislative Director
Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr.
Ground Floor East
P.O. Box 12068
State Capitol GE.4
Austin, TX 78711-2068
512-463-0127
Fax:. 512-463-0061
E-mail: buddy.garcia@senate.state.tx.us
Abundio Gonzalez
Delegado
Profepa
SEMARNAP
Neman Cortes No. 101
Col. Sosa
Victoria, Tamaulipas 87200
Mexico
Keith Gregg
Farm Manager
Harlingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd.
Box 300K - Centerline Road
Routes
Los Fresnos, TX 78566
956-233-5723
Fax: 956-233-9779
Dave Guo
Harlingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd.
Box 300K - Ceriterline Road
Routes
Los Fresnos, TX 78566
956-233-5723
Fax: 956-233-9.779
Marganta Hernandez Mattes
•Biologa
Investigado
Direction General de
1 Investigacion Auicola
Institute Nacional dela Pesca
SEMARNAP
Pitagoras1320
Col. Santa Cruz Atoya
. 11800 Mexico, DF
52-5-688-40-14
Fax: 52-5-688-06-85
E-mail: saviles@servidor.tinam.mx
Les Hodgson
Marco Sales, Inc.
P.O. Box 4663
Brownsville., TX 70520
210-541-4821
Fax: 210:542-0846 '
Bill Hoenig
Manager, Shrimp Procurement
Rich-SeaPak ,
3555 East 14th Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
210-542-0001
Fax:210-504-4401
E-mail: terryrsp@aol.com
Bill Holland
Office of Water
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Building 1103 - Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS'39529
601-688-3726
Fax:601-688-2709
E-mail: holland.bill@epamail.epa.gov
Tina Hou
Ching Yuan Aquaqulture, Inc.
Box 780 - Route 1
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-2316 :
Fax: 956-748-2316
Jastin Hsu
Harlingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd:
Box 300K - Centeriine Road
Route 3
Los Fresnos, TX 78566
.956-233-5723
Fax:956-233-9779
. \ '
Fritz Jaenike
Harlingen Shrimp Farms
Box 300 K - Ceriterline Road
Routes
Los Fresnos, TX 78566
956-233-5723 •
Fax: 956-233-9779
r~
Fernando Jimenez Guzman
Director de Sanidad Acuicola
De la Direccion
General de Acuacultura
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente
Resursos Naturales y Pesca
Mexico, DF
Ken Johnson
Texas Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory
P.O. Box 3040
College Station, TX 77841-3040
409-845-3414
Bud Koch
C-SAC
Box 550 - Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-2766
Fax:956-748-3153
Linda Koch
C-SAC
Box 550 - Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-2766
Fax: 956-748-3153
Ivan Kuo
Assistant
San Tung, Inc.
Box 440-C - Route 2
Rip Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-3687
Fax: 956-748-3566
Chi Chi Lin
Assistant
San Tung, Inc.
Box 440-C- Rural Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-3687
Fax: 956-748-3566
-------
Shih Lin
President
San Tung, Inc.
Box 440-C - Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-3687
Fax: 956-748-3566
Heidi Lovett
Center for Coastal Studies
Texas A&M University
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
512-994-5756
Fax: 512-994-2770
Eileen Mattel
Writer
Aquaculture Magazine
Box 250C - Route 3
Hariingen, TX 78552
956-421-3936
Fax:956-440-0611
Gene McCarty
Director of Coastal Fisheries
Coastal Fisheries
Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
512-389-4651
Fax: 512-389^388
Robert McFarlane
Consulting Ecologist
McFarlane & Associates
9503 Sharpview Drive
Houston, TX 77036
713-772-8294
Fax: 713-772-6025
E-mail: twmcf@swbeli.net
Thomas Mel (wain
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
3209 Frederick Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
601-762-4591
Fax: 601-769-9200
E-mail: tmcitwai@noaa.gov
Larry McKinney
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
512-389-4636
Fax: 512-389-4394
Charles Menzie
Menzie-Cura & Associates Inc.
2 Courthouse Lane - Suite 2
Chelmsford, MA 01824
978-970-2620
Fax:978-970-2791 '
E-mail: menziecu@aol.com
C.R. Mock
Shrimp Specialist
Texas Shrimp Association
38 West Dansby
Galveston, TX 77551
409-744-1172
Fax:409-744-1172
E-mail: comman1@aol.com
Wynn Pettibone
President'
A&P Mariculture Company
2126 Highland Hills
Sugarland.TX 77478
281-265-5174
Fax: 281-265-5176
E-mail: ffep@flash.net
Bonnie Ponwith
Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
210 Nagle Hall
College Station, TX 77843-2258
409-862-8582
Fax:409-845-3786
Stephen Quo
Biologist
Tradegate Development Company
634 San Marcelo Boulevard
Brownsville, TX 78521-1819
210-546-9652
Fax: 210-546-9652
$
Michael Ray
Director of Field Operations
Coastal Fisheries
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744-3292
512-389-4649
Fax: 512-389-4388
E-mail: mike.ray@tpwd.state.tx.us
Tony Reisinger
Marine Agent
Texas A&M Marine Advisory Service
650 East Highway 77
San Benito, TX 78586
956-399-7757
Fax: 956-361-0034
E-mail: e-reisinger@tamu.edu
Rick Rubiano
President
Tradegate Development Company
634 San Marcelo Boulevard
Brownsville, TX 78521-1819
210-546-9652
..Fax: 210-546-9652
Abelardo Ruz Richaud .
Director General Pesca
Secretaria Acuacultura
SDAFYP
Gobierno de Tamaulipos
Torre Gobierno 12 piso
Victoria, f amaulipas 87200
Mexico
E-mail: pescaruz@tdmnet.com.mx
Cynthia Sarthou
Gulf Restoration Network
400 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
John Shepperd
Legislative Aid
Senate Natural Resources Committee
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, TX 78711
512-463-0390
Fax: 512-463-6769
E-mail: john.shepperd_sc@senate.state.tx.us
Raenell Silcox
Attorney
Resource Protection Division
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744-3292
512-389-8135
Fax: 512-389-4799
E-mail: raenell.silcox@tpwd.state.tx.us
Margie Smith
Owner/Manager
WBP Shrimp Producers
Texas Shrimpers Association
P.O. Box 625
Port Isabel, TX 78578
956-943-2643
Fax: 956-943-2643
Terry Stachowiak
Procurement Analyst
Rich-SeaPac
3555 East 14th Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
210-542-0001
Fax:210-504-4401
-------
Phillip Sulak
Assistant Editor
Texas SEA Grant
1716 Briarcrest Drive - Suite 603
Bryan, IX 77802
409-862-3773
Fax:409-862-3786
E-mail: pcsulak@unix.tamu.edu
Kenny Tang
President
United Shrimp Farm, Inc.
14103 Ragus Lake Drive :
Sugar Land, TX 77478
281-242-4170
Fax:281-242-4170
Lin Turner
Chair
Coalition for the
Protection of Copano Bay
P.O. Box 279
Fulton, TX 78385
512-729-3634
Fax:512-729-3634
William van der Schalie
Office of Research and
Development
National Center for
Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8623) .. '
Washington, DC 20460 :
202-260-4191 ': . ' •
Fax: 202-260-6370
E-mail: vanderschalie.william
©epamail.epa.gov
Ching-Linn Wang
President
Ching Yuan Aquaculture, Inc.
Box 780 - Route 1
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-2316
Fax: 956-748-2316
Flora Yao
Vice President
Richy International Corporation
Box 457 - Rural Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 785$3
956-748-2620 •
PeterYao
1774 East Price Road .
Brownsville, TX 78521
956-542-5712
Fax: 956-542-5933
Szu-Ping Yeh
Richy International Corporation
Box 457 - Rural Route 2
Rio Hondo, TX 78583
956-748-2620
-------
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Bayou Suite at the Student Union
Nicholls State University
Thibodaux, LA
July 25, 1997
Final Attendee List
Robert Ancelet
Biologist Supervisor
Marine Fisheries
Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries
1600 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
504-568-5688
Fax: 504-568-2048
Murphy Arremont
Environmental Affairs
City of Morgan City
1700 Victor II Boulevard
Morgan City, LA 70380
504-380-4656
Fax: 504-380-4673
Kay Austin
Office of Research and
Development
National Center
for Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8623)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5789
Fax:202-260-8719
E-mail: austin.kay@epamail.epa.gov
George Barisich
President
United Commercial
Fisherman's Association
2812 Merut Lane
Violet, LA 70092
504-279-6915
Fax: 504-276-8008
Oscar Boudreaux Jr.
Environmental
Engineering Service
185 Belle Terre Boulevard
Suite A
Laplace, LA 70008
504-653-0185
Fax:504-653-0182
E-mail: ees@ix.netcom.com
Esther Boykin
Associate Attorney
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
504-522-1394
Martin Cancienne
District Director
Congressman Tauzin's Office
828 South Irma Boulevard
Room212A
Gonzales, LA 70341
504-621-8490
Fax:504-621-8493
William Chauvin
Shrimp World, Inc.
417 Eliza Street
New Orleans, LA 70114
504-368-1571
Robert Fritchey
Fisherman/Correspondent NF
P.O. Box 71651
New Orleans, LA 70172
504-524-2472
Toby Gascon
Staff Assistant
Congressman Tauzin's Office
828 South Irma Boulevard
Gonzales, LA 70737
504-621-8490
Fax: 504-621-8493
E-mail: toby.gascon@mail.house.gov
Rex Herron
Ecologist
NOAA/NMFS
Stennis Space Center
Building 1103
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
601-688-3652
Bill Holland
Office of Water
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Building 1103 - Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
601-688-3726
Fax: 601-688-2709
E-maii: holland.bill@epamail.epa.gov
Jerald Horst
Marine Advisory Agent
Louisiana Cooperative
Extension Service
1855 Ames Boulevard
Marrero, LA 70072
504-349-5644
Fax: 504-349-8817
Printed on Recycled Paper
(over)
-------
Charles Ledet
Shrimper
Terrebone Fisherman Program
189Aragbn Road
•Mbntegut,. LA 70377
504-594-3522
Thomas Mcllwaln
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
3209 Frederick Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
601-762-4591
Fax:601-769-9200
E-mail: tmcilwai@noaa.gov
Charles Menzie
Menzie-Cura & Associates Inc.
2 Courthouse Lane - Suite 2
Chelmsfbrd, MA 01824
978-970-2620
Fax: 978-970-2791
E-mail: menziecu@aol.cpm
L. Brandt Savoie
Program Manager
Marine Fisheries
Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries
2000 Quail Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70898
504-765-2401
Deborah Schultz
Louisiana Coordinator
Gulf of Mexico Program
LUMCPN
8124 Highway 56
Chauvin, LA 70344
504-447-6880
E"mail: dschultz@cajunnet.com
Zoula Zein-EIdin
National Marine Fisheries Service
4700 Avenue 4
Galveston, TX 77551
409-766-3516
-------
Appendix C
Written Comments
The following is a list of people who submitted written comments. The comments
themselves are not available in electronic format.
U.S. Congressman Billy Tauzin
Third District, Louisiana
Linda R, Shead
Galveston Bay Foundation
Rebecca Goldburg, Pam Baker, and Douglas Rader
Environmental Defense Fund
Jim Lester
Environmental Institute of Houston
Andrew L. Duda
A. Duda and Sons
Robert W. McFarlane
McFarlane and Associates
James E. Heerin
Shrimp Culture II, Inc.
D.C. Cannon
Edisto Seafarms, Inc. .
Fritz Jaenike
Harlingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd.
C.R. "Corny" Mock
Aquaculture and Environmental Specialist to the Texas Shrimp Association
Thomas Zeigler
Zeigler Brothers, Inc.
W. S. McGrath
Steve Kerchner
South Carolina Shrimp Association (Southern)
-------
C. Holland Laramore
Bonney, Laramore & Hopkins, Inc.
Becky Gillette ,
Sierra Club, Mississippi Chapter
Deyaun Boudreaux
Texas Shrimp Association .'•','•
Julius Collins
Texas Shrimp Association
Larry McKinney
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Cynthia Sarthou
Gulf Restoration Network
George Barisich
United Commercial Fisherman's Association
William D. Chauvin
Shrimp World, Inc.
Esther Boykin
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund •
Brandt Savoie
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
-------
BILLY TAUZIN
T*WO DISTRICT. LOUISIANA
COMMERCE COMMITTEE
of
Ut
DISTRICT OFFICES:
. TELEPHONE: 50d^271-1707
ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNME
8201 WEST JUDGE PEREZ
TiSOURCES COMMITTEE
w*c —
WASMWWTOM Office
TELEPHONE: S04-876-3033
FEDERAL BUILDING. SUITE 1(
»€ 20515-1803
TELEPHONE: 318-367-8231
WAS««CTOf.,OC20S15
_ _ _
AUgUSt 18, 1997
. TELEPHONE: S04-621-W90
ASCENSION PARISH COURTHOUSE EAST
828 SOUTH IRMA BLVD.
ROOM212-A
GONZALES. LA 70737
Mr. Jerome Erbacher
Office of Industry and Trade Room 3675
SSMC3.NMFS
1315 East-West Highway ,
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Erbacher: .. • • "
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the hearing that you conducted in
Louisiana on July 25, 1997. This hearing allowed my constituents, as well as myself, an
opportunity to take an active role in this investigation.
Furthermore, I would like to encourage the committee to seriously consider all testimony
that was given at this hearing. I would like to remind the committee that the shrimping industry
has a 1.9 billion dollar impact on Louisiana's economy per year, and this virus would have a
catastrophic affect on it's citizens.-
I am confident that if all aspects of the shrimping industry are respectfully considered an
unbiased solution to the problem can be found.
If I can assist you in 'any way, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
BILLY TAUZIN
Member of Congress
BTjtmg
-------
0S/39--37 06:33 7133323153 •
AUG-29-9T ©«S:ie F>M GftUVESTOM B<=lV F^O U N D«T I ON 713 332 3153 F> . 02
GALVESTON
BAY
FOUNDATION
August 29, 1997
Mr. Jerome Erbachcr
Ofllccoflndustry and Trade
National Marine Fisheries Service
Room 3675, 1315' East-West Highway , '
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Erbachcr: ,
The Galvcston Bay Foundation would like to commend the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council for their efforts to address and prescribe solutions to the detrimental
impacts of shrimp viruses and shrimp mariculture.
The Gal veston Bay Foundation's mission is to preserve 'and enhance Galvestpn Bay for
its multiple uses through education, conservation, research and advocacy. The Foundation has
been a vocal and supportive advocate for the Bay, providing technical expertise for evaluating
impacts of various projects or issues, including the importation of exotic species into
Galvcston Bay. Therefore, the Foundation believes the shrimp virus and shrimp mariculture
issue relates to Galvcston Bay and should receive our attention.
Galvcston Bay has an important shrimping and shellfishing industry providing two- '
thiroVof the Texas oyster "harvest and one-third of the Texas bay shrimp harvest. Native
penacids play a vital role in the life cycle within this estuary, recycling detritus and nutrients,
and providing a food source for other estuarine species, including invertebrates, fish,
mammals and birds. Therefore, any threats to the ecosystem supporting this commercial
industry will have wide and lasting effects around Galveston Bay and within the State of
Texas.
The Mariculturc Policy of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has stated
that, "Mariculturc activities should have procedures established that: (1) prevent the
importation or spread of pathogens or parasites; (2) minimize impacts of disease outbreaks if
they occur; and (3) eliminate disease problems wherever possible.!'
17324-A HIGHWAY 3 • WEBSTER, TX 77598 • (281)332-3381
-------
B8/'3©>'97 06:33 713 332 3153 .
2^-ST 06. : 1 1 F»M GAUVESTON BAY FOUNDATION V13 332 3153 . «P.@3
Mariculturc Policy ,
August 29, 1997 .
Page 2
Exotic shrimp continue to be imported into our native ecosystems, and pose a threat to
our native shrimp and potentially shellfish. It is irresponsible to allow foreign producers to
import diseased shrimp into U.S. markets when the detrimental effects of such action are not
folly known or explored.
To prevent any potential serious damage to our native shrimp and shellfish populations
as well as our native ecosystems, a ban should be imposed on the importation of diseased
shrimp. The time needed to reach a consensus on the extent of impacts of disease outbreaks,
and to eliminate disease problems, would translate into a prolonged process which ignores the
immediate risks of serious wildlife damage. A temporary ban on the importation of exotic
shrimp species and shrimp products would adequately protect the native ecosystems from this
potential harm. A temporary ban will also allow for research regarding the importation of
exotic shrimp and could be reversed based on a results of the research.
In addition, current U.S. shrimp mariculture policy and practice perpetuates the
problem of disease epidemics with the encouragement of high density rearing. More effective
means of raising shrimp safely and economically must be devised. This is a realistic goal for
the Council to set, and assist mariculturists to be "ecologically sound."
The Foundation commends the efforts of the Council, but believes there is much more
work to be done to address and practically deal with the problems of shrimp viruses and
shrimp maricullure.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
Linda R. Shead, P.E.
Executive Director
cc: Hon. Nick Lampson
Hon. Ken Bcntsen
Hon. Tom Delay
Hon. Gene Green
Hon. Ron Paul
Hon. Garry Mauro
Hon. Barry McBce
Hon. Ralph Marquez
Hon. John Baker
Hon. Ijx M. Bass
-------
0S/30;S7 04:15 2125050932' .' ' ' ' '. .• •
2125050892 E/D. F. NEU) YORK F-441 T-677 P-002 flUG 29 '97 IS:40
ENVIRONMENTAL.
DEFENSE FUND
1967 3O 1997 National lleadquarrrrs
TEARS , . - ' " 257 Park Avenue-South
' New YorJc, NY iOOiO
(212)505-2100.
. ' . ' Fax: 212-505-2275
. August 29, 1997 .
Jerome Ehrbacher . " '
National Marine Fisheries Service
Office of Industry and Trade
Rm. 3675, SSMC3, NMFS
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Springs, MD 20910 . '
Via facsimile: 301-713-2384 . ,
Mr. Ehrbachen , ' . .
Please consider the following comments from the Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) concerning the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Working
Group's (JS A S VWG's) preliminary report to the JS A, "An Evaluation of Potential
Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of
Mexico and Southeastern U.S, Atlantic Coastal Waters." Federal Register 62:31790-91. .
Please note that Pamela Baker and Douglas Rader also spoke for EDF at the public
meetings concerning the report in Brownsville, Texas, and Charleston, South Carolina,
respectively. • •" . • •• • ' . '
Background '
Shrimp viruses from Asia and Latin America are now afflicting marine shrimp
and possibly even other Crustacea in the U.S. As detailed in the JS A report, four viruses -
Infectious Hypodermal and Hcmatopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV), Taura Syndrome
Virus (TSV), White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), and Yellow Head Virus (YHV) -
have now been identified in shrimp in the U.S. IHHNV appears to have caused severe,
declines in populations of blue shrimp (Penaeus siylircstus) in the Gulf of California, so
that this fishery could not support commercial harvest from 1987 until 1994. Outbreaks
of TSV at Texas and South Carolina shrimp farms in 1995 caused greater than a 95% loss
of crops of Pacific white shrimp (Penaeusvannemei), the main shrimp species farmed in
the U.S. TSV continues to cause significant, but less severe, losses on shrimp farms.
»>./•.,-'
, Preliminary, unconfirmed reports suggest that wild shrimp captured off the coasts
of South Carolina and Texas are infected by foreign, or "exotic" viruses. It is possible
that, along with shrimp, WSSV may be infecting other Crustacea in the U.S. WSSV is
known to infect a variety of crustacean species in Asia, and has been reported in crayfish
_. . •• . PrnjfKiOjJuT
' l??SConn«-ncuiAvc.. N w. S65S ColKw Avj 14C5 Arapahoc Avc. 12X taxi Horgctt Sc 4-1 Hint Avenue 6 Frtncui))JaJI .Marketplace
Washington. DC 2000Q OjW.ind.CAW.iR Bo«kki,CO(50302 Raicigh. NC27601 Auscn.TX7S70! ftosion. MA02!0«
(202) 38/• «SX) (5Kli65S-SnOS <303)440-450.J Wl9)82l-77i>J {512)'4?8 5I.6I (617)725-29%
-------
37 04:15 ' 2125050892
2125050892 _ E. D. F. NEUI YORK F-441 T-677 P-003 , fiUG 29 '97 16:40
* '
2
(Procambarus sp.) in the National Zoo in Washington, DC. In short, exotic shrimp
viruses appear to threaten the U.S. shrimp fishing .and fanning industries, as well as
marine ecosystems. "
Exotic shrimp viruses may be entering this country from a number of sources,
including shrimp imported both for food and for bait, shrimp imported to stock shrimp
farms, and ballast water carried by ships. The US now imports about 80% of its shrimp,
in large part from shrimp farms in southeast Asia and Latin America. Farmed shrimp
often suffer crowded conditions and poor water quality, making them highly susceptible
to disease. Some foreign aquaculture operations immediately harvest shrimp for export if
they detect signs of disease, in order to cut potential losses. U.S. scientists have now
demonstrated that imported frozen shrimp can contain active viruses, implying that
t shrimp imports may be a major source of disease introduction. Effluent from U.S.
shrimp processing plants, which is typically not treated before discharge into coastal
waters, may be laden with shrimp viruses. In addition, fishermen may directly spread
shrimp viruses in aquatic ecosystems by using infected bait shrimp.
In an emergency meeting in 1996, the Executive Committee of the JSA formed
the JSA SVWG to develop an interagency strategy to address potential threats from
introductions of foreign shrimp viruses. The JSA is an interagency subcommittee which
meets under the, aegis of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and
brings together federal agencies involved in aquaculture. The JSA SVWG assembled a
report codifying available information concerning exotic shrimp viruses in the U.S. This
report concludes that "threats to the sustainabiliry of U.S. marine resources due to exotic
shrimp viruses are increasing." The report recommends that the Federal government
conduct a formal ecological risk assessment in order to more thoroughly evaluate the
risks from exotic shrimp viruses.
Introduction: EDF supports a tiered risk assessment
EDF strongly supports the recommendation of the JSA SVWG that the Federal
government conduct a formal ecological risk assessment concerning shrimp viruses. EDF
believes that that threats to natural ecosystems and to the U.S. shrimp industry are both
urgent and severe. ' •
EDF also supports the recommendation that a tiered risk assessment be conducted.
A tiered risk assessment would start with a relatively basic approach based on current,
limited knowledge and progressing to more sophisticated analyses as knowledge gaps are
filled. We understand from presentations at the public meetings concerning the report
that the risk assessment process may take three years — a period of time during which we
fear exotic viruses will not wait to cause harm. A tiered risk assessment would allow
Federal agencies to take appropriate interim actions as tiers of the risk assessment are
completed — rather than potentially waiting until after shrimp viruses have caused
devastating, clearly demonstrable problems.
-------
08/30'97 04:16 2125050892 '.'•,'.':.
2125050832 E. D. F.. • NEU YORK . F-441 T-677P-004 - ftUG 29 '97 '16:41,
'."•'-.-'• . - '' • . • - ' '• • . • • •''• ' 3- '
, ' EDF offers the following comments and recornnoendations concerning the risk
assessment and, more generally, managing the risks of foreign shrimp viruses. i
Threats to natural ecosystems merit greater emphasis
Section 3.7 of the report identifies three sets of potential effects of shrimp viruses:
. effects on wild shrimp populations, ecological effects on organisms other than shrimp,
and effects on shrimp aquaculture. Nevertheless, discussion in the report appears to lean
towards issues concerning the shrimp fishery and shrimp aquaculture rather than
ecological effects. This emphasis can be partially justified by the fact that the shrimp
industry provides me most likely routes of entry to the U.S. for exotic shrimp viruses. All
the same, ecological concerns are underrepresented.
Section 2 of the report, concerning planning the assessment, is particularly one-
sided: It does not discuss potential ecological effects of shrimp viruses, but rather focuses
on economic effects. Collaborative activities among federal agencies are discussed as,
; *'.. .essential to protect commercial shrimp fisheries from possible pathogens, assure the
viability of the U.S. shrimp aquaculture industry, and provide for sustainable growth of
the entire shrimp industry." (p. 14) Protection of natural ecosystems is not mentioned.
The management goal for the report is defined as to "Prevent the establishment of new
disease-causing viruses in wild populations of shrimp ..., while managing possible
impacts on shrimp importation, processing, and aquaculture operations." (p. 14) The
report then explains that viruses also pose substantial risks to the shrimp aquaculture,
importation, and processing industries. Again, natural ecosystems are not mentioned.
Exotic shrimp viruses clearly have the potential to have severe ecological effects.
As discussed later in the report, they may affect a range of organisms besides shrimp, and
therefore possibly undermine food webs. Such threats deserve greater emphasis in the
• risk assessment than they are given in the report. We urge that preventing shrimp viruses
from harming natural ecosystems be made a second management goal for the report.
The risk assessment should consider risks from human sewage
The plan for the analysis phase of the risk assessment includes characterization of
the ability of carriers and hosts to transmit disease, (p. 46) This characterization will,
presumably include, consideration of transmission of viruses through bird faces, since the !
report 1) notes that following viral outbreaks in Texas shrimp farms in 1995 "... it was
speculated mat viruses might have been transferred by birds (Le. seagulls through feces) .
. ." and 2) includes as a data gap "Estimates of... birds/animals that could transport
.virus." (p. .24-25)-'
. The report does not mention, however, the possibility that feces from humans than '
have eaten shrimp could contain active viruses. Transmission of virus through human
wastes could contribute to spread of exotic shrimp viruses. Shrimp tend to be a popular
food in coastal and beach communities in the southeastern U.S., and sewage treatment
-------
04:16 2125050892
2125050892 E. D. F. NEW YORK F-441 T-677 P.-005 PUS 29 '97 16:42
• • • • . 4
systems, including septic systems, may not always inactivate viruses. EDF recommends
that spread of shrimp viruses through human wastes be considered in the risk assessment.
The JSA should immediately work to implement some actions, such as
implementation of BMP's to limit the spread of shrimp viruses
Current shrimp aquaculture and processing systems in the U.S. — in which ponds
and waste disposal sites are open to the environment, and wastewater is discharged
directly into coastal waters — guarantee that viruses will spread. Over the long-term, EDF
advocates that the, shrimp aquaculture industry strive to make, no-discharge systems the
norm. Similarly, processing facilities should endeavor to adequately treat wastewater
before it is discharged and dispose of wastes safely. Unfortunately, these changes are
unlikely to be accomplished in the near future.
As discussed above, the proposed risk assessment may not be completed for
several years, and several more years may pass before the risk assessment is
implemented. Because oi the urgency of threat from shrimp viruses, EDF recommends
that the JSA immediately advocate the use of best management practices (BMPs) for the
shrimp aquacuiture industry and similar measures by the processing industry to help
control the spread of viruses. One option would be for JSA members to work with state
regulatory agencies, which could quickly implement a requirement for the use of such
BMPs and develop a coordinated state response to'disease outbreaks.
BMP's for' shrimp aquaculture have already been the subject of considerable
attention from the scientific community and members of the shrimp farming industry.
BMP's not only provide environmental safeguards, but they make good economic sense.
Consider two examples. First, although many shrimp farmers routinely exchange large
volumes of water, research has shown that water exchange reduces the opportunity for
releasing viruses to receiving waters, and at the same time reduces pumping costs.
Second, regular on-farm disease monitoring provides an opportunity to control a disease
outbreak before it spreads unchecked throughout a facility, and thus an opportunity to
save some stock. •• •
BMPs for coastal shrimp aquaculture should include:
• biosecurity measures to control vehicular and personnel traffic and animal access;
• regular on-farm disease monitoring;
• minimization of water exchange and wastewater discharge;
* use of high health post-larvae from certified facilities; and
• strategies for managing outbreaks, i.c. shrimp farmer and state regulatory agency
response and responsibility.
To the best of our knowledge, comparable measures for control of wastes from
coastal shrimp processing facilities have not been developed. One option would be to
develop waste control-measures analogous to Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
-------
0S>30''97 , '04:17 '
2125050892 E.D. F. NEU YORK F-441 T-S77-P-00S ftUG 29
'."'"'• ' ' • ' • 5
. (HACCP) systems for seafood safety that processing plants must now implement. These
measures should include wastewater treatment to reduce spread of shrimp viruses and
steps to prevent animal access to solid wastes. '
The JSA should initiate a monitoring program for shrimp viruses
The JSA SVWG report enumerates a variety of data gaps concerning the risks of
exotic shrimp viruses. These gaps include estimates of the extent of virus contamination
of shrimp received for processing (p. 28), the «xtent and rate of spread of the viruses
among wild shrimp populations (p.33), and the distribution and effects of virus on non-
shrimp organisms (p. 44): Implicit in this identification of data gaps is that federal
agencies will take actions to fill the gaps; however, no specific actions are discussed.
Quantifying the fraction of imported shrimp containing active viruses and the
extent of viral infection in wild shrimp and other organisms is a critical first step to '
inform strategies to address the threat of exotic shrimp viruses. We urge that the JSA
work with appropriate federal and state agencies to immediately initiate a program to
monitor the frequency of viral infection in imported shrimp, wild shrimp, and other
potentially susceptible organisms. ' .
The JSA should make greater outreach to non-industry members of the public
The JSA SVWG report states that a variety of stakeholders, including those that
represent constituencies other than the shrimp industry, should participate in the risk
assessment process. We wholly agree and thank the authors of the report for being
inclusive. Nevertheless, our experience is that in recruiting participants to attend public
meetings and comment on the report, the JSA reached out largely to industry
representatives. .We learned of the report through an Internet group largely read by
individuals associated with the, aquaculture industry and found ourselves informing
colleagues at other environmental organizations of the meetings and the report. We urge
that the JSA make a stronger outreach effort in developing the risk assessment, and solicit
input from.a wide range of potentially concerned citizens and organizations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph;D, Pam Baker Douglas Rader, Pn.D.
Senior Scientist Fisheries Biologist Senior Scientist
EDF National Office EOF Texas EDF North Carolina '
-------
Environmental Institute of Houston
August 2,1997
Mr. Jerome Erbacher
Office of Industry and Trade
Room 3675, SSMC3
NMFS
1315 East-West Highway . .
Silver Springs, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Erbacher: • '
This letter contains my written response to the report and recommendations by the JSA Shrimp Virus
Work Group. I am an academic scientist who has worked for twenty years on research related to shrimp
fisheries and aquaculture. My publications include several chapters in a book that I co-edited with Arlo
Fast entitled "Marine Shrimp Culture: Principles and Practices."
First, I want to state emphatically that the proposed risk assessment is the wrong risk assessment. It is
too limited in extent and will only provide a negative assessment without any useful context. The
appropriate risk assessment would weigh the risks of shrimp aquaculture, shrimp fishing, and other
alternative forms of food production in the coastal zone against the need for seafood and healthy
estuarine and near shore ecosystems.
Embedded in the report are a number of assumptions and implied practices that should be described and
in some cases rejected. Any suggestion that native shrimp species could not support a successful
aquaculture industry is uninformed. The native shrimp would require domestication and genetic
improvement before they would be suitable for a successful aquaculture industry, but that is true of all
penaeid species. The assumption that natives would continue to be inferior denies the evidence of a
century of dramatic changes hi domestic animals through selective breeding.
Exotic animal introduction has been a pattern of the colonization of new lands by European imperialists.
The results of many of those introduction have been disastrous. If pigs, goats, sheep and cattle had
stayed in their native lands, many ecosystems could have yielded food while maintaining endemic •
diversity. We should avoid the introduction of exotic species even when they have congeneric species
holding a similar niche in the receiving ecosystem. In the case of coastal aquaculture, there is no simple
way to avoid escape of exotics into the surrounding ecosystem.
Assuming that the current set of shrimp viruses causing epidemics will continue to be highly virulent and
will do permanent damage to native shrimp populations denies the evidence of history and evolution.
Small pox does not ravage Native American populations today. Europeans do not still die in large
numbers from the bubonic plague. None of the exotic viruses considered in the report will kill all of the
-------
shrimp of any native species in the first epidemic and none will maintain the same initial virulence to the
new host because both host and virus will adapt to coexistence. •
Assuming that aquaculture is more deserving of a risk assessment than trawling is naive. More marine
ecosystems have been harmed and permanently changed by trawling than any other human food capture
method. The cod fishery has devastated the ecology of the North Western Atlantic. The North Sea, Gulf
of Thailand, etc. .have changed community structure due to trawling. Shrimp trawling has an
immeasurable effect on the community dynamics pf the continental shelf ecosystem because it disturbs
the surface sediments and captures and kills many species in the bycatch. Human policy typically favors
food culture to food capture'because it has greater efficiency and more potential to control effects on
nature. . •
The assumptions of the U.S. shrimp fanning research consortium that there are practices.which will
protect high intensity, industrialized aquaculture of crustaceans from epidemic mortalities is probably
wrong. There is no equivalent to the vaccines or antibiotics that can be used for pigs and cattle. I would
oppose any objective to create shrimp farms equivalent to the industrial pig farm because they do hot
represent sustainable development.
If the proposed risk assessment occurs and results in the likely negative impact on shrimp farming^ are
we endorsing alternative forms of food production or coastal land use? If shrimp farms are too risky for
'the native shrimp populations, are we prepared to accept the risk of shrimp trawling to the coastal fish
and turtle populations? If shrimp farms are closed along the coast, does that mean that we accept the risk
of row crop agriculture and the level of pesticides and sediments that flow off the fields into the water?
The risk assessment that should be done would be comparative and based on Bayesian methods. You
should start with the best existing models of ecological and economic impact of alternative land uses and
seafood production methods .that are used in the relevant regions. Being able to say that shrimp farming
is risky is of almost no value. You could say that human sex is risky to this environment because it
might produce another individual demanding seafood. It is important for a risk estimation to have a
context as broad as possible. The kind of risk assessment you propose would result in arguments against
any form of agriculture.
I would be happy to assist in the further development of a broad comparative risk assessment that could
contribute to policy decisions about coastal land use.
Jim Lester
Director
Environmental Institute of Houston
University of Houston-Clear Lake
2700 Bay Area Boulevard • Box 540
Houston. Texas 77058 -1098
-------
TO: SHRIMP VIRUS RISK ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
FROM: ANDREW L. DUDA - A. DUDA & SONS, (DUDA) OVIEDO, FLORIDA
SUBJECT: MARINE LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION REPORT PREPARED FOR
PRESENTATION AT:
SHRIMP VIRUS STAKEHOLDER MTG. - JULY 15, 1997
Fort Johnson Marine Resources Center Auditorium
Department of Natural Resources
217 Fort Johnson Road . •
Charleston SC
FRESHWATER SITES:
A. Duda & Sons, (DUDA), specifically has been involved in the research growout of
various Panaeids at our cattle ranch south of the city of Rockledge and West of 1-95 since fall
of 1993, conducting this environmentally-friendly research and grow out considerably interior
to the coastal and marine estuarine zones of Florida. Trials were conducted in natural
mineralized agricultural irrigation waters, waters being classed as potable by the State of Florida
until the decade of the 1970s. Panaeus vannamei, designated SPF, was identified as the species
of choice for our continuing efforts.
As cattle and livestock producers in the State of Florida, DUDA quickly ascertained the
practical and significant benefits of the SPF (Specific Pathogen Free) designation and we
embraced the protocol designed to maintain and enhance that designation.
Our current spring production is the offspring of the 7th (seventh) and 8th (eighth)
generation parentage, having produced the SPF Panaeus vannamei post larvals and juveniles for
the stocking of our production sites. This is in spite of the fact the viruses of concern are
-------
Page 2 '
believed to have been inhabitants of the southern U.S. coastal zones for a number of years.
Our inland,-outdoor research/grow out site has been in continuous service since the fall
of 1993 with no animals testing positive for the viruses covered in the SPF designation as
recently as 90 days ago when tested as part of our stocking program.
SALTWATER SITES:
We have, however, suffered economic loss resultant, from the fflHN virus at our hatchery
through the termination of both broodstock and their offspring testing positive for IHHN.
Through a disciplined management protocol, a thorough clean up and replacement of
broodstock with SPF designation, we have, been able to continue our program without a complete
shut down, testing our broodstock every 30 (thirty) days currently.
Worthy of note in this regard, is the fact that those animals testing IHHN+ showed no
clinical evidence of the disease, raising a multitude of questions; one being, could we be dealing
with the equivalent of chickenpox in a smallpox epidemic? -
Clearly, no one knows, but this points to the need for a reasoned approach as we
progress down this road of opportunity dealing with native and non-native species alike.
The recommendation of the DUDA group is to create a reasoned response within
USDA/APHIS, EPA and NOA utilizing the historically successful protocols that presently exist
in USDA/APHIS for the regulatidh of both native and non indigenous livestock species and their
diseases. These time-tested and proven protocols should be expanded to address the unique
attributes of livestock production in a marine environment concurrent with the development of
resource management systems and monitoring required to maintain a sustainable wild harvest.
-------
•'/ •.;;- -.".// ;s -!"•".'&•. €'-'. £y£& ?$?}'£%:&:rf^4:ife.%^^i:••££^V*;©:;;'^^'?Sv.?.. .' '»...••'•••.'•,;•.•• • r'. ';"/-'.-.^/ • -j.'l ?'7- ;.'.. ;.:S '•: ' '.^';r. •"•.'••>'•; }i'^'••.•%•;'=•'•'.'•' --^-; ;'"i'.'^, ;"'.<'•• V-/v : v—'"';' ' x--;
- " -. % •:. ',-; •/••"'Importaat to' Me';!pHliinp. :^wera 'is';t£^;;e^^^bme^of ^^^m
' " " , v$ietber:^yeror;iK>hrh^ " ••'.'-:
*" fc *' *,,''" f-1^»^* , t-< '._ *^' ^ . ^ ^ | J i .1 -•» 7J/ _ ,•• *, " •* V *"^~ ''•'' ' • ''i''A '.',.. '•'.*,..' ,' ' ' S ' ' > ' •* ' ' *
. .••' '. tte shrfpro industry-. "' • '•- "''.":• :;:':;vx:.'•.'.'. '^.:.':-:''. .••••'" ^?'.';,,- /•' '• "':V. '••.;.:, :';;>^. :-^:'-''-v-v •"•''.-'••'
Submimd ty Andrew I^ Duda
A.Box«20257' ' ' ' „ -:
Oviedo, FL32762-0257 .'
H»nc4Q7-365-2178 '
Fax ' 407-365-214T " •
-------
mcfarlpne
& associates
Robert W. McFarlane, Ph.D.
9S03 Sharpoiew Drive Houston! Texas 77036-5921
Telephone 713-772-S2S4 Facsimile 713-772-6025
July 30, 1997
Mr. Jerome Erbacher
, Office of industry & Trade, Room 3675, SSMC3, NMFS . ,
1315 East-West Highway ,
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Ref: . A Report to the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Prepared by the JSA Shrimp Virus
Work Group-"An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and
Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S."At!. Coastal Waters"
Dear Mr. Erbacher:
' On July 23"H spoke at the public meeting on this report held in Brownsville, Texas, representing the
Matagorda Bay Foundation and the East Matagorda Bay Foundation. Since then I have reflected on
comments made during other oral presentations and informal discussions at the meeting. I have
> determined that several misconceptions need to be addressed further.
in 1985 Garrett Hardin, an eminent biologist, published a book entitled "Filters Against Folly: How To
Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, And The Merely Eloquent." Hardin pointed out that an expert
in one field is a layperson in all others. It is very 'easy for an expert to be drawn out of, or attempt to
extend, his field of expertise. This applies to all experts, myself most certainly included. While experts
are generally better at seeing their particular kinds of "trees", thoughtful laypersons can be very good
at seeing the "forest." I see this^ phenomenon as particularly relevant to the issue at hand, where
experts from a wide range of fields have been brought together to focus on one problem, but truly
multidisciplinary experts may be scarce. In Texas, epidemiologists and ecologists are lacking. We have
an academic veterinarian diagnosing diseases who remains convinced that exotic shrimp viruses
cannot become established in Texas estuaries. We have an academic nutritionist raising early life
stages of shrimp and performing irresponsible uncontrolled experiments, such as introducing native
shrimp post-larvae into open ponds that hosted exotic shrimp epidemics without any protectition
against birds or insects that are suspected of disseminating shrimp viruses.
' Hardin proposed that three "filters against folly" be employed in attempts to define reality. By
employing these three filters — the literate filter, the numerate filter, and the ecolate filter - we can/
compensate for the bias of using only one filter by using others, which have different biases. The
literacy filter — what are the words? — reveals that while many experts acknowledge the widespread
shrimp viral .epidemics that many countries in the world'have experienced, they appear convinced that
it cannot happen in the U.S. Furthermore, the shrimp industry has not understood that the current
policy of specific-pathogen-free stock and high-health rearing facilities is f.atally flawed. It is a high-
technology solution to a low technology problem which has repeatedly failed. Proponents have failed
to distinguish between specific-pathogen-free programs that involve animals living in fluid, air, the
• terrestrial environment, and animals living in fluid water, the world greatest solvent, .in the aquatic
environment. " .
Certified Senior Ecologist
Ecological Society of America
Certified Wildlife Biologist
The Wildlife Society
' Certified Fisheries Scientist
American Fisheries Society
-------
The numeracy filter - what are the numbers, and do they match the words? - reveals folly at several
levels. Frrst, there are those marfculturists who are convinced they can raise shrimp at high densities
without experiencing disease outbreaks. They are fools, and nothing more can be said. They are
ignoring the many failed attempts to do so world-wide. They do not factor in the costs of these failures
in their calculations of future profits. They succeed for awhile but the odds eventually catch up with
them. Second, there are the agency regulators who do not understand probabilities. They see-that
exotic shrimp have accidentally escaped into wild environments and apparently did not become
established. They see that shrimp pond waters bearing viruses have been released into wild
environments without the viruses becoming established in native shrimp, as far as anyone knows, and
no one is looking, so what's the problem? It is true that the successful introduction of an exotic
species is a rare event. But repeated frequently enough, an improbable event becomes probable, and
eventually, inevitable. The odds of winning the Texas Lotto, picking 6 numbers out of 50 correctly,
are nearly 1 6,000,000 to 1 ; since its inception in 1 992, 284 people have succeeded. How many times
must we release infected shrimp pond waters before an exotic virus becomes established in our native
shrimp? How many tons of diseased shrimp products must we. import before we have an epidemic?
Why must we gamote ai an?
The most important numbers are those which are completely missing. After a virus outbreak in a grow-
out pond, how long must a producer wait before new post-larvae can be safely introduced into that
same pond? Can they be introduced safely without .disinfecting the pond? Can a sizeable pond ever
be truly disinfected? Can the wash and wastewater that results from processing frozen diseased
shrimp transmit viruses into the receiving environment?
The ecolacy filter - asking the ecologist's question "and then what happens?" - has pretty much
been ignored. While the report is concerned about shrimp viruses being transferred to other
crustaceans, which would act as a reservoir to re-infect shrimp populations, the potential impact on
the estuarine and near-shore marine ecosystems has been neglected. Shrimp are a major force in
nutrient recycling and a prime forage species for numerous other organisms. A major decline in shrimp
populations would have widespread "and unknown direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on
ecosystem structure and function.
As the risk assessment proceeds, the work group must consider the relative risks of being wrong.
There are two extreme viewpoints being promoted. The shrimp producers want to continue to import
exotic shrimp and their associated viruses, and experiment until they "get it right." Some
environmentalists want to cease the importation of exotic shrimp and diseased shrimp products (my
personal preference). If I am wrong, the consequences will be that a few shrimp producers were
prevented from making a profit, if any, by raising exotic shrimp species in the U.S. But if the shrimp
producers are wrong. The consequences may be mat one or -more exotic shrarop viruses are u-troduced
into our native penaeid shrimp populations, or other crustaceans, with widespread but essentially
unknown impacts, perhaps havoc, in our coastal ecosystems. In my opinion, the consequences of
these viewpoints are totally out of balance. It is the potential environmental and economic havoc that
may affect thousands of shrimp fishermen and wild shrimp processors versus a few dollars in the
pockets of a handful of shrimp producers.
As you assemble the risk assessment task force, it is essential that you include an epidemiologist and
an ecologist on the team
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. McFarlane
-------
07/25/97 20:47
07/25/1997 09:27" 7705526577
7705526577
INTERAG
PAGE 01
•
t
-
Da
Io
?T
Re
"o
nf
Re
.tt
nd
i
te
>m
kal
on
&
iC
1
F
P
f
J
,
Pf
na
d<
un
><
ir
OC
OS
•»:
ix:
im
36
tic
en
—
m
G
we
es
,
mi
n.
i
b:
II
> <
•In
llf
7
7
E
Ju
M
M
R<
4
i C
If
ul
ics
G
•Q-
0-
H
ly
r- .
r.
m
^\
yo
ur
B
h J
55
55
»e
25
er<
irr
ir'
PJ
ul
A
id
00
>-€
1-6
i
in
15
>rr
H
s
-
o.
a^
-
f
;e
75
52
57
C
97
ee
(T
U
.
1
1C
*0
2
7
iaj
V:
3u
•in
tnj
id
1
111
a'.
ba
q
tax
rac
ch
je
.&
sir
*3T
,i— —
C
CIL
i,
1
5C
-
n^
f<
Tra
a_.
t;
>el
ns
T«
1 ••
tni
t
Uu
3 ;
SS
}_
V
ox
-
or
_i
ol
al
••\
ilk
U
,
v -
dC
3OJ
in
Ul
le.
L
'
_L
.
*.
'
' •
-------
07X25/97 20:48
07/25/1997 09:27 7705526577
7705525577
INTERAG.
PAGE 02
1
c
H
B
b
si
la
1
th
d
ei
sr
d
s<
ai
h
Q
O
B
jit
'Vf
•an
r»f"*
bs
rge
,o
e
JVC
ice
rit
;v<
lei
ie<
5'g
:oi
tr
Jt
jrc
In
ch
•Mr
idi
<
00
wr
lo
ur
np
lo
itil
dc
ht<
ot
e
I'r
Vt>
o
inr
C
g,
ar>
hr
ac
W
ol
3IT
ag'
d
DIT
1C
te;
In
ne
nic
:ai
i r
p n
>ei
pn
ce
d
o
mj
re«
i r
; i
en
;d
se
en
ir
re;
d
st
se
ot
arr
at
an
se
f C
>
0
2C
an
t c
by
as«
t c
ve
3f
d?
is
cc
o
h"
e
s
pr
>g
1S€
;R
ar
P
>gr
e;e
f c
th
f g
Sll
AfC
nS
r<
es
ti-
re
r
s .
l<
Mr
ap
JP
nil
)n<
iz
o
i h
e i
3u
UK
3at
rst
th
ac
;es
e i
tc
an
rg
t
IK
nc
0
'g
is.
; t
s
ea
nt«
Y
[el
ior
of
* F
o
//
ec
c
es
1 C
in
1
r
G
ar
le
ir
th
ire
/e
ne
all
ep
•rt
2n<
uc
WV€
H
iri
fp
ISt
ut
an
d
im
Tlf
f
t
;t.:
ar
s'<
in<
or
e
Jer
ad
1!
>e
np
t
tu
iti
as
pr
DO
. \-
ec
h<
g
r t
n;
o
cz
nic
sh
on
in.
h
if1
ior
>n
^
3C
rta
ea
)n(
Wl
als
eg
an
up
th
ta<
" >
'in
Sf
1
itc
n
i i
0
ar
:ss
1C
Ith
>m
fc
3
jtla
iie
po
Q
trc
In
P
ea
im
ie
m
i
P
na
n§
i C
is
ice
y 1
:oi
tio
iti<
rte
SA
ph
s <
cai
fi(
C
y
/e
en
>t
', r
su
lly
he
c«
ns
dc
51
c'
u1
ch
c
I
tai
n 5
;h
o
le
^ f
ic.i
5S«
iS
V
JS
rn
of
dh
ai
rii
ei
bn
in
1
•m
ur
im
3e
d
•lo
!it^
an
wr
ab
A"
ad
thi
iiy
ms
np
:or
>al<
th
P!
an
im
r>
1C
sh
id
i
:h
tic
le
vo
th
s^
sis
ol
V
or
S i
e <
lin
of
er
O
»/ ,
•irr
ira
T
an
i
sh
rki
at
ou
r
ac
ru
,J
nc
3u
s
Sh
an
In
:L
P.
n
He
d <
Tic
irr
"g
th
ng
i
vc
, V
Ic
tr
fc
or
rir
d r
rp
w
S
:oi
nc
:ar
y
P
gr
s
in
til
ca
/o
sse
^ <
f <
cc
»p
ev
T
lie
iri
np
ur
&
inr
far
3U
m
du
=y
•k
s,
,uf
:ai
nc
Ci
,F
»rr
i
np
an
is
/ s
lib
mi
3 i
ui
tr
til
gr<
3r
wi
sti
fo
2rr
It;
Ls
inr
oc
C
f \
w
cie
t
ig
n t
T
/b
^
uf
5U|
h
on
•ni
s
re
nc
lo
us
ul
/h
th
nt
>r
in
he
an
el
!ti<
S.
) n
no
ab
a i
)b<
H;
.a
*if»
JS
ur
ch
af
iic
er
iu
cr
d
as
.01
v
m
e
i t
>ul
h
res
>_ — ,
on
*
o
>P
in
CO
>tn
itic
tht
ed
Cti
CO
en-
d€
ne
ti-
c.
ea
it
g
tS€
361
OX
qu
ur<
^r
;al
r
or
pli
no
ioi
nti
ea
e
Sh
-cl-
H
m
If
at(
im
iry
ige
A^e
an
>os
s<
Ull
>rn
1 C
ric
rly
rej
rin
a
irh
sti<
is
:5
ate
in
tl
! c
:a
&ifc
3UI
W
ft
ati<
9G
orit
»P
id
•>r
S,
a
a
Jy
to
le
re
of
e
d
Ul
as
e
n
>s.
/
'
•
-------
07/25/97 20:48
07/25/1997 89:-27 7705526577
^7705525577
INTERAG
RAGE 03
1 •
'
\ '
1
Je
ie
>e
vh
no
ne
:o!
jer
d<
?f
cc
es
U:
qi
•>€
i
P)
e'
:a
re
^
at
re
as
lat
ui
re
aqi
nc
231
in
ac
e
vo
e!
se
>P
T
en
aq
th
ire
or
:te
si
ac
m
C
ch
ss
uli
an
id
"
?P
w
n«
ie
g
ja
:n
ircr
irg
d,
iti
y
is
ul
ca
ur
fa
;
ur
a?
!<=
y
Tie
i
a
-»t
h
>v
:u
T\\
o
ur
*
cc
di:
ur
a
c
-II
ati
ii
8
ad
nv
nt,
m
of
st
srn
tu
nt
DI"
2ff
nc
iea
? i
3u;
on
ie
er
t
n.
er
PSl
i
^
a'
ry
m
a
on
ise
>rt
er
se
> <
tie
P'
s i
tl
e
as
m*
st
IT
ea
in
nt
s,
ar
d
w
lec
an
i n
:fc
ny
t
ar
U.
:s,
it
>nt
es
db
th
t
a
fa
d
>d
he
d
ec
oc
h
e
1
-•
3H
isl
U
/S
,e
d
m
th
sn'
•e
;ta
•el.
ns
Pi
as
U.
anj
*
;ec
i'r
flrtH
51
d
ity
ir
U
pr
•>g
S
TO
if!
he
et
te
of
oc
in
S.
&
l,€
n
F
p,
c
1?
TJ
S.
va
in
> t
J
re
to
i f
in
uc
ve
an
sc
as
I'
01
dp
s
.
e
c
of
te
a
^e
PF
ar<
de
tea
P>
ts 1
te
r
le
ft
at
tr
^
h<
n
IU
c
in
d
pa
ro.
h
5
th
ov
O 1
0
F
r t
h«
/•
p
r-
iCt
101
UJ
fe
b
id-
Dfc
se
P!
nj
J.5
e\
e
ex
e
36
wi
ot
fe
It
e
try
en
ha
,f
i
ad
arc
ofc
c
er
S |
iu<
n€
*,
I! '
an
)
re
iti
i
t <
i
g
ni
le
id
nd
1
la
tic
xt
ie
sv
rv
a
1
\m
^
t
ie<
*u
r f
/ I!
l«
rys
r .
T a
B^
•> f
np
in
try
er
i
m
lift
P"
0
gc
or
asi
c
ns
\A
ili
„
in<
VP
ac
-
•
tif
'ic
re
Jt-
^S
oc
so
de:
ng
on
c
re
tie
id
re
1 i
rni
<
rt
c
jit
5
m
,jj
i
gi
nn
tc
th
Ul
: i
De
i
nc
e<
na
ph
rf
IK
nv
jrc
DO
JSt
c
shi
lys
d,'
-fc
e :
ne
o
e>
o
re
y
H
sh
P
es
l;«
w
fo
"cS
irn
in
sc
St(
up
s.
ar
e
h,
y
, 1
fa
3
rr
oc
'§
ec
el
lo
fn
TX>
P
ac
iei
ir i
Pi'
hz
f
ge
ha
*rn
" tl
P
•JS
,«<
:or
k
V
he
iva
itii
he
c
n
t
ti
e
t\
c
is
vi
t
n
-.
IOV
me
jru
alt!
nc
c
d.
• \
ia
is
re
ati
op
es
us
i
> <
an
an
w
v
Ifr
— tfc
•k i
sfc
rr
vh
d
ar
0
on
s-
Iv
3S
Sb
d
J
to
M"I
f-ot
SSI
Ut
ea
lOi
3l€
er
2a
«
5.
>. <
BL
S*
ai
st
rff
ha
n
f 1
Ini
Kr\
ies
rat
ns
arr
SOi
of
iri
t i
ar
t,
S£
e
m
m
: i
sec
an
'
. /
ie
o
en
ne
an<
th<
m|
> u
b
th.
> r
nc
s
)
t
*
3
f
t
'
-------
07/25/97 20:43
07/25/1997 09:27 7705525577
7705526577
INTERAG
PAGE 04
a
P
a
d
>b
ri
•
2S
e
ui
sd
i
ur
irh
i
ot
'in
1C
'ill
I
ha
a
/h
>
rfu
ch
id
/
h
:o
•
un
as
:he
-
bi
:h
U
se
ira
.S
i
:t€
ro
;c
nz
e
5n
ad
is
ifi
th
vo
rid
na
sg
le
i
in
jla
1C
jr
:o
jr.
w
/
th
'ge
th
nc
e
es
sa
c
ne
ttit
a
jd
ttit
*
-
JC
to
»
va
yf
d
'•
-------
Presentation to JSA Shrimp Virus Regional Stakeholder Meeting
July 15,1997: ..
. D.C. Cannon, President
Edisio Seafarms, Inc. I
I represent Edisto Seafarms, Inc. also doing business as.Edisto Shrimp Co. of Edisto
Island, S.C. While incorporated, we are essentially a family farm operating, when we can get
stocked, 140 acres of ponds. We're operating on the semi-intensive model using mechanical
aeration and manufactured feed. Contrary to what has been published, the feed cannot be a
source of virus. Our markets are primarily wholesale.
We employ 15 people, some are biologists and other professionals and the rest skilled
labor. Our payroU is a substantial portion of our operating expense. We are proud of the fact
that, absent viral attacks, we can and do successfully compete head-to-head with shrimp farms in
the third world.
Last year we experienced a devastating attack of TSV made worse by having to operate
on very limited water exchange. It has,been a struggle to finance this year's operation after the
losses of last year. The availability of disease-free or disease resistant stocks has been the major
impediment to our success since we began farming ten years ago. In 1996 we were constrained to
receive SPF shrimp from two hatcheries, both supplying vannamei. None of this stock had any
significant TSV resistance and both hatcheries were located in areas where TSV was present in
1995. One of these hatcheries became re-mfected with TSV which caused all our ponds to
become infected with the result that we experienced 13% survival and a financial disaster.
Two department heads at the SC Department of Natural Resources have testified under
oath that no indigenous shrimp has been tested positive for TSV to date and the 1996 and 1997
shrimp harvests appear to be normal. The effect on the wild from the 1996 TSV outbreak
appears, therefore, to be undetectable. To avoid a repeat of this financial disaster and possible
ecological threat in 1997 we decided to stock P. stylirostris which has the reputation (well
founded as it turns out) for high resistance to TSV and a superior growth rate. What is needed is
a stock that is both Specific Pathogen Free and Specific Pathogen Resistant. The stylirostris
looks like a good candidate.
We shrimp fanners, in addition to our desire to be responsible stewards of the
environment, are vitally interested in a better understanding of shrimp viruses just as any livestock
producer is interested in the health of his herd. We have several incentives that go beyond that of
, the turkey or chicken or beef producer.
• ',»•'. •
. 1) We are not compensated if we are required to destroy our crop because of disease.
Other farmers and ranchers are.. As a condition of our permit we must hold the regulators
harmless for any of our losses resulting from their actions. . • ,
2) Because we raise a creature which is similar to those found in the wild we are subject"
to unsubstantiated speculation in the press as to the effect of pond viruses on the wild population.
-------
2.
The effect on the population of wild turkeys is never mentioned when an epizootic of farmed
turkeys makes the news. Why, I don't know. One recent article in the local paper is a good
example. A local official was quoted as saying "We would never ignore it" she said of viruses
that have killed shrimp in this state. The truth is that shrimp in ponds have been killed in the state
but no evidence exists that any of the local wild species have been killed. But that's not the
impression the average casual reader comes away with. These are the kind of loose statements
which create a false impression that the farms are killing wild shrimp and give shrimp farming an
undeserved bad name. We need to get at the facts to stop this speculation.
In a tank study at Texas A&M in 1995, P. vannamei, the former pond species of choice,
survived at a rate of 5% being fed TSV infected tissue whereas setiferus, our local white shrimp,
survived at 90% and browns and pinks survived at 95%. This means that the basic susceptibility
to TSV of all our local shrimp is very low. This fact taken together with a low susceptibility
species, stylirostris, being grown in the pond plus the feet that shrimp are at the bottom of the
food chain and are the natural prey for just about everything in the water means that the exposure
for viral,spread is low. This combination works to everyone's advantage, the recreational and
commercial shrimpers, the regulators and the fanners. This strategy is worthy of investigation.
We are not aware that the wild shrimp population in the Gulf is down after three years of
TSV hi the Texas ponds. As to the effect of the 1996 SC TSV episode, from the looks of the SC
white shrimp catch chart the shrimp catch is going through its normal swings and from what I
hear *97 is expected to be an "up" year as the chart would predict. Even the "deadly white spot
virus" does not .appear to have made an impact on the trawl catch if you look at the trend from
1988 on..
If you want to look at it this way we have been living in the midst of a giant bioassay
experiment if we can just find a way to analyze the data we already have. Intensive shrimp
firming has been going on in SC since 1987 with various viruses (we know of IHHNV) present
and giving slightly reduced yields in the ponds yet I know of no IHHNV being detected in the
wild stock and certainly the wild catch has only increased in this period.
The practical effect on the wild has got to be the final criteria in any studies that are done.
The data from the catch in the Gulf should yield good information as Gulf processors, US and
Mexican, have been importing frozen foreign pond shrimp, thawing it and reprocessing it into
different forms and not until recently have controls on their waste water discharge been imposed.
Probably the Gulf has received a big dose of virus over many years from that source. A study
made of the effect of this source would go a long way toward determination of whether the wild
can be contaminated by the available land based sources of viruses.
It's fine to do the science that determines whether or not a species can be infected and to
what degree of susceptibility by a particular virus by injection on per os introduction. That's
-------
3.
necessary and requires a high degree of skill. But it's a harder job to determine what the, effect of
a variable dose of virus from a farm, delivered by unknown vectors is on a wild population which
is also subject to mortality from weather, pollution, predators of all types and to recreational and
commercial harvest. That's a hard one but that's the question that needs answering from the
farmer's point of view. , ,
Right now we're in the position of being faced with the press asking: "What is the effect
of/these deadly exotic viruses coming in with imported postlarvae? It might be devastating to the
wild!" The official answer at present is "We just can't say because we just don't know".. The net
effect on the farmer is that'the regulators issue super tough restrictions on importation permits
and if viruses do appear react in a way that threatens any surviving shrimp with death.
. • Shrimp fanners need the threat quantified to end this speculation. We cannot continue to
exist in this atmosphere of fear and ignorance. The processing industry likewise needs this
question quantified: "can the virus be spread to the wild population by particles of infected shrimp
that can pass through some practical sized mesh through which their effluent may be screened?
Can the virus particle itself live outside a host and be transmitted to wild shrimp? How does the
disease spread in the wild under natural conditions? ,
The natural tendency, of the regulatory body in the absence of any real knowledge of the
magnitude of the threat is to say to the farmer, "no virus will enter the state through importation
of postlarvae" This might look good in print but in the real world if this means that the postlarvae
also have no resistance to any virus we are leaving the state wide open to another widespread
viral attack which is not good for anybody. This is exactly what is happening in Texas as we
speak. Texas has mandated the use of SPF vannamei or native species only and a TSV outbreak
is under way started from some unknown source. There are lots of possibilities for the source but
the bottom line is if they were using a resistant species the problem would be minimized. If the
mortality due to TSV were 5% rather than 90% would you even know that you had a problem?
30% is considered a normal and acceptable mortality with healthy SPF stock. This leads to
.another good candidate for study: dose sensitivity of the wild stocks. How much virus
concentration is required to create an effect on the wild stocks?
Remember that the farms are not the only source of virus. The White Spot Virus now
found in wild SC setiferus could not have come from the farms but possibly was here as early as
1988. Every shrimp pond in the state was tested repeatedly in 1996 for every virus of concern
and the only one present was TSV: ,
Yes, there are lots of practical viral questions to be studied and we farmers want them
studied. We simply ask that you keep the studies focused on the practical effect on the wild and
look at all sources and vectors of virus while you are at it. And we need to quantify the various
sources with respect to the whole problem, if there really is a problem in the wild.
-------
4.
We farmers know there is a problem with virus in the ponds and we hoping there will be some
fallout from these studies that will benefit us in our battle with the viruses, the regulators and the
press.
-------
0SX21/97 03:38 .. 9562339779 • • •
AUG-20-97 WED 14M3 , HARLINGEN SHRIMP FARMS FAX NO. 9562339779 . P;02
« : f
HARLINGEN SHRIMP FARMS, LTD.
PAX,2,0, 233*779
Shrimp Virus Stakeholders; Meeting, July 23, 199? ' '•.'•-
Aquacuiture Industry* Perspective '
Fritz Jaenike, Production. Manager'
_ Hariingen Shrimp Farms, Ltd., .(formerly Laguna Madre Shrimp Farms, Inc.) has been
- in existence for over 15 years.. Our farm was one of the first shrimp aquaculturc venture, ,
.established in the U.. S.. As bne of the pioneers in the industry we have endured, and
continue to endure, the challenging times that any new industry goes through to become
, consistent and sustainable. One of the more challenging obstacles to overcome, has been
vira, diseases, however almost rivaling the viral challenges has been the pressures from
opposmg interest groups and misinformed public on regulators. • '
Shrimp viruses have impacted the shrimp aquaculture business for over a decade and an
-.enormous amount of effort has'been devoted to virus detection, identification and
determination of transmission pathways in order survive as a business when they occur
bmcc viruses can have devastating effects on the culture of bfcrimp, the farms find ways to
adapt or they fail. One of the most straight forward ways for aq'uaculturists to prevent a
virus disease occurrence is to avoid introducing viruses in the first place. This management
strategy has been a way of Hfe for the U. S. shrimp farmers for years, and it's ironic that
virus introductions have occurred despite' efforts, to stay virus free with the use of specific
•.pathogen free (SPF) starter populations. Our industry has been the victim of incidental
VJTUS infections in which the sources have not been identified. Without a clear '
• understanding of the sources of these virus introductions it's more difficult to guard aeainst
. their occurrence. , , ' ' '
. The use of species or .strains of shrimp which are resistant to virus in'addition to being
T - Y\Te W%1C° proceed wh?n ^^ntal viral introductions cannot be controlled. The
•y..w. Manne Shnmp Farming Program has devoted considerable resources to the -
- aevel"^.c^ °LSP? srrains of Feaa^ vannamci which are resistant to taura syndrome
virus (1 i>\ } .The Texas shrimp farming industry is very supportive of these efforts, however
developing these P. vannamei strains are a work in progress taking years to accomplish, with
:. no guarantees on the, degree of TSV resistance. Until a proven performance on TSV
resistance is demonsrroted with these selected stocks, risks remain high for farmers.
stoc-K ^ hatchery attempted to'produce, sufficient quantities of Penaeus sctiferus to
• stock .he HSF Bayv,cw farm as well as portions of other Texas f3rms~with7he~u"S7^?
quarannned starter populations. However, reproductive problems were enconacered-in the
hatchery and commercial quantities .of shrimp, were not able to be produced. .The use of P
scttterus remaps an option for lower intensity operations and requires more research and"7
proauction trials. The development of selected, SPF populations V P. sctiferus will be the
cornerstone of continued'work with this spedes.' ' ' • ^- • •'
ROUTE 3 BOX 3OOK CENTERLINE ROAD
LOS FRESNOS, TX 78S66
-------
08X21X37 03:39 9562339779
AUG-20-97 WED 14:14 HARLINGEN SHRIMP .FARMS FAX NO. 9562339779 P. 03
Shrimp Virus Stakeholders
page 2
Department reuses to allow it* importation. I have spent two years compiling infor
whtcn supports mat the importation .**. **—
U ?C t^13 hrms °n the "PP" coastal bend «f Texas have
^ th? L^-nnamel ^^ and h°Pe ^ trvivUs «fll .still be
bTn lftll r °r ™ f ? °fitS' SKrimp fanns in the ^ Grande Valley have not yet
been challenged xv:th TSV this year, but all fingers are crossed. Its a risky situation
Comment on the Accuracy of the Shrimp Virus Report
Aquacuiture Section 3.2.1
fecil™ r! Wo' an, °CCUrre « T«« aquacukure
taoii es zn JW6. Dunng 4996 oioassays and several analyses were conducted on
ae samc faciiity which Kad been di
nott*c enifieS fadlities °r -Dividual shipments of
POStlarvae, there w a routine diagnostic program conducted by the HSF hatchery which has
been renewed t>y the world's leading shrimp Pathologists and bears
Shrimp Processing Section 3.2.2
Pemma. communicaoon with Tim O' Kccfc, Rangeil,
-------
08/21x97 03:40' , .' 9562339779 ' '
AUG-20-97 WED 14:15 HARLLNGEN SHRIHP FARMS FAX NO. 9562339779 p.Q4
Shrimp Virus.Stakeholders . . ' " " ' . '
- , -• . ; • ' ' • page 3
Viral Stressors 3.3 • .
" eC nari« " =P^ « «=T wlcSnt of MH^ vims.
^'sLSs «^£^fe£mri!
done numerous evaluations'of the TSV srjsr-^HK,-!-^. ^o -r j tn.. nor nas
^e, ^ a.,. risk „ tto spci ^^r^fe-t-sss ssr
ll 199?f S ?ne n conjunaion ^th ^^ A & M ^v^si y ^^^ t
2. - . Pond production trials were done in 1995 by HSF in which millions of P «*,-*««
l"6 HSF E^™-* '*'•* Stocked exclusively with R setif
HSR
-------
88/21'9? 03:41 • . 9562339779
AUG-20-97 WED 14:16 HARLINGEN SHRIMP FARMS FAX NO. 9562339779 P. 05
Shrimp Virus Stakeholders *-,,* &
•• page "s
Wild Shrimp Populations 3.7-1
This section has statements which arc negative and subjective concerning aquaculture.
The statement "It is possible that viruses have been present at low levels in wild populations
witnout causing observable disease incidents, but aquaculture conditions potentiate the
development and spread of disease" is negative, it's true that aquaculture operations are at
most risk from endemic viruses which are at low levels in the environment. To imply that
aquaculture is "spreading" disease in this situation in which an incidental infection occurs is
very subjective.
t assumPtion chat L stylirostris in the Gulf of California suffered mortalities from
1HHK virus is a correlations but not a conclusion. There appears to be several additional
stressors which could have contributed to the decline of this fishery including high fishing
pressures and poUutipn. The source of IHHN virus is implicated as aquaculture, when the
opposite theory is just as likely. Virus in the natural fishery may have been the source os
virus which caused an epidemic in the aquaculture operations in that areas.
Comments and Recommendations
Add in retailers as Stakeholders
In the discussion of potential pathways for virus introduction to the U. S.5 the retailers
are not even mentioned. The importation and distribution of raw, frozen shrimp by grocers
and seafood restaurants occurs independently of any processors and represents at least as
significant of a pathway to municipal dumps, waterways and other pathways.
Maintain Aquacuku're as Stakeholder at Risk
The tide of the report by .the JSA shrimp Virus Work Group is an Evaluation of
Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the
Gulf of Mexico and Southeaster* U. S. Atlantic Coastal Waters, in the "Collaborative '
Activities" section it's stated that stakeholders and risk managers are to collaborate and
cooperate to assure the viability of the U. S. shrimp aquaculture industry amon* other
stakeholders. Yet under "Management Goals" a statement is made that the focus of this
report is on the_ impacts of pathogenic viruses in wild populations of shrimp. Why is the '
focus^removed from the impact of pathogenic viruses to the aquaculture industry?' By the
time "Assessment Endpoints" are discussed on page 18 of the report all focus is on wild
populations and aquacuhure is not even mentioned as a stakeholder at risk.
-------
08/23/37 03:41 '. . 9562339779 ' •
AUG-2Q-97. WED 14:16 HAIJLI-HGEN SHRIMP FARMS FAX NO. 9562339779 p. 06
Shrimp Virus Stakeholders
' • , " "'.'''" page 5
Maintain Objectivity
LS't^s t^s^cSi?^^: S m±e2 h^r£?t^S^se
^^^
One of the best outcomes of jhis risk assessment eflbrc would be to'
Sn': 'K en& inf^-^ *^Jing viral epidemioiogy 'then us
" S" f reaUStiC »?W«W recommendations. Hxe shrim quacuiture
T" Jf Orinaa0n t0 hase b^iness Management decisions on and L
m* ati°n f ^ logical and ^aningta resource management ;
^ -pponman^L demons
easy «> put heavy restrictions on this industry to pacify .extremi or private
References
••Erikson H. S.. A. Lawrence, K. Gregg, J. Lot- and Dr. McKee. 1996. 'Sensitivity of
• Penaeus vannamci. P. vannamci TSV survivors and Perseus seti
water; and Sensitivity to
rroiect L^V-=<; ACT-;,-,.;,.,, c • ^ ^ aztecus. Shrimp Mariculture
v£Z£Z g£ "' ^P*™-" Smi°n- TeXaS A&M •P-"""!' Svste-,
O'Kecfe, T. 199? Persona! communication. . ' • ' '
-------
07X14X97
23:33
let 3
C R. (CORNY) MOCKJuty 14, 1997
\
AQUACULTURE
38 W. DAKSBY
GALVESTON. TEXAS
U.S.A 7755 i
744-1172
F f4tW) 74H-02M
Mr. Jerome Ehrbacher
Office of Industry & Trade
NMFS ..-•'•
Room 3675. SSMC 3
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring,.Maryland 20910
Fax 301-713-2384
Subject: Comments to be presented at the Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting. Brownsville.
Texas. July 23,1997.
Dear Mr. Ehrbacher:
With regards to the ISA Shrimp Virus Work group, "An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus
Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and
Southeastern Atlantic Coastal Waters," page 44,3.7.3, Aquaculture Effects.
Concerned that shrimp fanners in the US A'were restocking Specific Pathogen Free shrimp of
High Health into the same diseased ponds over and over again, with " NO DISINFECTION"
practices. I wrote Aquaculture Disease Specialist, Dr. James Brock for his opinion. Please note
Appendix 1 ( Oct 13.1992 ).
"If you stock SPF shrimp into a contaminated pond the Rhrimp can be expected to become
infected."
At the recommendation of a USMSFP agent, I wrote to Dr. Donald Lightner and did request and
receive a copy of the paper: Shrimp Facility Clean-Up & Re-Stocking Procedures.
•fey: T. A. Bell and D. V. Lightner, July 1992, pp 1-24, ( Appendix 2: cover page), I have taken
the liberty to copy the first paragraph of the introduction of this paper for the readers benefit.
Parti. Clean-Up Procedures
Introduction-5—
Marine shrimp farming, like any type of animal husbandry, is subject to instances of high animal
mortalities caused by highly infectious disease organisms. Many of the infectious agents, in
particular viruses, seldom respond to treatment of any type and thus the only proven means of
control is total clean-up fTCTJ) or the complete eradication of all existing stocks followed by the
disinfection of the entire facility. Such measures are inherently quite drastic, but have shown to
be effective. Such procedures may all be in vain if adequate measures are not undertaken to
assure that the same or similar disease organisms are not reintroduced into the disinfected
facility.
Much to my alarm and confusion, although this report has been submitted and recommended to
a number of Texas State agencies for adoption, it has not. How long must this "SHOT GUN"
approach to shrimp farming in the USA continue ?
Thanks for your time, 4^^$
C.R. "Corny" Mock
Aquacuiture & Environmental Specialist to the Texas Shrimp Association
-------
07/14/97
23:35
STATE OF HAWAII
^^^l^^^^1 SOURCES
• 335 MEftCKANT STREET, I
October 13, 1992
tir. Corny Mock
Aquaculture Consultant
38 H. Dansby >
Galveston, Texas 77551
Dear Cprny:
lines ycu -requested. I 'hope this
I have li.sted below several *aan«*-lr-
SPF in domestic animals that you
library. Read through these ££
of the role and .echlnics ot IP!
concerning
° °btain froa *
.
or practical for all applications. « you WD
limitations, of an SPF.. approach, y6u can select
ue may be desirable. Please
, Sincerely,
•7eses A. Brock/ D.V.H.
C Aquaculture , Disease Specialist
cc: ,Mr.:John S. Corbin
-------
07/14/-97
23:35
Shrimp Facility Clean-Up
and
Re-Stocking Procedures
prepared by
THOMAS A. BELL
&
DONALD v. UGHINER
Department of Veterinary Science
192015
Cooperative Extension
College of Agriculture
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
-------
., 744-1172
09) 710 0361
-------
^x,°
MEMO
"D.c
\z
SOUTH
u
1.1
16
-------
Mock, C.R. "Corny." (1992) To import or not to import: that is the question!
In: Memorias I Congreso Ecuatoriano de Acuicultura: 7-16,
Ecuador: Escuela Superior Politecnica del Literal, ISBN-9978-82-400-6.
-------
dUL'~15-97 TUE 11:00
ZEIGLER BROS,INC
FAX NO. 7176774323
P.
ZEJGLER BROS., INC. • P.O. BOX 95
GARDNERS, PA 17324-0095* 717-677-S1S1
TOLL FREE 800-S41-55CO«FAX 717-577-5326
T0;
PROM:.
SU3J:
TELEFAX MESSAGE
FAX NO: V^S' /
DATE:; '
TOTAL PAGES:
1 1 Q
-A%LJ?3
v > 1 We a
-------
JU1M5-97 TUE-11:00 ' ' ZEIGLER BROS INC FAX NO, 7176774323 P. 02
This response is directed to the issue or question, "Can viral diseases be transmitted
to shrimp by way of the feed?" Atthe time of the preparation of this, response, time
limited the amount of serious investigation that could be made, but in checking with
responsible, technical people on the staff of the American Feed Industry
Association, we were able to learn the following, which is summarized below.
f ; _ ' ' , t
• - **
, There is little, if any, work known dealing with both scientific studies and
interest as to the transmission of viral diseases by way of feed and no known
evidence in the literature could be identified. Most of the work concerning the, '.
transmission of disease by way of feed has been focused on the transmission of
salmonella through the feed to the animals to the humans. Since salmonella is
^ubiquitous to the environment and contamination can1 come from many sources, we
have learned that there was only one scientific report feat linked feed salmonella to .
human sickness.
The degree to which any potential disease organism could be transferred
through the feed will be influenced to a large extent by the processing procedures
used in the manufacture of the feed. In the United. States, we would estimate that
99.9% of all prepared shrimp feed is processed into particles or pellets that is
subjected to temperatures of 170 °F to 280°R Most feeds would be subjected to
temperature of 190 °F to 230 °F. There are volumes of evidence that indicates that
' the processing of feed at these temperatures reduced'the total bacteria count by a
factor of 10-20 .and if salmonella was present prior to processing, this organism
• would be destroyed under the processing conditions described. Duringthe mid-
1960's, eight trials involving 25 feeds, 14 of which were known to contain ' •
salmonella, were conducted to determine the effect of pelleting on salmonella
-------
JUL-15-97 TUE 11:01 ZEIGLER BROS INC FAX NO. 7176774323 P. 03
organisms. In four trials, the meat meal was positive for salmonella at the time feed
was manufactured. In fee other four trials, the meat meal was negative. After the
pelleting process was completed, all 25 samples were negative for salmonella. Li
the Land Olakes studies (1965), 102 pelleted and granulated turkey, hog, and
chicken feeds were tested. No viable salmonella organisms were recovered from
feeds that were pelleted or granulated. It is assumed that harmful viruses would
likewise be rendered inactive, but documentable evidence was not located prior to
preparation.
If we are asked to prove that feed is not a .vehicle for disease transmission,
we must respond, by saying that we are unable to do so because it is impossible to
prove a negative. So it is perhaps best to list feed among the many other possible
transmission agents such as people, vehicles, the wind, the rain, dust, and the many
other hundreds of possible vehicles that could be linked with disease transmission.
We are pleased that the agency is initiating these studies to measure the
degree and scope, of ike problem in the United States, both on it's effect on
aquacultural shrimp rearing and the impact upon the shrimp population in coastal
waters.
Unfortunately, we believe that the study should have been done about 15
years ago, before the magnitude of these problems arose. Due to the fact that
diseases are now emieniic worldwide at varied levels of intensity, we suggest mat
mother nature, serious scientific exploration to find solutions, along with
reasonable regulations are the best long term solutions to the problem.
-------
JUL-.lb-yf lUt ll'UZ • - • ZtUiLhK BKUS" 11*7 • ' hHX NU
If we are to quarantine and restrict the importation of shrimp for aquaculture
purposes for fear of disease contamination, we must, therefore, because of the same
reason, restrict all shrimp, shrimp by-products from importation into the United.
States, plus we must also restrict the movement of any vessels, cargo, that conie in
contact with the waters and coastal environments of countries with severe shrimp
disease infestations. This, of course, would stop the importation of shrimp into the
United States and severely, curtail the movement of freight .among many trading
partners. But we believe that this is the reality of the situation.
6_k
References: • ' ' ". ' ' • '•••''..• , -
Crane, F.M., 1973, Effect of Processing feeds on molds, salmonella, and other harmful substances
in feed in Effect of processing on the nutritional value of feeds, p. 72-90, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. v '
-------
MflCGRflTH Fax : 515-466-9280 Jul 23 '97 20:26 P02
Snrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Fort Johnson Marine Resources Center
Department of Natural Resources
Charleston, SC.
July 15,1997.
Statement by W.S. MacGrath, Jr. PhD.
HISTORY OF P?nMns vannamti IN THE UNITED STATES.
r am a serai-retired shrimp fanner and have been involved in shrimp farming
since 1971 My first experience was with Ralston Purina and laierwimShnmpCufture
?^ The eityobjectivT&en were to develop commercial shrimp fenmngm the United
Stetesandto identity species of shritnpthat wodd demonsttate^mmen^en^ at
that time in ponds. The initial shrimp tanning studies were earned out at Crystal River,
Florida, in function with the Florida Power Corporation. The local species were
studied first but were found to be inferior in typical commercial pond conditions
In early 1973, * matted g«iaen* vatmamd female shrimp was sent to tne
Crystal River fecility from the pacific const of Paoama. This female produced slightly
over 150 000 post larval shrimp. One half of the post larvae were sent to Dr. Jack Parker
at Texas A&M university while the other half were stocked in a quarter acre pond at
° TheTcsults at the Crystal River site were, to say the least, spectacular yielding
total heads on yield of 1,050 pounds or slightly over 4,000 pounds-per acre. Smwlar^
results were obtained at Texas A&M although the yields were only shghtly over 2,000
pounds per acre. The excitement of shrimp fanning was started, but the point J want
to emphasize is the P«naen« vannamei has been here on a contiaaos basis particular
in Florida and Texas siaee the early 1970's
Now in the stale of Florida, in conjunction with Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution Pewusvannamei is about to be commercially raised in a new way. When the
baby shrimp arc acclimated to potable drinking well water, that is particularly hard,
PenaeusvgmMmei grows and survives as well as, or better than, we find m comparable
salt water systems. Shrimp fanning of Penaeus vannamei can now go inland away from
high priced sah water property. Tf the industry evolves as anticipated, Florida could easily
add 15 to 20 million pounds to me United States shrimp fanning industry m the next
V *
decade.
W. S. MacGrath, Jr. PhD.
131 Parliament Ct
Ft Pierce, Florida.
-------
aUl_-lT-9T THU 03:44 PM STEVE KERCHNER , 80S 98& 0801 P.O1
t^f-v-
Good morning.
I had to smile seeing that I'm on the agenda as the
Wild Fishery Industry Representative. That's an awfully fancv
name for a South Carolina shrimper. *
As this is a NMFS function, I do thank them for setting up
this public meeting. I hope their interest in this virus
issue is a departure from an earlier more cavalier attitude
towards imported shrimp stock and their attendant diseases.
I'm sorry Andy Kemmerer isn't here, he's my favorite NMFS
adversary.
l«*ter to NMFS I said rather than attend another
public meeting here in Charleston, I'd stay home in
Beaufort and speak to a brick wall. I'd save myself the
99 minute drive and the wall would be only slightly less
receptive to a fisherman's comments.
But, I was asked to represent my fellow fishermen; and
I consider it an honor to do so.
All the fishermen with whom I've spoken are increasingly
worried about these viruses. Aguaculture world wide is
crashing due to infectious viruses. I should like this as it
helps the price situation, but I don't.
The viruses seem to have found a home here in South
Carolina. Last summer we had Taura in supposedly pathogen
free stock, in January we had Whitespot or similar at
Waddell, and now we have Taura in supposedly pathogen free
pathogen resistant stock.
This is not a good trend.
The viruses seem to be doing guite well at leaping presumed
parameters of behavior and occurance.
I was here in this auditorium in January, when Dr. Paul
Sandifer announced the discovery of Whitespot virus in native
white shrimp at Waddell. I won't soon forget the worried look
on Paul's face, or the worried looks on several other
Fort Johnson staff that day.
The major concern we fishermen have, of course, is having
Zur?S«S infect our wild, shrimp populations. We were once told
that Taura doesn't affect our shrimp. I've spoken with
Dr. Jeff Lotz who has published a study that shows, as
,1 understood him to say, Taura can infect our native species.
-------
JUL.-1T-9T THU 03I4-S PM STEVE KERCHNER SQS 9S6 0S01 P.02-
M '
**
This was in a lab, but the shrimp did come down with the
virus.
We know, of course, that Whitespot or Whitespot-like, if
you will, can kill our white shrimp. It's been said that we
don't have evidence of it doing so in the wild. :
•!
This reminds me of a little set-to we had in Beaufort Co.
with the mosquito control people. They were spraying
malathion from a plane to kill mosquito larva in the marsh.
We had a meeting with them, they sent us a genuine public
relations professional. His first reply to any question was
some variation of, "Now that's a good question, I'm glad you
asked..."
i -
He told us that they had checked creeks several times after
spraying and couldn't find any dead shrimp. I said, to
myself, "We.ll chowderhead, that's because you aren't as
smart as the croakers, trout, bass, and crabs in the creeks."
I've read that one symptom of these shrimp viruses is
sluggish behavior. How long is a sluggish shrimp going to
last in a creek?
I can't say that I've seen any hard evidence of a drop in
shrimp production from the southern area of the state due to
shrimp virus. There does seem to be a slow steady decline in
production from the two southern sounds. This is an area of
intense growth and development, there may be factors from
that involved.
Shrimp, of course, is an annual crop, 'and variations from
year to year are the norm.
Do keep in mind that the waters of this state and the
marine resources therein belong to all the residents of this
state.
Given that the viruses are said to be in our waters, given
our various aquaculture facilities use these waters, given
the viruses seem to flourish in the denser populations found
in the shrimp ponds, I think the utmost in caution is
warranted.
It is my fervent hope that our shrimp mariculture-
facilities not become virus mariculture facilities.
Steve Kw-hner
., . ... . .
St. Helena, 5C 29920 ' \ I . . Fax986-0801
' " emaa wwier@hnrgray.eoin
-------
. NMFS MEETING -
CHARLESTON, SC, July 15,1997
" An evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and on Wild
Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Southern U.S. Atlantic coastal Waters.'
A brief statement on the risk assessment process
••, fiy • -..-' ' . . '
Rolland Laramore, Shrimp Pathologist*
It is imperative that the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, formed under the auspices
of the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy rely on good Science and
Research for their decision making as that used by some of their workshop sponsors;
NMFS, USDA and the EPA.
To reach those high standards more care must be exercised in reporting observations and
hypothetical statements as scientific fact. Such statements as "In fact, the impact of one
virus on a wild shrimp fishery in Mexico has been documented." The "proof given was a
decline in the harvest of P. stylirostris in the Gulf of California, being attributed to JHHN
virus. No references were made available to support the claim. It was further stated that it
took 7 years for recovery to begin. I seriously doubt that these claims can withstand
scientific scrutiny.-
When TSV first entered Honduras during the rainy season of 1994. Shrimp Culture
Technologies, GRUPO Shrimp Farms and ANDAH> the shrimp fanning association,
closely followed the event. A paper was given by Dr. Laramore, a guest speaker, at the
IV Central American Symposium on Aquaculture, held in Tegucigalpa, Honduras April
22 - 24,1997. It was predicted by some that the wild population of P. vannamei would be
devastated. A survey of wild postlarvae catch based on the number of animals caught per
man-day effort (the most reliable method of determining the population) increased
significantly over the next three years. Because of climatic conditions, the postlarvae did
riot show up as early as normal, however, data from a group of farms indicate that the
larvae showed up in June of/this year in record numbers. '
If the same logic were applied to this situation as in the Gulf of Mexico one would have
to conclude that TSV in some miraculous way improved the population. That of course is
ludicrous, and so is the blaming of the decrease in catch ha the Gulf of Mexico without
clinical evidence that an epizootic ensued. One of the hardest lessons for students of
biology to learn is that correlation does not constitute cause and effect. A number other
factors must be considered and eliminated one by one.
My point is we cannot have a scientific evaluation without doing the science.
Dr. C. Rolland Laramore is currently Director of the Aquatic Animals Health Labs located at Harbor
Branch Oceanographic Institution, a joint effort by HBQI andBonney, Laramore & Hopkins, Inc.
-------
SHRIMP CULTURE IN HONDURAS
FOLLOWING THE TAURA SYNDROME VIRUS
C. Holland Laramore
Shrimp Culture Technologies, Ft Pierce, FL 34946
Abstract. - Hie Taura Syndrome Virus was first diagnosed at GMSB in Honduras during April of
1994. However, based on verbal reports, TSV may have already infected another farm a few months
earlier. It is unlikely that TSV had entered Honduras prior to 1994. It would have been difficult to
miss considering the devastating nature of the disease. This paper discusses the impact that TSV has
had on some shrimp farms in Honduras and the steps taken to "Live" with TSV. Evidence is also
given for the emergence of a wild population having increased resistance to the lethal effects of TSV,
approaching the pre-Taura era. Laboratory postlarvae continue to suffer the same high mortality
rate as experienced in the beginning.
The results of a number of studies directed toward determining viral transmission routes,
survival trends in the ponds and effects of salinity on the mortality rate are reported. The results of a
survey of the wild adult population caught off the coastal waters of countries neighboring Honduras
will be presented and discussed. Also, the use and appropriateness of an LCJ0. TSV challenge
protocol to estimate differences in susceptibility of various strains of P. Vannamei to TSV infection,
TSV Impact
Sixrvival
During 1993, the year prior to the
confirmation of Taura Syndrome (TS) in
Honduras, GRUPO's shrimp farms
experienced a record setting year, both in
terms of survival and pounds harvested; a
year when the farm was stocked heavily
with hatchery reared postlarvae,
suggesting that TSV had not infected the
farm. Laboratory postlarvae are
considered to be less resistant to TSV
than wild postlarvae.
During 1993 average survival in all
growout ponds was 68%. During 1994
survival dropped to 36%. The reduction
in the total pounds harvested was less
pronounced, however, with reductions of
approximately 20%. One of the strategies
used to help maintain production was to
increase stocking densities to compensate
for the anticipated higher mortality. The
lower harvest density also resulted in a
slightly higher then normal average size.
TSV spread quickly from the GMSB
farm to the other GRUPO farms located
below it on the same estuarine system.
Within two months TSV was observed at
Sea Farms, the farm most distant from
GMSB and neighboring the Gulf of
Fonseca.
Salinity effect
When first diagnosed at Sea Farms
mortality was only slightly:, higher than in
previous years. The reason for the
reduced mortality is not clear. Sea Farms,
being situated near the gulf, has a higher >
year around salinity than the Riverine
farms. Also, Sea Farms stocked a higher
percentage of wild postlarvae than the
other farms during 1994. It is still unclear
how much of a mitigating effect high
salinity has on reducing TSV induced
-------
mortality. A challenge study conducted at
Sea Farms in 10 and 30-ppt salinity using
30-day-old postlarvae failed to detect any
significant difference in survival
However, this study did not evaluate the
effect of salinity on the virulence or
viability of the virus due to the different
levels of salinity over time, which could
affect the rate of infection. Survival data
of hatchery reared postlarvae was
evaluated on Gulf and Riverine farms
during 1996.. Survival was lowest during
the rainy season (May through October)
and increased with the increase in salinity
during the dry season. On the other hand,
survival decreased on the Gulf farm as the
salinity increased to the upper 40s,
suggesting that salinity related stress,
either excessively low or high, may lower
resistance to TSV. ,
40 T •
35--
30-
•£ 25"
8 20-
• I 1 / ill
10-1 I It i ! I
s-IL^ ! ' I
/i..M^9l- j. J j_. j-ll J.L < •
S- o g
CO O Z
' = g>
I Gulf I
I River-
-Sal.
Figure 1. - Survival of hatchery reared postlarvae
stocked in ponds on Gulf and Riverine farms infected
•with TSV. Sal. Represents the salinity taken at the
GMSB Farm. ,
Regardless of the source of postlarvae,
there is a measurable decrease in the
incidence of TSV related mortality during
the dry season (fig. 2). A review of the
records of all ponds infected with TSV at
GMSB indicates >that as the salinity
increases the number of infected ponds
decreases. The percent of infected ponds
ran as high as 100% during the rainy
season, dropping to approximately 70%
during the height of the dry season. This
gives little relief to the farmers, however,
since the "Dry Season Slow Growth
Syndrome" prevents any increase in
production from being realized due to a
reduction in harvest size.
50
Figure 2. - Percentage of ponds at the GMSB farm
infected with TSV, by month, during 1996.
f • •
If, as the data suggests, the dry season
reduces the incidence and severity of
TSV it also raises the question as to the
mechanism involved. Is the reduction
related to a loss in susceptibility of the
shrimp or is it more related to a loss in
the ability of the virus to infect? If it is
the latter, is the virus more affected by
the increase in salinity, the lower ambient
temperature, or perhaps to some other
change in the shrimp's environment
brought about by the dry season?
Understanding the mechanism may lead
to management practices that could
reduce the impact of TSV on production.
Larvae source
-------
When TSV was first identified in
GMSB ponds, survival of laboratory
produced postlarvae, obtained from
nauplii of wild captured Salvadorian
broodstock, appeared similar to that of
captured wild postlarvae. However, prior
to 1995 it was difficult to obtain accurate
figures on survival due to an insufficient
number of ponds stocked separately with
wild and laboratory-reared postlarvae.
Postiarvae from both sources were
commonly mixed and stocked together in
nursery ponds and during transfer to
growout ponds. Following 1994, the
practice of stocking nursery ponds was
discontinued to relieve the stress of
transfer on TSV infected juveniles.
There is little doubt, however, that
following 1994 the resistance of wild
larvae to TSV has increased while the
resistance of laboratory larvae has
remained the same (fig. 3).
Figure 3. — Survival in growout ponds indicating the
source of larvae '95 and '96.
During 1996 when it became apparent
that wild postlarvae survived significantly
better than hatchery-reared postlarvae,
especially postlarvae obtained from SPF
Mexican stock, the farm managers once
again begin mixing laboratory and wild
sourced postlarvae to insure a more
predictable and uniform harvest.
Impact on the wild Population
Fear has been expressed that TSV, or
other lethal viruses, will adversely impact
the wild population. It was assumed by
some that there would be a drastic
reduction in the catch of wild larvae due
to a reduced broodstock population.
However, such fears are unfounded and
without scientific support.
A review of the records maintained on
the catch of wild larvae suggests that no
appreciable loss in the wild population
has occurred. The total catch of P.
Vannamei increased each year for the
past three year since 1993 (fig. 4).
Month 1993
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
19,507
29,520
66,849
108,786
47,248
28,867
1,338
1,536
4,192
5,466
490
731
12,477
35,359
77,837
40,343
4,140
1,692
18,413
32,786
1,323
8,932
4,012
5,266
2,948
38,442
73,265
59,223
48,195
46,902
15,621
784
14
2,025
44,856
1,852
38,564
29,522
189,099
32,095
89,410
38,006
14,263
9,213
21,091
10,019
6,536
5,704
Figure 4. — The total number of wild P. varmamei
postlarvae catch during the pre-Taura year (1993) and
the three years following, X 1000.
The catch appears to be down
somewhat for 1997, due to unfavorable
fishing weather, although final records
-------
were not available in time of this report.
(Note: Since this report -was presented it has been
learned that the postiarvae did not shew up in
abundance until June. The total catch and catch per
man-day effort set a record for the month of June).
The total number of postiarvae caught
does not necessarily reflect the number
available. Demand and the level of fishing
pressure exerted largely determine the
total number harvested. The availability
of larvae is more accurately reflected by
the effort exerted by fishermen to catch
1,000 postiarvae (figure 5).
-1993-
-1994-
-1995-*-1996
Figure 5. — Total catch of P. vannamei postiarvae per
man-day effort, per month, X 1000.
The ocean temperature, winds and rain
. influence when and in what number the
postiarvae will show up in the estuaries.
The El Nino effect has long been known
to influence the number of postiarvae
produced in the ocean and thus the
number available to the fisherman.
Flooding, as occurred during the '95 and
'96 all but prevented the fishermen from
sourcing for larvae. Also, as the graph
indicates the date when postiarvae show
up in abundance can vary from two to
three months. During 1994 postiarvae
were the most abundant during March
but in 1996 they did not show up until
May.
As can be seen, the effort taken to
catch postiarvae is greatly influenced by
seasonal influences. Perhaps a better
measurement to determine what
influence TSV has exerted on the
survival and reproduction of the wild
stock. P. vannamei is known to be very
susceptible to TSV while P. stylirostris is
relatively resistant. One would- expect
environmental conditions to affect both
species alike. However, if TSV were the
cause of a reduced population, its ratio,
relative to other species, should be
reflected in a percentage reduction. An
analysis of the data suggests that no
change has taken place (fig. 6).
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun.
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Wjgys-
19(93;
41.4
55.8
58.6
62.0
35.7
30.0
13.1
17.4
13.5
13.0
20-6
23.0
•#99*-.
28.49
52.45
56.51
41.49
26.07
22.89
27.61
43.53
35.95
46.78
12.95
19.18
m$$m
^S9S
18.88
46.61
62.15
65.66
47.77
50.43
41.62
22.90
17.72
30.64
18.74
24.26
^wsf..-115'O1*;
r*$fcZS.j;
•m®S:
50.31
38.73
73.13
41.85
33.37
16.78
11.41
18,98
23.66
19.34
11.66
12.69
Figure 6. - The percentage P. vannamei in the wild
caught postiarvae by month for 1993 through 1996.
A study of invertebrate immunology
stresses the resilience of the invertebrate
population and their ability to develop
resistance to disease and toxic
substances. If this were not true, it
would not be too difficult to rid
ourselves of insect pests. Mosquitos,
fireants and cockroaches, with which,
man has intentionally battled for decades,
prove the difficulty. Generally, diseases
-------
in nature are self-limiting. Wild
populations are much less dense than
those being cultivated, thus limiting
individual contact and cannibalization.
Moreover, diseased animals are removed
from the population by predators. In the
case of shrimp it is difficult for a healthy
animal to make it to maturity; a sick one
has almost no chance at all.
The cost of diseases to the farmer and
its economic impact on the shrimp
industry, as a whole, dictates that
measures be found to control and/or
defende against shrimp diseases. As with
any fanned crop, where animals are
confined to close quarters, disease
outbreaks will occur. Disease agents may
be carried onto farms by broodstock or
by their offspring, enter through the
water, borne by the air, carried by insects
or birds or even by man himself Unless
shrimp are grown in closed, bio-secure
systems, viral diseases will eventually
find their way into susceptible
populations.
Survey for virus in the adult population
Two spot surveys were made; one off
the coast of El Salvador and the other off
the coast of Nicaragua. One hundred
adult animals, male and female were
captured and placed in individual
containers. Each animal was tested for
Baculovirus, fflHNV and TSV. Blood
was drawn from each animal using a
sterile syringe. A 0.1 portion was used in
a dot blot (gene probe) test for IHHNV.
Another 0.1 ml was diluted ten fold,
filtered through a 0.2 u Milfipore, filter
and 0.05 ml was inject into each of two 3
— 4 gram juvenile sentinel animal^ testing
for TSV. Any of the sentinel shrimp
dying or showing clinical evidence of
disease were sacrificed prepared for
histological sectioning and TSV
confirmation. Fecal material from the
adults were examined for the presence of
Polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB),
indicative of Baculovirus. Following the
sacrifice of the adult, the hepatopancreas
.was also examined for the presents of
PIBs.
The results suggest that 80%, 20%
and 16% of the adults from El Salvador
were positive for IHHNV, TSV and
Baculovirus respectively. For the
Nicaragua animals 45%, 6% and 12%
were positive for fflHNV, TSV and
Baculovirus respectively.
It appears reasonable that the El
Salvadoran animals would harbor a
greater number of viruses since the
coastal currents run North past the
effluent from the Honduras shrimp farms
before reaching El Salvador. It is
anticipated that since the coast Ones of
these countries are relatively small,and
the migration and mixing of the animals
off shore will cause a decrease in the
variance between the two countries.
Stocking densities
Increasing the stocking density has
been used to offset mortality produced
by TSV. Field studies were conducted at
the various GRUPO farms, designed, to
evaluate the effect of stocking density on
survival. Stocking density ranged from
approximately 80,000 to 225,000 per
hectare. Little or no correlation between
stocking densities and survival was
detected. Survival varied widely at all
stocking densities evaluated. Growth
rates increased inversely to the stocking
density.
The source of the postlarvae, as
indicated above, had a significant impact
on survival and thus dictates the most
appropriate stocking density.
-------
TSV in Columbia before Ecuador?
Taura Syndrome (TS) was first
recognized as a disease, producing high
mortality in Penaeus vcmnamei in
Ecuador in June of 1992. At that time,
the causative agent was thought to be a
.fungicide used to combat black leaf
blight in bananas. However, a virus has
since been proven to be the causative
agent.
The disease has since been identified in
a number of countries including;
Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico
and Hawaii, and more recently in Texas.
The assumption has been that TS spread
from Ecuador to these other countries
through infected broodstock, nauplii or
postiarvae with very little etiological
evidence to support that view.
We at SCTI recently uncovered strong
evidence that Taura existed in Colombia
over two years before it was first
reported in Ecuador. While reviewing
some forgotten photographs, having been
given to me by Dr.. Felipe Consuegra of
Purina Colombia during February 1990,1
noticed that the brown spots on the
exoskeleton appeared clinically identical
to those observed on shrimp in
Honduras, showing the chronic form of
TSV. ' ;
I requested that Felipe obtain samples
of the shrimp, fix them in Formalin
(Davidson's fixative was unavailable) and
mail them to me at Granada Biosciences,
in Texas. The samples were received in
March and were submitted to The Texas
Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab
(TVMDL) at Texas A&M University for
histopathological studies. Both Dr. Fiske
and I read the resulting slides. The report
stated that "Some fatty infiltration of the
cytoplasm of cells in the hepatopancreas
was observed in one shrimp and a chronic
fibrosing lesion -was noted in the
musculature, possibly traumatic in origin,
on another". No definitive diagnosis was
made. Taura was unknown at the time;
therefore, it is possible that TS, if
present, would have been unidentified.
The primary difference between Bacterial
Black Spots and TS is that TS lesions are
produced in the epidermis beneath the
exoskeleton. The resulting melanized
exudate is forced through,the pores in
the exoskeleton where it collects
between the exoskeleton and the cuticle.
Bacterial shell disease normally attacks
the exoskeleton from the outside.
Cbitinoclastic bacteria penetrate the
exoskeleton producing inflammation in
the epidermal tissue resulting in
melanized lesions that resemble pits.
Figure 7 - A photo of a shrimp with TSV-like lesions
collected from a farm in Colombia during February of
1990. .
A review of two archived slides'clearly
show Taura-like "buck shot" lesions in
heart tissue surrounding the heart
chamber on one of the slides (fig, 8).
Unfortunately TVMDL had destroyed
the tissue blocks after five years on file,
just months before this discovery was
made. If the tissue had been available
insitu studies could have been conducted
using the gene probe, confirming the
presence of TSV if in fact it were
responsible for the disease.
6
-------
Figure 8-A Photomicrograph of a suspected TSV lesion taken from histological
section made through the heart muscle of the shrimp collected from a farm in
Columbia S.A. during February of 1990.
Note: This paper was presented at the IV Central American Symposium on
Aquaculture. Tegucigalpa, Honduras, April 22 - 24 1997.
-------
July20,1997 .
.-.' • ••%• • • ' ' •
My name is Becky Gillette and I am conservation chair for the Mississippi Chapter Sierra
Club. In preparing comments today to represent the environmental position on the issue of foreign
shrimp viruses, I asked for advice from representatives of other environmental organizations and
scientists familiar with this issue. My intent is to provide recommendations that reflect a
consensus among environmental groups. ,
First of all I would like to commend the work done by researchers from the different
government agencies involved in compiled the report "An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus
mipacts." This is a very comprehensive report that contains the kind of scientific information
needed to evaluate the sources of potential problems, and is a good research base from which to
make recommendations.
I agree with the findings in this report. To briefly recap them:
*Shrimp viral diseases are widespread .throughout the world.
*Ih at least one instance viral disease has been associated with drastic reductions in wild shrimp
harvests.
*Some foreign aquaculture Operations harvest their ponds immediately upon finding disease and
export the infected shrimp.
*Domestic shrimp are vulnerable. Recently discovered Asian viruses appear to be more virulent to
domestic shrimp species than those viruses thought to be endemic to South and Central America.
*Species other than shrimp may be at risk. One or more of these viruses have been found in
samples of other crustaceans from around the work, including copepods, crabs, shore flies and
crayfish. ,
1 Shrimp is a $3 bMon a year industry in the U.S. that is at risk from, these viruses.
Although I generally agree with the report's conclusions, there are a couple of statements
I'm don't agree with. The report states that these foreign viruses pose no risk to human health. I
would say that, -at best, the threat of foreign shrimp viruses to human health is not known.
Aquaculture operations are breeding grounds for new and more virulent forms of viruses, so just
because to date there are no known casesof shrimp viruses which can affect humans, it doesnt
mean that a new virus or mutated viruswatlgi emerge from aquaculture couldn't have the ability to :
affect humans. A few years ago the toxic dinofkgellate Pfiesteria piscicida was unknown but
probably present in the environment in small enough quantities that it caused no damage. But after
wastewater lagoons containing hog waste broke and discharged into North Carolina streams,
Phiesteriq. not only killed millions offish, but also caused serious health problems resulting from
grotesque sores to loss of memory to humans exposed to this toxic algae.
When we upset the natural balance, we .don't know what the results wilj be, what species
will be affected, or what the end result might be. We do know that new viruses are showing up
regularly in aquaculture, and that they are very difficult to control
-------
It seems painfully obvious to me that we need to do something to reduce the risk of
foreign, viruses affecting our native stocks and the other species that depend on them for food.
But how do we do that and also give Americas cheap shrimp and keep thousands of people
employed at seafood processing plants?
In Mississippi processing of foreign shrimp is a major industry; about 33 million pounds
of foreign shrimp are processed annually at seafood factories on the Coast. The shrimp are
imported frozen, thawed and then processed primarily in large mechanical peeling machines. The
wastewater from processing the shrimp is screened to remove solids, and then discharged into the
Back Bay of Biloxi or other coast waters.
We know that some foreign aquaculture operations will harvest a pond when a virus first
appears in order to minimize losses. So it is quite likely that viable shrimp viruses have been
discharged into Back Bay. And while researchers say that there is no evidence here that native
shrimp have contracted the foreign diseases, that simply means it hasnt been detected, not mat it
hasnt occurred. When shrimp become ill, they start slowing down and then are usually eaten by a
predator. So it is possible the shrimp have been affected, but that this hasnt been detected.
It seems to me that if we were trying to infect native stocks of shrimp with foreign viruses,
there is only one better way than discharging the foreign viruses into, estuary areas that are nursery
grounds for shrimp. The only better way would be to culture the live infected shrimp with the
native shrimp, and then release the native shrimp. As this shrimp virus report states on Page 26:
"Shrimp infected with WSSV, YHV, and TSV have been identified in retail stores in the U.S.
Thus, the importation of infected shrimp for processing by the U.S. shrimp industry significantly
increases the potential for the introduction of pathogenic viruses into coastaT&Siisf'adjacent to
the processing plants. This pathway may pose a significant threat to wild shrimp populations."
It is simply an unacceptable risk to continue to allow no control over preventing the
foreign shrimp viruses from being present in wash water from the seafood packing nouses.
One option would be to prevent the import of foreign shrimp. Yet nationwide 65 to 70
percent of the shrimp consumed is imported, and thousands of people are employed by the
industry. While I dont think the need to provide cheap shrimp to consumers in the U.S. is as
important as preventing this serious threat to our wild stocks, I have little hope of this suggestion
even being seriously considered. It would first take a major national disaster before this would be
considered.
I also would prefer that wash water from the seafood houses be collected and treated to
not only destroy viruses but to improve wastewater treatment. The large amount of organics in
the wastewater contribute to poor water quality in Back Bay. But I have little hope that seafood
operations here in Mississippi will be required to provide further wastewater treatment. The
processors consider this too expensive and, politics being what they are in Mississippi, the state is
unlikely to require treatment. The seafood waste causes poor water quality in Back Bay, and
because permit limits are set on the quality of the receiving water, the Harrison County
Wastewater District is forced to spend millions more than necessary to upgrade to municipal
-------
wastewater treatment to advanced levels. Despite this burden on the sewage system rate payers,
nothing has been done to hook these plants up to a wastewater treatment system.
Since it is unlikely that further treatment of wastewater will be required, we must look to
assuring that the foreign viruses are not present in imported shrimp Similar testing programs
should be developed for imported shrimp that are used for other imported animal products.
These are my recommendations on procedures to prevent the spread of foreign shrimp
viruses from importation of shrimp and from U.S. aquacufture operations:
L Shrimp from each, shrimp farm (foreign and domestic) should be periodically tested for virus.
This is so we can track infected shrimp and their origins. These infected shrimp MUST be
cooked prior to washing so no viruses escape and so the packers dont lose money. These
contaminated shrimp can then enter the market as canned, cooked-breaded, etc. products.
2. This would mean that shipments of shrimp from EACH point of origin would have to be kept
SEPARATE.....for ease of testing and to track
3. All shipping bills must indicate farm of origin, packer, shipper, etc.
4. The burden of proof should be put on the cduntry of ORIGIN....Le., have their seafood
inspectors CERTIFY the shrimp are virus-free... .then we can hold them responsible for
contaminated shrimp and U.S. processors could refuse to pay for the shrimp or sue. But we
would also need period random sampling after import to detect compliance with, the certification
of virus-free shrimp. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has the authority to
prevent the spread of foreign diseases detrimental to agriculture, so this testing program could be
conducted under their authority.
5. We need to ban imported shrimp to be used as bait. There is enough domestic shrimp to supply
this market.
6. The Lacey Act should be implemented to address the issue of shrimp viruses. This provides
legal backing to prevent the import of contaminated shrimp.
7. An import duty of one cent (or more) per pound on imported shrimp could be instituted to pay
, for shrimp inspections plus research on effective methods for killing viruses in washwater
8. We should consider whether or not aquacuteure farms areworth the risk in the U.S. They are
breeding grounds for disease. If new shrimp aquaculture facilities are allowed, they need far
stricter control than what we .have at present. They should be located inland far from the coastal
environment.
9. For existing domestic ponds which are contaminated, holding ponds are needed to stop
contaminated run-off into the natural environment. There should be netting placed over ponds to
prevent transfer by birds, and ponds should be fenced so wildlife cannot transfer viruses from the
-------
ponds to the environment.
10. We need to address the issue of solid waste from the foreign shrimp processing operations.
This should be processed in a manner that will destroy viruses present in the waste materials.
11. NPDES permits for aquaculture and processing operations should include control for
pathogens such as foreign shrimp viruses.
12. We must address the issue of ballast water, which is a potential source for introduction of
foreign species as we! as foreign viruses.
Id like to also present a copy of an article called "Texas Shrimp Farming: Promises,
Promises, Promises...Shrimp mariculture is a very risky business to producers of this valuable
seafood and to the state's native stocks." This article was published in the July\August 1997 issue
of Tide, the official magazine of tike coastal Conservation Association. This article represents the
concerns of a major stakeholder in the issue of marine conservation, the sport fishermen.
The article says that it is questionable whether shrimp aquaculture can successfully operate
in coastal areas of Texas without posing a threat to native shrimp, fish and wildlife stocks in
surrounding bay and estuarine ecosystems. Many Texas Gulf coast residents, including shrimpers,
fishing guides and sport fishermen, have lost confidence in the industry and now actively oppose
it.
Other important conclusions in this article include:
* Shrimp viruses may be beyond control and unstoppable in a mariculture environment. .
*The industry is reeling from problems, primarily the onslaught of rare shrimp viruses never seen
in Texas outside of a laboratory until shrimp firming began.
Dr. Don lightener, considered one of the country's foremost experts on the issue of shrimp
viruses, is quoted as saying, "A decision has to be made about whether the safety of the fisheries
was more important to U.S. citizens than the availability of cheap shrimp."
In South Carolina, a foreign species of shrimp has escaped to the wild, and is now being found in
shrimp trawls. •
"The concern for contamination of native stocks is all too real, considering the South Carolina
experiences and releases of stocks from some Texas shrimp farms.
I think weVe already waited too long to take action on this issue, and need to act quickly
to minimize the threats from foreign shrimp viruses. We simply MUST NOT wait until we have a
collapse of our wild shrimp fishery before taking action. These "cheap shrimp" will come at far
too high a cost.
-------
TESTIMONY
''."•''• BY
DEYAUN BOUDREAUX, EVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR
TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOCIATION
. BEFORE
. JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON AQUACULUTRE
"SHRIMP VIRUS STAKEHOLDER MEETING"
. • FORT BROWN HOTEL
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
JULY 23, 1997
Deyaun Boudreaux
825 Beach Boulevard
Laguna Vista, Texas 78521
Phone (956) 943-3932 Fax 943-1743
-------
TESTIMONY
OF
DEYAUN BOUDKEAUX, ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR
TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOCIATION
SHRIMP VIRUS - PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 23, 1997
FORT BROWN HOTEL
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Joint Subcommittee on Aguaculture,
Office of the President, Science and Technology Policy?
Thank you very much for holding one of the four federal hearings on
the policy issues surround the aquaculture of shrimp here in
texas,and for including the representatives of the High Seas shrimp
fishery of the Gulf of Mexico off Texas.
Background of Statement
I have been asked by my superiors, Wilma Anderson, Executive
Director and the Board of Directors of the Texas Shrimp
Association, to follow the issues and policies, the science, and
the practices of shrimp aquaculture in the United States,
especially int he Southeastern Regional, NMFS. I have also been
designated to work with the appropriate federal and state agencies
that regulate and/or fund aguaculture of shrimp, and to take part
in the permitting process of shrimp farms in Texas.
In carrying out this duty, I have made several observations that
may be of value to policy-makers at both the federal and state
levels. At this point, I wish to thank you and to compliment you
on the document entitled, "An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus
Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf
of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters," for it
contains much valuable information and a very good job of defining
the authorities over the aspects of shrimp farming in coastal
areas. You have graciously asked for input to add to the document,
and I would like to make a few suggestions, as the person who has
worked on this, issue since the late 1980's as the Texas fisheries
Representative to the Citizen Advisory Committee of the Gulf of
Mexico Program, a member of the Integrated Border Environmental
PJLan Public Advisory Committee on the U.S./Mexico Border to the
Administrator of E.P.A., and as a member of the Texas Habitat
Advisory Panel of the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council.
Protect Native Shrimp by Control of Water Vector
First of all, I believe that we need to summarize the protective
authority and obligations over the native shrimp of the Southeast
Region, as the species' belong to the High Seas, and are renewable,
valuable, fishery resource asset of more than one political
jurisdiction. In addition to this, they are an essential
-------
(keystone)_link of the foodweb of the marine systems, and must be
protected in the entire range, from nursery to the open ocean. The
States may have varying descriptions of the animals status;
however, since they are open-ocean species, the federal government
has a duty to assure their well-being as fishery resource assets,
and must require the States to develop guidelines for the "taking"
of these animals, under existing laws, to prevent their exposure to
viruses in laboratories, hatcheries, and farms where exotic species
have been held for shrimp farming research and/or production.
Viruses have a nasty habitat of mutation and adaptation to new
hosts and new environments, and through the laboratory, or the
hatchery, and then the pond, followed by discharge into the public
coastal waters of the nurseries, there are many opportunities for
uncontrollable exposure to this mutation and adaptation, in the
water-medium. Simple application of the standards for protection
of valuable living aquatic resource assets by the federal
government would prevent the problems with which we are struggling
now. '•»
As far as the introduction viruses, this has been done, apparently,
with very severe damage done to shrimp arming.. We can only halt
the unwise practices of laboratories, hatcheries and farms, and try
to clean them up, while researchers try to clean up the stocks of
the species determined to be the most profitable for farm
production: P vannamei - no new species.
Recommendations
As a person in the field on this issue, working with the State, and
Federal Agencies, may I recommend that the work begun by the Gulf
of Mexico Fisheries Management Council in 1996 to re-write its
Aquaculture Policy, under the umbrella of the Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and equivalent compact group of the Southeast
Atlantic Region be expanded to an inventory of the applicable laws
in each state, and an analysis of their compatibility with the
federal laws that protect the shrimp-stocks of the open oceans, and
come up with a recommendation as to |the implementation of standards
which should be incorporated into the application of the Clean
Water Act, which regulates the agricultural production of food,
including aquatic livestock.
Much of this work has been done at Texas A&M University, but there
were some exemptions given in Texas which have made application of
protective measures nearly impossible, since there is no way to
determine the impact a farm on a system, and therefore, neither the
wild shrimp, nor their dependent foodweb constituents, nor the
aquafarmers have the benefit of knowing their chances for minimal
impact on the system, the omission being a lack of requirement to
determine the impacts of "water-use" on the system. I understand
that the fear driving the aquaf armers to seek this "exemption" was
a fear that they would be charged as irrigators for the "water-
use." This is true only in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, due to
the fact that the area chosen to locate two huge shrimp farms lies
on a distributary of the Rio Grande, and this is measured water.
-------
The farms at one time sought to acquire "water rights," but the
amount they predicted that they would need to farm shrimp was one-
half of the U.S. share of the water between El Paso and
Brownsville, Texas, causing the developers to quickly abandon this
concept, and to go for the "exemption." It is too bad, for water
in other areas would not be thus controlled, and what we have done
is make it impossible to do a correct site-survey, and the impacts
on the farms have been great, since some are in low-flushing areas,
adding to the chronic water-quality problems inside the ponds,
which stress the shrimp, making disease-prone situation very
common.
Conclusions
I feel that many of the problems can be solved by simply applying
the protective measures to native shrimp, and requiring site-
surveys, according to the Clean Water Act.
Once again, thank you for coining to Brownsville, and we will
continue to participate in government processes, as we have the
natural experience with the,maintenance of growing-conditions for
shrimp, and can be of assistance to government in evaluations to
determine which of the measures enacted over the years to protect
the habitat of wild fishery resource assets are the most effective.
We could help the farmers learn to practice water stewardship,
which could only enhance their chances for success, with healthy,
viable shrimp, raised in- clean water, with few losses associated
with pollution.
-------
TESTIMONY
BY
JULIUS COLLINS, PRESIDENT ,.
TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOCIATION
PANELIST REPRESENTING THE SHRIMP PROCESSING SECTOR
BEFORE
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON AQUACULUTRE
"SHRIMP VIRUS STAKEHOLDER MEETING"
FORT BROWN HOTEL
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
JULY 23, 1997
Julius Collins
163 Creekbend Drive
Brownsville, Texas 78521
Phone (956) 831-2211 Fax 831-2869
-------
TESTIMONY
OF
JULIUS COLLINS, PRESIDENT, TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOCIATION
PANELIST REPRESENTING THE SHRIMP PROCESSING SECTOR
"SHRIMP VIRUS - PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 23, 1997"
FORT BROWN HOTEL
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
Members of the Panel, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I appreciate being asked to serve on the panel to address the
aguaculture issue of virus and disease that has the potential to
infect and severely impact the native shrimp of the United States,
which poses a threat to the viability of the shrimp fishery and the
processing sector dependent upon this fishery.
We are alarmed by the evidence that indicates there is a direct
correlation, that the virus and disease that now threaten's world-
wide shrimp aquaculture operations, may now have been released into
the wild populations of .our valuable native, shrimp. Even more
alarming are the disclosures, that uncontrolled experiments with
our native shrimp, whereby, they were captured and stocked in open
ponds where cultured species had previously died from non-native
viruses. This experiment is referred to as a "so-called laboratory
environment.1? These infected native shrimp were then processed,
placed on the market and sold for human consumption.
Discovery of Disease in Native White Shrimp
Scientists trying to explain the presence of disease from exotic
shrimp species prohibited for use in Texas, that was found in
"experimental research animals," taken from the Gulf of Mexico,
have identified several "pathways," for vectors. by which the
disease may have gotten into research animals from a local farm
where culture shrimp had died of another virus - the Taura Syndrome
Virus ("TSV").
It has not been explained to us what sector of the Gulf these
infected species were supposedly captured from, therefore, it is
important to know the sector and what activity is within that
vicinity, in order to trace how the infectious disease was spread
to the Gulf white shrimp.
Processors as a Pathway Vector
One suggested vector is processors. This suggestion has prompted
us at the processing level to carefully evaluate the handling
procedures of domestic and imports at the processing level local,
state and in neighboring gulf states.
Here in South Texas, known as the Rio Grande Valley, where the Gulf
of Mexico, Texas, and Mexico all come together, we have the world's
-------
largest offshore shrimp fleet. We count very heavily in the total
landings for domestically produced native shrimp, and therefore,
many processors are located here, that process the Gulf's harvest.
Coincidentally, we rank very high in volume of imported shrimp
entering the United States, via the Laredo Sector, U.S. Customs
Service. This is due to the fact that much shrimp imported into
the United States is "trampolined" through Mexico, in other words,
shrimp from the four corners of the globe first come into Mexico,
and then come into the United States, much crossing the border at
Brownsville, Texas. The location of the largest processor of .this
shrimp is Brownsville, Texas. The researchers looking at the
situation, assumed that this shrimp was coming into Brownsville, in
its exported original form from the various countries, then thawed,
repacked, or even peeled, deveined, and repacked here. While some
.imported product is processed in Brownsville, the vast majority of
the volume is processed in Matamorps, Tamps, Mexico,' in the
company's shrimp maquiladora plant before coming across the border.
The wastewaters from the Matambrbs plant, although untreated, does
not flow into the Rib Grande nor into ;the Gulf of Mexico. These
wastewaters are dumped into "El Barril de la Laguna Madre de
Mexico," which has no outlet to the Gulf in the immediate area? in
fact, the man made cut at Mezquital is quite a distance from "El
Barril," and the natural pass at Rio Soto la Marina, is probably
near 100 miles from "El Barril."
The quantity of imported shrimp that comes to the two plants in
Brownsville is much less, and the plants are hooked to the. city's
wastewater (sewage) treatment plant, (the North Plant), which has.
a two-fold treatment process? chlorinatiori and' oxygen-peroxide
injection, before the effluent is discharged into the Brownsville
Ship Channel.
All shrimp processing sectors along the Texas coast were and are
required to be on wastewater treatment plants with the advent of
the Clean Water Act. All processing plants in the Rio Grande
Valley area are on wastewater treatment plants.
The only processor near a shrimp farm in 1996 was the processing
plant on the farm itself, owned and operated by the shrimp farmer,
and immediately following the die-off of his pond shrimp in 1996,
he hooked his pond shrimp processing plant to the nearby city
sewage treatment plant. This shrimp farm is located in Calhoun
County on Matagorda Bay far from Cameron County.
\_ - .
It has been suggested that seagulls, and some insects may carry TSV
in a form available to infect both the ponds and wild shrimp, , and
that the scavenging birds can also infect ponds and wild shrimp/ if
they feed on the processor's solid wastes (shell heads, etc) in
landfills in Brownsville and Matamoros.
-------
Presence of Prohibited Species on the Texas Coast
Were the prohibited species ever present on the Texas Coast
anywhere besides the processing section in Brownsville and
Matamoros? Yes, according to the book, Shrimp Capture and Culture
Facilities of the United States. Sea Grant funded penaeus shrimp
rearing programs were conducted by Texas ASM University at College
Station and Corpus Christi, Texas. Exotic species were studied for
possible use in the United States, including kuruma prawn, giant
tiger prawn, western white shrimp and southern white shrimp.
Today, virtually all commercial ventures use the Pacific white
shrimp (P. vannamei). [1]
A new chapter, a dark chapter, has been written, since TSV broke
out in Ecuador in 1992. Time was lost while scientists tried to
aline the disease to agriculture chemicals used in banana-
cultivation; ultimately, however, a virus was isolated, but not
before the TSV appeared in Hawaiian shrimp farms in 1994, and a
hatchery in Florida, which supplies a farm in Honduras. In 1994-
1995, Mexico and the U.S. were hard-hit. Texas farms dealt with
both Hawaii and Mexico in 1995 for post-larvae. We saw reckless
experimentation in open ponds where P. vannamei died involving wild
white shrimp of the Gulf of Mexico, "taken" by researchers for.
"experimentation," and later harvested for sale, with some
apparently "over-wintered" for brood-stock, to use for larvae
production in 1996. -These are the shrimp that turned up with the
diseases of the giant tiger prawn: White Spot Syndrome Virus
("WSSV") and Yellowhead Syndrome Virus ("YSV) . How could this
happen? We learned with certainty, as disclosure came that in
1994, a group of "researchers" had once again brought in prohibited
species from Red China, and some had been held on the Texas Coast,
probably at the public facilities at Port Aransas and Flour Bluff,
the same facilities that captured the wild white shrimp from the
Gulf of Mexico in 1995, holding the wild shrimp, and then shipping
them down to the farm/hatchery in Cameron County, to stock the
ponds where the culture shrimp had died earlier. [2]
[1] E.S. Iversen, D.M. Allen, and J.B. Higman, published in Great
Britain by Blackwell Science Publications, 1993, Osney Mead,
Oxford, OX2 OEl, published in North American by Halstead Press, an
Imprint of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, New
10158, Copyright Blackwell Scientific Publication 1993, Library of
Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, p. 163, "Texas" 7.2.4.
Note on U.S. Panaeus shrimp farming research and ventures, rearing
programs conducted, emphasis on grow-out and field trials and
shrimp parasites and diseases an important research area.
[2] Information from USDA and from Evidentiary Hearing before the
State office of Administrative Hearings, Austin, Texas, February
1997, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Permit No.
03819, shrimp farm discharge permit.
-------
Now we learn that virtually all the farms in production has TSV
again in 1997. We learn the WSSV is , found in the wild shrimp in
South Carolina- and now in Texasi We know that the Texas
farm/hatchery which experimented in 1995 had native white shrimp
from South Carolina at their facility in.1996. Did they ship wild
white, brood-stock from the 1995 "experiments" for the 1996 season?
Did they ship post-larvae to South Carolina in 1997? There have
been two die-offs of wild white shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico in
the public laboratories at Port Aransas and Flour Buff near Corpus
Christi, Texas. [3]
From the federal document titled, An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp
Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the
Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Waters, we learn that
WSSV broke out in Red China's vast shrimp farms in 1992; it is
probable that the "specimens brought back to College Station and
Four Bluff, Texas in 1994, carried WSSV, originally called "The
China Disease." '
We learned from this same publication that another virus, IHHNV /
common to the Pacific blue shrimp (P. stylorostris), wiped out 80%
of the wild shrimp of this species in the Sea of Cortez, caused by
the shrimp farming activities of ponds and hatcheries along its
shores, and that the populations were flattened from 1988-1994. We
know that this virus also attacked Pacific white shrimp (P.
vannamei) , in the same hatchery/farm here in Cameron County, Texas,
that turned., up with the WSSV and YSV, along with TSV, in the wild
white shrimp experimentally stocked in the diseased ponds from the
culture shrimp die-off in 1995.
In late 1996, we learned that groups of shrimp farmers and.
researchers were and still are/ pressuring the State of Texas to
remove the Pacific blue shrimp (P. stylorostris), from the
prohibited list and to allow this shrimp to be stocked and raised
"experimentally" in several facilities in Texas. This is the same
s'pecies with the IHHNV that knocked out the production in the Sea
of Cortez, Spnora, Mexico, for six years from 1988 to 1994. We -
have been told that they want to research this species' in the
field on an old 20,000 acre farm in South Texas.
The- stakeholders of the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico
strongly oppose this proposal to delist any prohibited species. We
are adamantly opposed to any more "taking" of our wild shrimp for
shrimp farming related research.
[3] Disclosure by Dr. Larry McKinhey, Texas Parks & Wildlife
Department, June 12, 1997, New Orleans, Louisiana, meeting of
State/Federal officials, on shrimp viruses; and "Tide Magazine", a
publication of Coastal Conservation Association, July-August 1997,
titled "Texas Shrimp Farming, "Promises, Promises, Promises," by
Charles J. Dukes.
-------
It appears that all the laboratories, hatcheries and farms are
contaminated. Their contaminated wastes have flowed into our best
nurseries. There have been no farm clean-ups.
We stakeholders feel that concentration upon some of the "vectors,"
such as processors and seagulls is a smoke screen that delays time
and does nothing to bring about the basic reforms that must be
implemented by emergency rule to protect our wild shrimp and other
crustaceans. We recommend the adoption of the ICES guidelines;
required clean-up of contaminated farms, with cessation of all
discharging and restocking; and no more field research with native
or exotic shrimp. The introduction of exotics by aquaculture
should no longer be classified as "intentional" under the Non-
Indigenous Species Act; it must come under federal law and must
become a violation of law.
We must have all federal laboratories and research respect the
restrictions placed on the use of species for aquaculture purposes
by the laws of the states such as Texas. Domestic shrimp farming
produces less than 1% of all U.S. shrimp production. The wild
shrimp populations is of the utmost importance to the fishermen and
the processing sector of the Texas domestic shrimp fishery. We
demand protection for our estuaries in which our valuable native
species are solely dependent. .
Finally, Texas processors advise they are in procedural compliance
with wasterwater discharges and by-product discards in the
processing of imported products, and that other Gulf- and
Southeastern Atlantic Coastal States should require, if riot
required, that all processors of imported product to be on
wastewater treatments plants and to properly dispose of the by-
products of shrimp processing, this "vector" is fully controlled.
What cannot be tolerated and must be given immediate attention is
the continued unauthorized "taking" of wild shrimp for "research,"
and the open field trials of exotic species, who disease can travel
throughout coastal waters: seagulls, insects, other crustaceans,•
and water, yes, water, as some of the viruses can live in water
alone, and can be taken in by another healthy shrimp, which can
become infected and die, and its carcass is a live seed-pod for
transfer by birds, other shrimp, ambient waters, etc., ladened with
virus.
The most obvious first step is to take a "creative pause," and
back-off the frantic push to build more and more shrimp farms in
the United States, and in other shrimp producing nations, until the
problem of virus and disease, has been fully understood and
contained.
We appreciate the holding of this important meeting and I will try
to answer your questions with the help of Texas Shrimp Association
staff and consultant, who have been intensely involved in all
retrospect of the shrimp fanning activities on the Texas Coast.
-------
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SHRIMP VIRUS STAKEHOLDER MEETING
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS - JULY 23, 1997
• '• , . ••'.. •-' BY '•• , '
'...•-.!•' DR. LARRY McKINNEY , ; ' '.
. , SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR WATER AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
By way of providing introductory remarks, I wish to commend the shrimp virus workgroup, of the
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA), for their efforts to address this very serious issue and
the way in which they have proceeded to do so. At Texas Parks and Wildlife, we attempt to address
these issues through a similar mechanism we call the Aquaculture Team, which I chair. Several
members of that team are present: Gene McCarty, Mike Ray, Raenell Silcox, and Dave Buzan. I
want to acknowledge and thank them and the other team members.that could not be present for their
contribution which was significant in preparation of the oral and written comments,I am providing.
Per direction of the invitation letter, I have organized our comments under the four headings you
have requested. .
1. The nature of threats shrimp viruses pose to TPWD.
As stated in section 12.0011 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, TPWD is the state agency with
primary responsibility for protecting the fish and wildlife resources of Texas. The agency also has
management duties specific to shrimp and aquaculture. These duties include permitting^f exotic
species for aquacultural use in Texas, and responsibility for management of the wild populations
of shrimp. TPWD has some regulatory authority regarding the distribution of seafood in Texas, but
has no regula'tory authority as regards the processing of shrimp. , .
The potential transmission of exotic diseases, specifically shrimp viruses, into native wildstocks is
recognized by TPWD as the single most serious issue we face in meeting our management
responsibilities in this area. This concern pertains to a disease threat'from any source, but
aquaculture operations has been our focus because of our regulatory and management
responsibilities. ' _ • ' . .
To slate that TPWD is "between the proverbial rock and hard place" as regards this issue would be
a laughable understatement, if the issue were not so serious.
• • ' . ' ."'.'•'•' ' • • • ' >
The shrimp fishery in Texas generates annually $600 million in economic benefits and provides jobs
for more than 15,000 Texans. However, we have more fishermen than the resource can sustain.
A limited entry management option has recently been adopted to assure the sustainability of that
fishery. Harvest of shrimp come at a cost to other fishery resources because of bycateh, and impact
to coastal habitats from fishing methods. Those costs and impacts can be managed and there are
mechanisms in place to do so ,
-------
Cultured shrimp represent a viable means to meet growing demands beyond the capability of the
shrimp fishery, and a means of doing so without the resource and habitat impacts that are of concern
in that fishery. However, the shrimp mariculture industry also brings with it concerns for habitat
and water quality impacts, especially as may result from discharges into coastal waters. Other
resource concerns are associated with escape of exotics and potential for displacement of native
species, as well as the disease issues that are the subject of this hearing. The mechanisms to manage
these concerns are not equal .to those available for the management of wild stocks. Recently in
Texas, some regulatory tools have been adopted that will be of use in addressing these concerns.
The threat of transmitting disease from exotic shrimp species to native shrimp and other native fauna
is considered a very real risk by TPWD. What we cannot assess is the degree of risk associated with
any of the several transmission pathways such as described in the report. TPWD simply does not
have the resources to make that assessment. The fact that acknowledged experts disagree on the
potential of such risks compounds the concern. This disagreement was demonstrated by conflicting
testimony by expert witnesses in the St. Martin's aquaculture wastewater discharge hearing. Such
conflict makes it even more difficult for resource management agencies like TPWD, to take
appropriate action.
We have attempted to put into place a management strategy that is responsive to both industries and
one that meets our mandated resource protection responsibilities. Some of the key elements of that
strategy are as follows:
• Allnaahie. Exotic .Species. Only one exotic shrimp species is currently permitted for
commercial aquaculture in Texas: Penaetis vannamei. The species has been used
successfully by the industry for many years, and as such we have a certain comfort level
about our ability to manage its use and disease potential. TPWD has been petitioned to allow
the use of P. stylirostnts, but at present we are considering its use only in closed systems
outside the 200 mile coastal exclusion zone. That proposal may be considered by the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Commission this Fall. TPWD will not support any petition to use that
species, or any other, in open systems in the coastal area. Our concerns also extend to
bringing these animals into Texas for research purposes. The Aquaculture Team is presently
considering this issue.
• Pisea.se Management As can be noted from reviewing the report, each of the four known
exotic shrimp diseases have occurred at one time or another in Texas aquaculture facilities.
This is clear evidence that despite claims to the contrary, and very real and concerted effort
by the industry, the industry cannot eliminate the potential for introduction of disease into
surrounding environments. The industry has worked cooperatively with TPWD to manage
TSV which is a recurring problem in Texas facilities, and they have adopted a response plan
that requires reporting of mortalities, disease testing, and non-discharge of affected waters
within specified time frames. The Department has been petitioned to allow the use of P.
stylirostrus, as a species more resistant to disease, especially Taura .Syndrome Virus (TSV)
which is a recurring problem in Texas facilities. It is a recognized practice in shrimp
-------
tnariculture to "rotate" species as a disease management technique. This may work well for
the industry, but results m maximum exposure to native species. In this context, it is
interesting to note that just mis month P. stylirostrus being held in a South Carolina facility
had to be destroyed because of TSV infection. New regulations to enhance our disease
management capabilities will'be considered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
this Fall.
• Native Species.. TPWD supports the use of native shrimp in developing aquaculture options
that reduce both disease and escapement concerns. There are valid arguments that different
strategies, such as use of exotics themselves, are the best means to manage disease concerns
in native shrimp. Based on current information, however, TPWD staff remain convinced that
promotion of native shrimp is the best option.
• Coordinated Permitting The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Comhiission
(TNRCC) has adopted rules to address discharge concerns associated with shrimp
man culture facilities. Disease associated with those discharges, and management of them
are considered as part of that permitting process. TPWD has a formal role in that process and
will consider adoption of complimentary rules this Fall.
Current statutory authority, existing regulations, fiscal and technical resources are not sufficient for
TPWD to take other than a conservative approach to managing shrimp disease issues within our
purview. Some would say "that the most conservative approach would be to not allow aquaculture
of exotic shrimp at all. That is not an option that TPWD will consider at this time, but until relative
risks can be better assessed, TPWD will continue its present course. Hopefully, it is clear that
TPWD takes-its responsibilities seriously. Seriously enough, that last year TPWD took the
unprecedented step of seeking a restraining order to stop ther discharge of water from an unpermitted
aquaculture facility whose shrimp were infected with TSV. We were prepared to do so in several
other situations, but it was not necessary because of voluntary compliance. We remain prepared to
take similar action today. -
It was disturbing to note/on page 51 of the report that, " recently discovered Asian viruses appear
to be more virulent to domestic shrimp species than those thought to be endemic to South and
Central America." If that is the case, it certainly reinforces a conservative approach to disease
, management. , ' .
The Senate Natural Resource Committee of the Texas legislature, chaired by Senator Buster Brown,
assessed the situation as an interim study before the last legislative session. A bill based on that
study, a bill that was broadly supported, would have provided significant tools to address shrimp
disease concerns. Unfortunately, that.bill died for reasons unrelated to its intent, and we are now
. back to square one. Senator Brown has assured me that it will be revisited in the next session. Until
that time, and such a time as we can better assess risks, TPWD will continue a conservative
approach and will continue to stand ready to take those actions necessary to meet its resource
management responsibilities
-------
2. Accuracy and completeness of shrimp virus report.
Overall, the report was very thorough and well written. We will submit in writing some technical
corrections, primarily about figures and statistics that may have changed since it was prepared,
which we hope you will find helpful. The following are some points we consider important to note.
• Role of the States. The document is significantly deficient in describing the role of states
in aquaculture management. It is states that permit introduction of these species and our
management and permitting approaches vary widely. These uncoordinated actions certainly
increase disease risk. This was a topic of a recent workshop sponsored by the Gulf of
Mexico Program. That program may provide a means of addressing this issue that should
be explored as part of a risk assessment.
• Federal Role. Two areas were not addressed that would seem important in a risk
assessment. What has been (and continues to be, if ongoing) the impact of U.S. assistance
to foreign countries to develop aquaculture? If these countries are sending diseased shrimp
to U.S. processors as described in the report, how might the U.S. inadvertently be
contributing to the problem through its economic assistance and how might we instead use
that assistance to improve disease control by foreign countries? Second, what are federal
agencies doing to address the use of exotic species in federal waters. Open water aquaculture
is a growing development possibility for the future. Who has, or will have, federal
permitting authority?
3. Information gaps.
The report summarises data gaps and research needs on page 49. TPWD agrees with that assessment
and provides the following comments:
• One of the two most important research needs is to assess the presence and distribution of
pathogenic viruses in wild stocks. The recent occurrence of a "whitespot" type virus in
native species held in the Texas Agriculture Research Center in Corpus Christi illustrates this
need. TPWD has worked with researchers there to address this concern and is supporting
efforts to obtain grant funding to expand that work. One insufficiency in assessing the
efficacy of disease management strategies is a lack of baseline information on the presence
and distribution of pathogenic viruses in our native stocks.
• The second greatest unassessed risk, the risk we know the least about, is that associated with
the processing of imported shrimp. Based on sheer volume, it could be that the risk
associated with that activity overwhelms all others. Adequately assessing that risk will likely
form the basis of future management strategies.
• One note of caution, please do not allow the research recommendations from this report to
become a broad based "research engine." A number of the research needs listed in the report
-------
are very broad in nature. Certainly, those issues need to be addressed, but not at the expense
of the most immediate needs to carry out a. viable and timely risk assessment.
4. Additional comments.
TPWD applauds the efforts of the workgroup to address this important issue and urges you to
undertake this assessment as one that is appropriate for the agencies you represent, and one that is
necessary for the responsible management of these resources. The goal as stated on page 14 of the
report ,-
Prevent the establishment of new disease-causing viruses in wild populations of shrimp in the gulf
of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters, while minimizing possible impacts on
shrimp importation, processing, and aquaculture operations.
is one TPWD would support as well. The assessment endpoints also seem appropriate, although the ,
second assessment endpoint: ,
The ecological structure and function of coastal and near shore, marine communities as they affect
wildpenaeidshrimp populations •
may be too broad and long term to be useful in an assessment process that, if undertaken, most
deliver results in short order. »
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony .and would be pleased to work with the
subcommittee to undertake the risk assessment process as proposed. This concludes my oral
remarks. More detailed written comments will follow.
-------
GULF
RESTORATION
NETWORK
Comments Of The. Gulf Restoration Network on the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture' s
Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp
and Wild Shrimp Populations in the gulf of Mexico and
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters
Good morning I am Cynthia Sarthou, Campaign Director of the
Gulf Restoration Network. The Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) is a
network of local, regional, and- national environmental,
environmental justice, social justice and public interest groups,
and individuals dedicated to the fight to restore the ecological
and biological integrity of the Gulf of Mexico. Network members
are located in all five Gulf states of Texas, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Florida and Alabama.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the
Joint Subcommittee on Aguaculture' s (JSA' s) Evaluation of Potential
Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations
in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters
I. Concerns About the Nature of Threats Posed by Shrimp Viruses
A. The environmental community has serious concerns regarding the
threat posed by shrimp viruses to the populations of native shrimp
and coastal ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. The GRN believes
that the use of nonnative shrimp in live mariculture operations and
processing operations pose a threat to the Gulf marine ecosystem.
The threat <§ome5 in two forms: escapement of imported shrimp and
insufficiently treated effluent. Untreated effluent from these
operations is discharged directly into local waters — providing
an exposure pathway for native shrimp, crayfish, copepods, fish and '
other marine species. The JSA Report indicates that the potential
for transmission of viruses to native shrimp is largely unknown.
This appears contrary to information recently published in the Port
Lavaca News, Texas. A June 18, 1997 article in the- Port Lavaca
News reports that Dr. Addison Lawrence, director of the- Shrimp
Mariculture research project of the Texas Agriculture experiment
station, reported that a white spot-like virus caused a significant
die-off of native white shrimp (Panaeus setiferius) being held at
th£ research lab. Although Dr. Lawrence has no information
regarding the source of the exposure/pathogen contracted by these
Working to Protect and Preserve the Gulf of Mexico
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2245, New Orleans, LA 70176 4- Street Address: 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401, New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 525-1528 4 Fax: (504) 566-7242
100% Kcytled pjpcr f>roc«scd 100% cWonne free
-------
shrimp, the article would appear to indicate that viruses pose a
threat to native shrimp stocks.
The environmental community is also concerned about the second
possible exposure pathway of escapement of infected exotic shrimp
from mariculture facilities. These shrimp pose a significant
threat to native shrimp and other marine species both in
competition for resources, and exposure of native stocks to viruses
which do not presently exist in Gulf waters.
Protection of wild shrimp stocks must take precedence over
farmed species. Agencies must take action now to prevent possible
impacts of wild shrimp and other species within the marine
ecosystem. We concede that there is a need for a Risk Assessment.
However, Risk Assessments are long and involved processes. , We
cannot afford to await the completion of a Risk Assessment prior to
taking action. We must adopt the precautionary principle — we
must act^ before the local ecosystem is negatively impacted.1 The
results could be disastrous. The resources of the Gulf are simply
to valuable to risk. , ,
II. Accuracy and Completeness of the Shrimp Virus Report
With regard to contents of .the JSA Report, the GRN has the
following specific comments: ,
Section 2.1, p. 9
The JSA Report states that "[cjosts to tJ.S. processors will
increase if new detection, control & treatment procedures are
implemented to prevent the environmental release of contaminated
wastes." It is true that detection, control and treatment
procedures may add to the costs incurred by the processing
industry. However, it is the" aquaculture and processing industries
that are responsible for the import of potentially contaminated
shrimp. It is also they who prof it from these industries — as the
JSA report notes they are a 9 million dollar industry. On the
other hand, if native wild shrimp, crayfish or. other fish
populations become infected with one of the mentioned viruses, the
financial burden will fall upon domestic shrimpers, fishers and the
general public. Accordingly, it is only equitable that those who
benefit from the industry creating the risk bear the burden of the
cost of measures needed to prevent, environmental contamination
associated with their operations.
Section 2.2, p. 9
1 '*,'-<- ' " •
The Report aptly states that management of the potential risks
of the shrimp disease problem will require a diverse group of
interested parties. However, the need for participation of this
"diverse group" in the ecological risk assessment process is not
equally stressed. Cooperative interaction of interested groups
must begin now ^ To ensure cooperation and buy-in by all interested
-------
groups, federal agencies must involve a wide variety of interested
stakeholders in all phases of the process — from risk assessment
to management. The Report must, therefore, include a discussion of
participation by these groups in all phases of the Risk Assessment
and Management Process.
Section 2.2, pps. 10-12
The report purportedly summarizes "the responsibilities, tools
and recent efforts" of many state and federal agencies to deal with
the shrimp virus problem. No mention is made within this section
of the responsibilities of the FDA. It is our understanding that
the FDA is the agency responsible for regulation and inspection of
all imported shellfish. They are,therefore, the front line agency
with regard to detection of viral agents within imported shrimp
stocks. Their responsibilities and efforts to date to address this
problem must be discussed. If the FDA is not yet involved, they
must be contacted and brought into the process.
Section 2.2, p. 10
The report discusses voluntary participation by some
aguaculture operations in the Specific Pathogen Free (SPF)
broodstock and shrimp seed program. The CRN is curious ,to know
whether any efforts have been made to implement a mandatory SPF
broodstock compliance program. Industry may at first be reluctant
to participate in a such a program. However, such a program may
constitute the only effective method of ensuring that aquaculture
operations employ only pathogen free stocks. The possibility of
a mandatory program should be addressed in the Report.
Section 3.1, pps. 16-19
The primary assessment' endpoint seems to be well thought out
and well developed throughout the Report. However, the report
places too much emphasis upon this endpoint. Impacts on wild
panaeid shrimp cannot, and should not, be the major focus of these
efforts. As aptly illustrated within the report, shrimp are not
the only species threatened by shrimp viruses. Viruses pose a
threat to other marine species and to the ecosystem as a whole.
Thus, the second endpoint -— pertaining to the affects on the
ecological structure and function of coastal and near-shore marine
communities — is .an equally important endpoint. Equal emphasis
must be accorded this important issue. Within the Report, the JSA
should recommend research aimed at a better understanding of the
potential impacts of these viruses on marine species, other than
panaeid shrimp, and"the coastal and on the marine ecosystems as a
whole. !
-------
Section 7, pps. 52-55.
Section 7, discussion action items, is the weakest s4ction of
the report. Although the Report recommends a few action steps that
might be taken, the impact of the recommended steps will not be
felt in the short term. Any positive results associated with these
action will be felt, if at all, in the very distant future.
We must act now to protect vital marine species, and
ecosystems now. We are asking the JSA to obtain participation by
all appropriate federal agencies, including APHIS-USDA and the FDA,
in implementing the following:
1. Require that shrimp from each shrimp farm (foreign and
domestic) be periodically tested for virus. This will
allow us to track infected shrimp and their origins;
2. Require that infected shrimp MUST be cooked prior to sale
' or processing to prevent the escape of viruses into the
environment. fcThese contaminated shrimp can then enter
the market as canned, cooked-breaded, etc. products;
3. Require that shipments of shrimp from EACH point of
origin >pkou>(j be kept SEPARATED or ease of testing and.
tracking. All shipping bills should indicate the farm
of origin, "the packer, shipper, etc;
4. Insist that countries of origin bear the burden of having
their seafood inspectors CERTIFY the shrimp are
virus-free. Countries can then be held responsible for
contaminated shrimp (not pay for shrimp or sue);
5. Ban imported shrimp to be used as bait;
6. Amend the Lacey 2£&,&° include shrimp viruses in order to
provide a lega 1 Joo. oil ing- to prevent import of contaminated
shrimp; •
7. For domestic ponds contaminated with viruses, facilities
should be required to stop run-off into the natural
environment (holding ponds); net over ponds to prevent
transfer by birds; fence ponds so wildlife cannot
transfer viruses from ponds to the ^environment;
8. Require treatment of wastewater from mariculture and
seafood processing plants, as well as treatment (such as
shrimp hulls, etc:) and proper disposal of waste products
from processing facilities, and work with the appropriate
to improve regulations regarding the disposal of shrimp
solid waste products;
-------
9. Focus research efforts on development of most effective
and cheapest methods of treating waste products;
10. Impose a duty, as little as one cent per pound, be placed
on imported shrimp — thereby providing a source of
funding for inspections and research;
12. Increase research on potential effects on the coastal
communities as a whole; arid
We recognize that the JSA report is only an initial attempt to
initiate the process for eliminating shrimp viruses. As we stated
earlier, the CRN believes that this Report provides an excellent
compilation of existing information regarding shrimp viruses.
However, we believe that it is crucial that the JSA recommend that
federal agencies take specific action steps immediately to
eliminate the possibility of transfer of these viruses to native
marine species in the Gulf of Mexico.
III. Central Data Gaps:
It is clear from the report that "there is little or no
information on the potential impact of viruses on wild shrimp
fisheries" or on other species of fish, copepods, crabs and
crayfish. Federal agencies must focus significant research efforts
on methods ,of containing shrimp viruses, as well as information
regarding the potential impact of introduction of those viruses
into the Gulf ecosystem. This is particularly important if the
federal government intends to persist in its efforts to promote
domestic shrimp aquaculture.
The JSA Report also identifies another data gap — that
relating to the greater ecological impacts of viruses? Research
efforts must focus on this critical issues. Agencies must
determine those impacts on ecosystem 'structure (e.g. species
composition) or function (e.g. predator/prey relationships) are
associated with the introduction of a virus or viruses into an
ecosystem of a virus or viruses.
Finally, agencies must determine the full panoply of risks to
the marine environment associated with the processing of
contaminated shrimp. They must also determine available treatment
processes, if any, to eliminate viral agents from wastewater
discharges.
-------
IV. summary
It is imperative that federal, and state agencies act now to
protect native shrimp and other potentially impacted marine species
and the marine ecosystem as a whole. The : CRN recognizes the
existence of data gaps and the need for further research to fill
these gaps. Howeyer, agencies simply cannot sit idle while this
research is being completed. Steps must be taken now to prevent
the import and possible spread of potentially devastating viruses.
-------
A
of
me
"f&-{> .„&$ -4- h < s ._ _ 3 i-t .4
//
.of
/V /^ 76
J^^
3:
Atx**.-i A
I* fitted
. .2
A
-------
75
73 ..... <
/77^/
&><
-------
*
, .-f. •$
f
"//* _
jet" "fi&fifHei '•$ &-IL -3^/f^
..j5/ff.^/j^_..^.c/^.<^no
.^J^.> j63.2^__^i
£:^^!L-_oyfe__ob_.<3
./•- - X^
_. ^.^... &
-------
0<<.
. . '77*1? t-
tf.fc^...
-------
2-
-------
; Presentation by ., .
William D. Chauvin
President
Shrimp World, Inc.
Shrimp Virus Stakeholder Meeting
Thibodaux, Louisiana ,
July 25, 1997
i ' '
Good Morning: , .
I am Bill Chauvin, President of Shrimp World, Inc.
Our Company is'"the management firm for the American
Shrimp Processors Association, an association of
shrimp processors and allied industry members
'comprised of 46 shrimp processors from Florida
through Texas and other associated companies
throughout the U.S.
Our members are very concerned,, about the issue of
shrimp viruses and are interested in the report by
the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) and the
Shrimp Virus Workgroup, as well as subsequent
developments and actions that.may be taken in dealing
with this situation. , ". -
We certainly are aware that problems have occurred in
shrimp farming operations throughout the world, .We
have experienced wild swings in supply and
particularly in shrimp prices since the early
eighties—^nearly all resulting from the successes and
failures in aquaculture operations throughout the
world. . , ,
Not too many decades ago the U.S. market was
predominantly supplied by shrimp caught domestically
and supplemented by wild caught shrimp from other
countries.> In the Gulf of Mexico' area we ran the
plants only'during the seasons and most processors
shut down during the off season, keeping only an ;
office staff. and sales, personnel. But as the demand
for shrimp increased, and certainly with the advent
of shrimp farming, the tail began to wag the dog.
Imports are now the major shrimp, supply to the- U.S.
markets. While we have heard of numbers, quoted that
.imports are now about 70 percent of the U.S. supply,
that is based on the volume of imports "as imported."
The U.S. imports shell-on, peeled, cooked, breaded/'
and canned shrimp. Converting these all to shell-on
and comparing the results to the domestic production,
we would realize about 80 percent of .our supply is
imports. -
-------
In the past, most of our processors were able to run
a profitable business using only domestic shrimp. In
the canned shrimp industry, which dominated the
central Gulf production until the late seventies, the
processors avoided using imports because the yields
were not as good as the whole, heads-on shrimp.
However, with the increased demand and the rising
economy, a few processors found it necessary to'
operate longer than just during the domestic seasons.
They began to use imported shell-on shrimp from
Mexico, India and other countries.
The Gulf Coast industry began to evolve in the late
seventies. At the same time that importers began to
increase the percentage of the U.S. canned "shrimp
supply, the overall demand for canned shrimp began to
decline. The development of the infrastructure of
the refrigerated industry enabled more people in
middle America to purchase frozen shrimp. Many of
the carihers began converting their operations from
canned to frozen peeled production. Soon after that
the processors realized the economic necessity of
extending their production "season" by utilizing
imported frozen shrimp in their peeling operations.
Many of the operations in the Gulf Coast area
continue to be dependent on the domestic production
for profitability in their business. Peeling
imported shrimp, nearly all previously.frozen, offers
less yields, but the overhead and continuing payroll
is maintained by 'the longer production year using
imports.
In both the Atlantic and Pacific regions, many
processors there utilize nearly all imported shrimp.
But these processors, unlike most of the Gulf shrimp
industry, produce breaded, cooked and other specialty
shrimp products, which allow more flexibility for
profit. • . ' .
As you can see, imports are an integral part of the
U.S. shrimp processing industry. The leading shrimp /
supplying countries, Thailand and Ecuador, supplied h-
44 percent of last year's shrimp imports. Cultured
shrimp from other Asian and Latin American countries
bring that total to well over half of the U.S.
imported shrimp supply. Yes, we are very concerned
about the virus situation.
Domestic shrimpers, and indeed the news media, have
expressed concern that domestic shrimp farms using
exotic species may have a negative impact on the
indigenous species. Additionally, the processing
industry for nearly two decades has been utilizing
imported shrimp—much of which are farmed—without
-------
any apparent- effect on the domestic species. But we
certainly would not want to jeopardize the domestic
supply—the mainstay of bur Gulf shrimp industry.
But we also need the imported shrimp and particularly
that from the aquaculture sector. We are concerned
'that an overreaction'may, occur that,could endanger a
significant portion our supply. Already South
Carolina has quarantined some shrimp farms, and has
ordered destruction of shrimp in others. This is the
kind of knee-jerk reaction we had hoped would not
occur.
The JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group 'has done a
commendable job in developing their report. • However,
there a few things that need more research, and some
that need supplementary data. ,- • ' ' • , • •
Except for the conclusion that the indigenous U.S./
species, particularly .the Penaeus setiferus, P.
aztecuSf and the P. duorarum can be infected by'
viruses under laboratory conditions, there has been
no other research that concludes these shrimp can
assimilate the virus in the open waters of the Gulf.
In fact, the only instance where wild shrimp were .
thought to be infected by a virus (IHHN) was.in
Mexico's Gulf/of California,.where the species is the
same as those utilized in aguaculture operations.
Further, the decline" in Mexican Pacific shrimp stocks
beginning in 1987 may have had other extenuating
circumstances that could have contributed to their
reduced resistance to the virus or indeed to their
declining population. ' '
The possibility of an El Nino occurrence could have
altered water temperatures and effected greater
predation of shrimp, or could have changed the
ecology of the bays and estuary nursery areas for the
larvae and juvenile shrimp which effected-their
survival. Additionally, along the west coast there
are many Tapos, berms that trap the juvenile shrimp,
preventing them from emigrating into the open oce'an.
There could .have been a greater harvest of smaller
shrimp, which may have reduced the opportunity for a
greater quantity.to emigrate and grow to larger
sizes. '
All possible factors should be examined before a
conclusion is made that the decline was, solely the,
result of the IHHN virus. It is possible also that
an abnormal ecological and environmental situation
could have reduced the shrimp's immunity causing them
to be more susceptible to the virus. •
-------
Our point here is that we urge that the research
encompass all possibilities and, indeed, that more
research should be undertaken to look at the natural
stocks in the Gulf and South Atlantic areas to
determine if any virus is endemic to these species.
We are very concerned that we are facing a "Catch-22"
situation. If your research correctly concludes that
the domestic species are susceptible to the viruses—
not just in a laboratory, i.e., stressful situation—
this may trigger action to reduce our supply of
imports. If comprehensive research is not done, and
there remains a threat to the indigenous species, we
risk losing the mainstay of our supply.
Now, an additional comment referring to the report on
possible introduction of pathogenic viruses with the
ballast water of ships. The species cited are not
only different'species than those we know may carry a
virus, but they are of a different superfamily than
the Penaeoida—maybe almost as different as other
Crustacea, such as crabs and lobster. Much more
research is needed here.
We urge that this comprehensive research be
undertaken so that we do not encounter what might be
reactionary measures such as was recently taken by
South Carolina, quarantining shrimp ponds, and
requiring shrimp farm operators to destroy their
shrimp. We do not know if this measure was
justified. Certainly the state of South Carolina's
DNR had the right to take this action—it was
supported by the state's supreme court. But it may
have been premature or, worse,, unnecessary.
We are pleased that the Shrimp Virus Work Group
recommends that a workshop be convened to further
examine this issue and to produce a risk assessment,
using the information from these stakeholders
meetings. We also urge that you have 'industry
representatives participating in this meeting.'
As you are finding out there are .many stakeholders in
this industry. It is a valuable industry not only to
local communities but to the overall infrastructure
nationwide, from fishermen, and shrimp farmers, to
processors and importers, to- brokers and traders, to
wholesalers and retailers and to restaurants and
supermarkets, and certainly to the consumers.
We sincerely implore you to examine this issue as
objectively and as thoroughly as possible. .
Thank you.
-------
07/28/97 09:49 ©15045667242 SCIDF £§002/009
SHRIMP VIRUS STAKEHOLDER MEETING
THIBODAUX, LOUISIANA
JULY 25, 1997
Comments of Esther Boykin ,
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
(formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund)
INTRODUCTION
• ... /
We are pleased, to have the opportunity to participate in this Shrimp Vims Stakeholder
, •> / ••',,.
Meeting and to comment on the June 5, 1997 report to the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture ("JSA") prepared by the JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group, entitled An Evaluation
of Potential Shrimp Vims Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the
Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Adantic Coastal Waters.
These comments are presented on behalf of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund,
formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The Legal Defense Fund'is a non-
profit, public interest environmental law firm with nine offices in the United States, including
one in New Orleans.
About a,year and a half ago, our New Orleans office was first contacted by citizens,
concerned about the threats of shrimp viruses to the populations of native shrimp and the
coastal ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. The first such call to our office was from a
Mississippi resident who expressed concern about shrimp contaminated with viruses to which
our native species have no resistance, being imported to the Gulf .Coast for processing. The
caller was specifically concerned about potential harmful impacts on the native shrimp
population, and the ecosystem in general, as a'result of the release of the viruses into the
-------
07/28/97 09:49 ©15045667242 SCLDF ' 1003/009
2
environment through the disposal of wastewater. and waste materials from processing plants.
Soon thereafter, we were contacted by a Texas coast resident who also raised
concerns about shrimp viruses, but from a different perspective. This Texas citizen feared
that the escape of exotic shrimp species used in aquaculture posed a significant threat to
native shrimp — not only by preying upon or out-competing native species, but also by
exposing native populations to exotic viruses to which they have little or no immunity. In
addition, the management of waste and wastewater from shrimp farms was identified as a
cause for concern because of it's being a potential source of infection of native species.
As we came to recognize, these initial contacts tp our office effectively summarized
and reflected the primary concern of the environmental community -- that we must protect
our indigenous species and aquatic ecosystems from the threat of exotic shrimp viruses,
regardless of the pathway of exposure. Thus, in response to contacts from concerned
citizens and because .of the public interest in the protection of our natural marine resources,
the Legal Defense Fund began an effort to follow non-native shrimp and shrimp virus issues.
COMMENTS
We greatly appreciate the effort the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculnare ("JSA") is
directing to the shrimp virus problem. The report of the JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group is a
very readable document which includes a very useful summarization of current information
on shrimp viruses and their potential impacts. There are, however, aspects of the report
about which we have serious concerns.
-------
07/28/97 09:49 ©15045667242 SCLDF ' ©004/009
• . • • ','••.. ' . • ' • " 3
Time is of the Essence:
The report indicates that in March, 1996, the Executive Committee of the ISA held
an "emergency" meeting regarding shrimp viruses and agreed to establish a Shrimp Virus .
Work Group. Some sixteen (16) months later we are reviewing a report of the Work Group.
Although the report is a very worthwhile compilation of relevant information, it is considered
merely a first step toward a goal of conducting an ecological risk assessment. As we
appreciate the current plan, a report summarizing the various stakeholder meetings is to be
prepared and that summary report, along with the shrimp virus report, is to be used at a
, future workshop to develop a plan for an ecological risk assessment of the^ shrimp virus
problem.
Considering the fact that, as the report states, "threats to the sustainability of U.S.
, marine resources due to exotic shrimp viruses are increasing [,]" we question the necessity of
completing any major analysis document such as a risk assessment, before taking action for
the protection of indigenous species. Although there are some data gaps and research needs
as noted in the report, when the resource at risk is of such ecological importance it is
unreasonable and imprudent to require that the science be conclusive before acting.
As we appreciate the current status of the science, research indicates that all of our
principal indigenous shrimp species are highly susceptible to one or more of the exotic '
viruses addressed in the report: Thus, we cannot reasonably be expected to wait until there ,
has been a devastating outbreak of exotic shrimp viruses in wild shrimp populations before
• . t f '
taking action to protect indigenous species and aquatic ecosystems from this threat. By, the.
time there is absolute proof that our wild shrimp populations are at risk from exotic shrimp
-------
07/28/97 09:50 ©15045667242 SCLDF 0005/009
' . ' . 4
viruses, it will be too late. The report simply does not reflect the urgency for action that this
problem demands. We urge the ISA to act swiftly for real world protection of these valuable
marine natural resources.
The Risk Assessment Proposal:
The recommendation that au ecological risk assessment be conducted raises a number
of concerns. The recommended tiered approach, which appears to be a synthesis of the
quantitative approach and the qualitative approach, offers some advantages over the purely
quantitative and the purely qualitative approaches. However, in making a recommendation
for a risk assessment, certain assumptions have already been made — assumptions which we
believe should be open for public review and discussion. Indeed, the public interest is best
served when those who would place our natural resources at risk bear the burden of
demonstrating that their activities do not threaten native species and natural ecosystems. As
we understand the risk assessment approach, it begins with the status quo. For example, an
ecological risk assessment of shrimp viruses would consider that shrimp importation,
processing, and aquaculture operations, as well as other pathways of potential exposure,
remain hi place.
Some of the assumptions that have already been made before the risk assessment is
begun are exemplified in the "draft management goal" presented in the report. The goal
reads:
Prevent the establishment of new disease-causing viruses in wild
populations of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern
U.S. Atlantic coastal waters, while minimizing possible impacts
on shrimp importation, processing, and aquaculture operations.
-------
07/28/97 09:50 BM.5045667242 ; SCLDF il 006/009
" ' ' , '• ' / ' 5
Report at p. 14. 'As written, this goal allows for the introduction of the viruses into the
ecosystem and suggests that the drafters were applying an assimilative capacity approach. It
assumes not only that there is a level of the viruses that can be introduced into the ecosystem
without their becoming established, but also that we know what that level is, when, in fact,
we do not. What is meant by "new" disease-causing viruses is not clear; In addition, some
of the primary pathways of infection are afforded a buffer from impacts before the analysis
'i ' -- ' .
has even begun. Thus, we urge that the management goal be re-drafted to be more
protective of wild shrimp populations and aquatic ecosystems and to retain all potential
alternatives for such management. Such a goal might read: .
Prevent the introduction of disease-causing shrimp viruses into , .
Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters.
^ • . "
Rather than an assimilative capacity approach, which, in effect, is an effort to
determine how much the species or the ecosystem can tolerate, we urge the ISA to consider
adopting a precautionary approach. We do not suggest that such an approach would lead to a
"no harm" situation; it should, however, aid in identifying the most precautionary feasible
alternatives. , ,
We recommend,that the ISA conduct an alternatives assessment rather than a risk
assessment. 'A full range of alternatives - from the most radical to the most feasible - for
the control of shrimp viruses should be identified. The advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative should be reviewed on a number of parameters — including but not limited to the
long-term and the stiort-term effects, biological factors, economics, and degree of control. It
is important that the review of alternatives consider more than economics and direct mortality
of shrimp. Use of a precautionary approach does not pre-suppose that the most radical of
-------
07/28/97 09:50 S15045667242 SCLDF 1007/009
6
alternatives will be or should be adopted. It does, however, require that the Ml range of
alternatives be on the table for discussion. Without a comprehensive look at alternatives, a
fully informed decision regarding the most feasible, effective method(s) for addressing the
shrimp virus threat cannot be made.
The Legal Analysis:
One of the most striking deficiencies in the report is the incomplete analysis of the
currently available legal mechanisms for addressing the shrimp virus problem. As indicated
in the report, states do have some responsibility for the regulation of imported species. Here
in Louisiana, for example, we are fortunate that the state Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
has not permitted aquaculture of non-native shrimp species. This, however, is a result of
departmental policy rather than a statutory provision on which citizens may rely. While such
policy pre-dates the current threat of shrimp viruses — and likely was developed out of
broad-based concern about negative impacts of introduced species, such as predation or
displacement of native species - it has had the serendipitous effect of protecting local wild
shrimp populations from one avenue of potential viral infection. For this we are grateful.
However, as other states have chosen not to close this avenue of potential infection and as
we have become aware of the several other potential pathways of infection, it is apparent that
the shrimp virus problems cannot be checked by state action alone.
We concur that the federal government has primary regulatory authority in this area.
It was helpful that the report outlined the agencies which may have a role in addressing the
shrimp virus problems and the potentially relevant legal authorities. However, we are
concerned that only in reference to me Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
-------
07/28/97 09:50 ©15045667242 SCLDF ©008/009
''.'•' '•' " ..'/•' ' • 7
was it stated that the appropriate legal staff is "currently investigating whether existing
statutes and executive orders can be interpreted to provide [the agency] the authority to
regulate the importation and interstate movement of shrimp and shrimp products to prevent
and control shrimp viruses." Such legal research should have been requested from the
General Counsel's Office of each potentially relevant department and independent agency
long ago. It cannot be done overnight. Without an adequate legal review, the agencies not
only do not know if they have the authority to act, they do not if tbey have a duty to act.
The legalities may be complex for a number of reasons, such as the necessity to rely
on different agencies to address various different pathways of virus introduction or because
technically the virus is neither plant nor animal, However, it is likely that there are
currently existing legal mechanisms available to address at least some aspects of the problem
immediately. Moreover, if additional legal authority is needed to protect native shrimp
species and'coastal ecosystems from shrimp viruses, the sooner the work begins, the better
are the chances that such statutes can be adopted or such rules can be promulgated in time to
be effective, , • -
Thus, we urge the JSA to immediately request assistance from the Offices of General
Counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the
s . ' ' '
Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and any other agency which may
have relevant authority. ,
-------
07/28/97 09:51 ©15045667242 SCJJJF il 009/009
8
CONCLUSION
In summary, protection of our indigenous species and natural aquatic ecosystems is of
the highest priority. As threats from, shrimp viruses continue to increase, time is of the
essence. We urge that all currently existing legal mechanisms for protecting these marine
resources from exotic shrimp viruses be identified and implemented immediately. To
facilitate the most reasoned, well-informed decision-making regarding control of shrimp
viruses, we recommend that a comprehensive alternatives assessment be done in lieu of a risk
assessment.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We intend to supplement them,
as needed, before the close of the public comment period.
Esther Boykin
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street, Ste. 401
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
(504) 522-1394
-------
0 /
.
Wildlife and Fisheries consists of two parts:
The Wildlife and fisheries Commission, a seven member board appointed by the
Governor and the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, headed by the Secretary
who is also appointed by the Governor.
Charge: To protect, conserve, and replenish the natural resources of
the state, the wildlife of the state, including all aquatic life.
Statutes provide for the following:
! • " " ' ' *•
The Commission is a policy-making and budgetary-control board. The
- • ' ' " ^ " • ' ' ' .
ownership of all wildlife, including shellfish are the property of the State.and
shall be under the exclusive control of the Commission.
, The Commission, through the Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries shall adopt rules and regulations for the comprehensive
control of shellfish.
-• The Secretary may grant written permits for the cultivation of fish (includes
shrimp). He may permit the introduction of any kind of fish into any waters.
No one could raise shrimp in ponds in the coastal zone without
permits from both LDWF and DNR. No one could raise shrimp in
ponds outside the coastal zone without permits from LDWF.
-------
No fish of any species from without the state shall be liberated within the
state except upon written permission of the Secretary.
Value of shrimp:
It is estimated that the impact of commercial marine shrimp and sheilfish harvest to
the state of Louisiana is $1.9 billion. (Southwick Associates, March 1997).
Tax revenues generated from the sale of shrimp and shellfish products harvested
in Louisiana was estimated to be $74.9 million.
Total sales value of shrimp and shellfish generated at processing, wholesale, retail
and restaurant levels was estimated to be $1.5 billion.
Approximately 22 thousand jobs in Louisiana are supported by the domestic
commercial marine shrimp and shellfish harvest.
NWIFS Preliminary Data, 1996:
Marine shrimp and shellfish commercial dockside harvest in Louisiana was
estimated to be $179.3 million. This is 66% of the total commercial dockside
value for all fishery products in Louisiana.
-------
Shrimp alone was estimated to be $127.7 million. This is 47% of the total
dockside value.
90.2 million pounds of shrimp were landed.
1995, Fisheries of the U.S.
30% of all domestic shrimp landings are landed in Louisiana.
The U.S. supply of all forms of shrimp converted to heads off weight averages
around 900 million pounds annually. 75% of this is imported from foreign
countries. Thailand, Ecuador and Mexico are the top three importers. I am sure
someone else may have more information on imports. ' :
Three areas of concern:
1. Transport of imported shrimp to the U.S.
A., Are there protective measures taken to guard from infected specimens?
No nation wide standard.
Louisiana currently does not allow live specimens for culture,
but does allow imports for processing.
B. During transport what happens to waste water.
Currently no nationwide standard seems to exist.
-------
2. Processing.
A. What happens to unused parts.
' <•
Currently in Louisiana parts are screened and taken to landfill.
B. Waste water treatment
Currently wastewater is not checked or treated for viruses.
3. Pond culture.
A. Currently no pond culture in Louisiana.
If allowed would postlarvae and juveniles be guaranteed
disease free and if so by whom.
B. What happens to wastes and water exchange,
Currently aquaculture operations are not checked for viruses.
Disturbing findings from the shrimp virus report:
These viruses are widespread throughout the world, both in wild and cultured
shrimp. There is no reason to suspect that viruses would not occur in
Louisiana.
At least one incident in reduction so wild stock in Gulf of California. There is no
reason to suspect that it could not happen in the Gulf of Mexico.
Have not been identified in native U.S. shrimp. Inadequate methods or sampling
-------
intensities. There is no documentation, but we have been advised that Texas
A&M recently found White Spot in collections of white shrimp brood stock.
't
Viruses have affected cultured shrimp throughout the world. There is no reason
to suspect that viruses could be prevented in Louisiana.
Despite all efforts to prevent outbreaks on U.S. farms, there have been numerous
outbreaks. There is no reason to suspect that outbreaks could be prevented
in Louisiana. '
Foreign aquaculture operations harvest ponds when diseases are found. Infected
i f-
shrimp end up in Louisiana processing plants still carrying viable
pathogens.
Many possible ways shrimp.may become infected. Processing wastes, pond
wastes and escapement, infected bait shrimp, ship ballast, non-shrimp hosts
which may feed on infected shrimp (other shellfish, birds, reptiles, mammals
etc.)
Species other than shrimp may be at risk. Crabs and crawfish in particular have
been found with these viruses. Both are important species to Louisiana, *
particularly crawfish pond culture risks.
-------
The most important weapon needed to control or prevent diseases is knowledge.
Currently, there is very little information about the relationship between presence of these
pathogens in wild stocks and its likelihood of producing disease in either wild or hatchery
raised shrimp.
Without knowledge of the distribution of these viruses, how can sound discussions
regarding control or containment strategies be made or even if control or containment are
needed. Is it possible that these viruses are already present in wild stocks but excessive
mortalities only occurs under certain conditions? Could poor production years actually be
linked to viruses which may already be present in wild stocks but have not been
observed?
Shrimp stocks are at risk because of our lack of knowledge. The question that needs to
be answered is whether the level of risk is known and if so is it acceptable.
-------
Appendix D :
Report of the JSA Shrimp Virus WorkGroup
The full report entitled, An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured
Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic
Coastal Waters, dated June 5,1997, is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/svra.htm.
-------
An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts
on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the
Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters
A Report to the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
Prepared by the JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior
June 5,1997
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals have contributed directly and indirectly to the development of this
document. We would especially like to thank Drs. D. V. Lightner, University of Arizona, and J.
M. Lotz, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, for their timely review and comment. Key contributors
to this document include:
T. Mcllwain
(chair)
K. Austin
B. Bastian
J. Erbacher
R.Fite
F. Kern
R.Orr
T.Siewicki
National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service,
.U.S; Department of Commerce
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
. U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce
B. van der Schalie National Center for Environmental Assessment,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Z. Zein-Eldin
National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce
. i
-------
11
-------
-..',-•' ' • •.. CONTENTS ' ."•••'•
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I
LIST OF FIGURES ..... w
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...;..;..... ; . .. Vi
PREFACE „..,:........ .. ; :.... vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ..;.... .. ix
1 INTRODUCTION ; 1
2 PLANNING THE ASSESSMENT: THE ECONOMIC AND MANAGEMENT
CONTEXT .. ...';•.' 3
2.1 Economic Aspects of the Shrimp Industry ................................ 3
'2:2 Risk Managers and Stakeholders 9
2.3 Management Goals .......; 14
3 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: PROBLEM FORMULATION ,. 16
3.1 Assessment Endpoints and the Conceptual Model'...,. .16
3.2 Virus Sources and Pathways 21
3.2.1 Aquaculture ................................ .... 21
3.2.2 Shrimp Processing ....:... 25
. 3.2.3 Other Sources/Pathways , .' . 28
,3.3 Viral Stressors '.:'. V.., 30
3.4 Other Anthropogenic Stressors.on Wild Shrimp Populations 33
3.5 Environmental and Ecological Factors Regulating Wild Shrimp Populations ... 36
3.6 Shrimp Life History and Ecology 36
, 3.7 Potential Effects of Shrimp Viruses ....... 42
3.7.1 Wild Shrimp Populations ..... .... 42
3.7.2 Ecological Effects ....44
' 3.7.3 Aquaculture Effects 44
3.8 Analysis Plan .....:... 45
4 ANALYSIS .........;.........,.... 46
5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 48
6 SUMMARY .49
6.1 Data Gaps and Research Needs 49
6.2 Key Findings for Exposure to and Effects of Pathogenic Shrimp Viruses ...... 50
•'-•.. - iii -
-------
7 ACTION ITEMS ;
7.1 Evaluate Risk Assessment Options .
7.2 Publish Federal Register Scoping Notice
7.3 Sponsor Stakeholder Meetings
7.4 Coordinate Expert Workshop
7.5 Enhance Interagency Coordination
REFERENCES
52
52
53
55
56
56
57
IV
-------
LIST OF FJGURES
Figure 1. U.S. marine shrimp aquaculture, 1984-1994 /. 4
Figure 2. Approximate U.S. landings of marine shrimp by region, 1950-1995 ......... 5
Figures. Approximate U.S. imports and domestic landings of marine shrimp,
1950-1995. ......1
Figure 4. Approximate U.S. imports of marine shrimp by country, 1975 - 1995. ..;- ;. 8
Figure 5. The ecological risk assessment process 17
Figure 6. Proposed shrimp virus conceptual model. 20
Figure 7. Active commercial shrimp aquaculture facilities on the Gulf Coast of Texas ... 22'
Figure 8. Conceptual model: virus sources and pathways for aquaculture . 23
Figure 9. Conceptual model: virus sources and pathways for shrimp processing 27
Figure .10. Distribution and major fishing areas for the white shrimp., P. setiferus 37
Figure. 11. Distribution and major fishing areas for the brown shrimp, P. aztecus 39
Figure 12. Distribution and major fishing areas for the pink shrimp, P. duorarum ........ 40
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
HH HighHealth
IHHNV Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus
JSA Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
PCR Polymerase chain reaction
SPF Specific Pathogen Free
ssRNA Single-stranded ribonucleic acid
TSV Taura Syndrome Virus
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WSSV White Spot Syndrome Virus
YHV Yellow Head Virus
VI
-------
PREFACE
Worldwide, shrimp aquaculture has suffered substantial economic losses due to •
pathogenic viruses, and the U.S. shrimp aquaculture industry is,no exception. Although posing no
threat to human health, the growing threat to shrimp aquaculture, concerns for possible effects on
wild shrimp populations, and other species that depend on them have prompted action by the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA). The ISA is a Federal interagency advisory grpup formed
under auspices of the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy. In March 1996, the
JSA Executive Committee held an emergency meeting to discuss the shrimp virus situation and
agreed to form a Shrimp Virus Work Group. In May 1996, the Shrimp Virus Work Group
recommended to the JSA that the work group's primary task should be to develop an interagency
strategy to address the shrimp virus issue. JSA accepted this recommendation and, in addition,
decided to pursue.&e actions listed below.
Identify existing authorities among Federal agencies. ' ,
Identify research underway on shrimp viruses, their mode of transmission, and potential for
introduction into U.S. waters.
Support information exchange and education (i.e. workshop).
Develop a risk assessment
Determine actions needed by the U.S. to avert introductions, etc.
The first three items were addressed during a June 1996 workshop. This workshop was jointly
sponsored by: the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (DOC/NOAA/NMFS); U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (DOA/CREES) and
Agricultural Research Service (DOA/ARS); and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Gulf of Mexico Program and supported by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission..
Workshop participants included environmentalists, shrimp farmers, shrimpers, processors and
consumers as well as state and Federal regulators from both the U.S. and Mexico. The workshop
presented the state of knowledge on the shrimp viruses and the threat they pose to both the shrimp
culture industry and the wild shrimp populations in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S.
Atlantic coastal waters. One of the highest priority recommendations made by workshop
participants was to assess the disease, financial, and economic risks associated with the
introduction and spread of exotic shrimp viruses to the wild shrimp fishery and shrimp fanning
industry. , .- , s /
•» ' ' '
Both workshop participants and the JSA have recommended that the risks associated with
shrimp viruses be assessed, and this report is a first step towards that goal. Assembled by the
Shrimp Virus Work Group, this report provides a summary of potential exposures to and effects of
viruses on shrimp, especially wild shrimp populations. This report is structured according to (and
draws material from) recently proposed processes for ecological risk assessment (Risk Assessment
and Management'Committee, 1996; U.S. EPA, 1996a).
vn
-------
Although this document is not a risk assessment, it is organized by elements of the risk assessment
process. This approach:
• Provides a structure for analyzing and interpreting available information and for adding
new information as it becomes available;
• Defines major risk-relevant data gaps, uncertainties, and research needs; and
• Indicates major pathways for virus introductions.
This report is intended to provide the ISA with a basis for discussing and selecting among a range
of options for conducting a risk assessment.
vui
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent evidence indicates that threats to the sustainability of U.S. marine resources due to
exotic .shrimp, viruses are increasing. New, highly virulent diseases have been documented in
foreign shrimp aquaculture operations. With its ever-increasing consumer demand, the U.S. has
greatly increased importation o'f shrimp from areas of the world where shrimp viruses are endemic.
Although these viruses pose no threat to human health, recent catastrophic outbreaks on U.S.
shrimp farms, the appearance of diseased shrimp in U.S. commerce, and new information on the
susceptibility of shrimp and other crustaceans to these viruses have prompted calls for
investigation into the actual risks to domestic resources.
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture formed the Shrimp Virus Work Group to assess
the risks associated with these emerging pathogens. Risk assessments identify, organize, and
prioritize information on potential risks. The Shrimp Virus Work Group produced this report to
organize readily available information and expert opinion on the shrimp virus issue. This report
closely follows the structure of a risk assessment while providing a summary of available risk-
relevant information. To formulate the problem, this report includes an overview of economic
impacts, a conceptual model for the assessment, stressors affecting shrimp populations, potential
pathways for the exposure of wild shrimp to pathogenic viruses, basic life history of shrimp, and
effects of viruses on shrimp and other aquatic species. Several options for completing an
ecological risk assessment are proposed. . x <" . '
1 "*
The economic significance of the shrimp virus problem should not be understated. Shrimp
harvesting and processing in the United States is a $3 billion dollar a year industry. A substantial-
portion of this industry includes harvesting of wild shrimp (200 million pounds of shrimp [tails]
annually). Additionally, imports of shrimp into the U.S. for processing exceed 600 million pounds
(tails) annually.
Exotic shrimp viruses may pose a risk to Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic
fisheries, including economically-important penaeid shrimp as well as other crustaceans and
fisheries mat depend upon these shrimp. In fact, the impact of one virus on a wild shrimp fishery ,
in Mexico has been documented. Beginning in 1987, harvestable populations of Penaeus '
stylirostris (as well as other less prevalent species) occurring in the upper and middle Gulf of
California declined to levels which could not support commercial harvests until 1994, in
association with the observed occurrence of Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis
Virus (IHHNV) infection. This fishery only began to recover in 1994. Moreover, newly-
identified Asian viruses (e.g., White Spot Syndrome Virus [WSSV] and Yellow Head Virus
[YHV]) appear to be more virulent to'U.S. native shrimp than viruses thought to be endemic to
South and Central America (e.g., IHHNV and Taura Syndrome Virus [TSV]). However, these
viral diseases have not yet been positively identified in U.S. wild shrimp populations. Research
has not been conducted to characterize the risks of these viruses to the U.S. wild shrimp industry
or to other ecologically important species, but techniques to identify these pathogens have only
recently become available,
IX
-------
This report evaluates four major pathogenic shrimp viruses: IHHNV, TSV, WSSV and
YHV. These four were selected not only because of their ecological and economic importance but
also to cover a range of virulence and geographic origin, in view of available information. The
findings of the Shrimp Virus Work Group are summarized below. While some of this information
is not yet fully supported by scientific evidence, the potential severity and newness of the problem
warrants the inclusion of all available information to highlight the importance of the issues and
stimulate further investigation. Conducting a risk assessment will require experts in crustacean
virology and biology and other related disciplines to evaluate the available data herein as well as to
identify and utilize new and better sources of information. The strengths and limitations of the
available data and information will be evaluated in the risk assessment.
Findings:
• Shrimp viral diseases are widespread throughout the world, both in wild and cultured
shrimp. IHHNV and TSV are endemic in wild populations of shrimp throughout much of
Central and South America. WSSV and YHV are endemic throughout much of Asia.
• In at least one incident, viral disease has been associated with drastic reductions in wild
shrimp harvests. Beginning in 1987, one viral disease (IHHNV) was associated with a
decline in the Gulf of California shrimp fishery to levels that could not support commercial
harvests until 1994.
* Although these viruses have not yet been positively identified in native U.S. shrimp
populations, very little effort has been expended to look for them. Where investigations
have been conducted, analytical methods (if available) or sampling intensities may have
been inadequate to detect infection.
• Viruses have affected cultured shrimp throughout the world, often with catastrophic effects
on production. For example, imports from Chinese aquaculture operations dropped
substantially (1990 to 1995) due in part to viral disease. Outbreaks in 1995 and 1996 on
U.S. shrimp farms caused a 50 to 95 percent loss of production at affected farms.
• Despite extensive efforts to prevent outbreaks on U.S. farms by the U.S. Marine Shrimp
Farming Program, state agencies, and producers, numerous disease outbreaks have
occurred in 1995,1996, and early 1997.
• There are major economic concerns at stake. The U.S. shrimp processing industry employs
over 11,000 people in 182 companies. Any new requirements that may be necessary to
reduce disease risks will increase costs to producers and processors, and ultimately to
consumers.
• Some foreign aquaculture operations harvest their ponds immediately upon finding disease
and export the infected shrimp. This management practice, combined with tremendous
increases in shrimp importation, may increase risks to U.S. natural resources. Infected
shrimp are now routinely found in U.S. retail markets.
• Shrimp may become infected from many sources. Major potential exposure pathways to
wild shrimp in the U.S. include shrimp processing plant wastes and wastes and escapement
from aquaculture ponds. Other potential viral sources include infected bait shrimp, ship
x
-------
ballast water, non-shrimp translocated animals, and natural spread of the virus. Fishing
vessels and intentional introductions are also possible sources.
• Domestic shrimp are vulnerable. Specific life stages of all of the principal U.S. shrimp
species are highly susceptible to infection and disease from one or more of the four subject
, viruses as demonstrated in laboratory tests and outbreaks at aquaculture facilities. ,
Recently discovered Asian viruses.appear to be more virulent to domestic shrimp species
than those viruses thought to be endemic to South and Central America.
• , Species other than shrimp may be at risk. One or more of these viruses have been found in
samples of other crustaceans from around the world, including copepods, crabs, shore flies
and crayfish. A number of alternate host species forthe viruses have been identified.
In response to these findings, the Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends that an
ecological risk assessment be conducted. A formal risk assessment will help address international
trade issues (e.g., World Trade Organization), national and state regulatory obligations, and the
needs of other interested parties (e.g., industry, environmental groups, and the public)! To make
the best use of resources and time available, the Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends that a *
tiered approach be considered for conducting a shrimp virus ecological risk assessment. All
interested parties (stakeholders) should be involved in both the initial planning phase of the risk
assessment, risk characterization, and in subsequent discussions of risk mitigation options.
The, Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends the following steps prior to initiating the risk
assessment.
• Publish a scoping notice to inform the public about the issues and the availability of this
report. ,
• Hold at least two public meetings to inform the public and to facilitate stakeholder input to
management goals and the risk assessment process.
• Convene a workshop to develop a problem formulation for the risk assessment, using this
report and additional information (e.g., from stakeholder meetings). This workshop should
include experts from a range of disciplines and affiliations.
Other actions are needed to effectively manage the shrimp virus problem. The Shrimp
Virus Work Group recommends increased coordination among Federal agencies having
appropriate expertise and authority to protect U.S. marine resources from pathogenic shrimp
viruses. These agencies need to work collaboratively to better utilize the resources currently
available and to better define roles and responsibilities of individual agencies. Existing Federal
statutory authority may not be adequate to prevent further disease outbreaks, and new authorities
may be necessary. However, statutory authorities alone will not be sufficient to control new
diseases. There is a need to implement complementary programs across the responsible Federal
agencies as well as to enhance research and technology to effectively reduce the risk of disease
outbreaks. The shrimp virus work group recommends that representatives of the responsible
XI
-------
Federal agencies work closely with the aquaculture, processing, and harvesting industries (as well.
environmental organizations and other interested parties) to explore a variety of opportunities to
reduce the risks posed by shrimp viruses.
Xll
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
The worldwide shrimp industry has grown at a tremendous rate since the 1950's, and
consumer demand for shrimp continues to grow at a rate of 7-9% annually. Because naturally-
occurring ("wild") shrimp .appear to have reached maximum harvest, the demand for shrimp has
been met largely mrough expansion of shrimp aquaculture. Unfortunately, the increase in
aquaculture operations has been accompanied by numerous outbreaks of disease-causing shrimp
viruses, causing catastrophic mortalities and economic losses throughout the aquaculture industry.
Although posing no threat to human health, exotic viruses (viruses not indigenous to U.S.
or Mexico) have affected U.S. shrimp culture operations. The Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV), first
identified in Ecuador, has occurred in disease outbreaks in Hawaii (1994), Texas (1995), South
Carolina, and again hi Texas (1996) (Lightner, 1996a, 1996b). There have, been some
unsubstantiated reports that TSV has infected some wild broodstock in Mexico and some wild
caught seed in Ecuador. Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV) was
first identified in Hawaii (Lightner et al., 1983a, 1983b). IHHNV has also occurred in Mexico,
South Carolina, Texas, and Florida (Fulks and Main, 1992). Other exotic pathogens, White Spot
Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and the Yellow Head Virus (YHV), that commonly occur in Southeast
Asia, China, and India, have recently been reported at a shrimp farm in Texas (Lightner, 1996a,
1996b). It has been shown that IHHNV, TSV, WSSV, and YHV are carried by some live shrimp,
and have been found in imported frozen shrimp, shrimp by-products, and in a number of non-
penaeid shrimp and other crustacean species (Lightner, 1996a,1996b).
The threat of these vjruses to shrimp farms is well known. However, there is little or no
information on the potential impact of these viruses on wild shrimp fisheries. Environmentalists,
shrimpers, shrimp farmers, processors and consumers have expressed serious concerns over the
spread of shrimp viruses (e.g., potential law suits in Texas, court injunctions in South Carolina,
and a topic of various scientific arid trade meetings and numerous local news articles).
The U.S. harvest and processing industries are of considerably greater economic value than
the U.S. shrimp aquaculture industry and are also potentially threatened. Currently, the U.S.
harvests approximately 200 million pounds (tails) of shrimp and imports another 600 million
pounds (tails), collectively valued at over $3 billion. Exotic viruses from either aquaculture .
operations, processing streams of imported shrimp, of other sources, may challenge the
sustainability of the shrimp fishery and the other fisheries that depend on it.
The ISA recognized the importance of assessing the risks associated with these shrimp
viruses. Although not an actual risk assessment, this report takes a first step towards that goal by
assembling readily available information in a format consistent with the ecological risk assessment
process (Risk Assessment and Management Committee, 1996; U.S. EPA, 1996a). Accordingly,
this report is organized by major phases of ecological risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996a):
planning and problem formulation (sections 2 and 3), analysis (section 4), and risk characterization
(section 5). A summary section (section 6) highlights major data gaps and research needs as well
' . 1 '• •'• '
-------
as key findings of this report. Section 7 proposes future actions, including options for conducting
a risk assessment, publication of a scoping notice to provide information on the risk assessment,
stakeholder meetings, an expert workshop to initiate the risk assessment process, and interagency
coordination.
This report focuses primarily on developing the approach for the problem formulation
phase of an ecological risk assessment. Specific topics are listed below.
\
• Economic impacts of the shrimp virus problem and the roles and responsibilities of risk
managers and stakeholders (sections 2.1 and 2.2), followed by a discussion of management
goals and assessment endpoints relevant to the primary focus of the report: direct and
indirect effects of exotic shrimp viruses on cultured shrimp and on wild populations of
penaeid shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters
(section 2.3)
• Major (assessment) endpoints and a simple conceptual model that links virus sources,
pathways, and effects on the endpoints (section 3.1)
The following problem formulation sections expand upon various elements of the
conceptual model.
• Potential sources and pathways by which viruses could potentially reach wild shrimp
populations (section 3.2)
• Stressors impacting (or potentially impacting) wild shrimp populations, including viruses
and other human-introduced stressors (sections 3.3 and 3.4)
• Environmental and ecological factors influencing wild shrimp populations (section 3.5)
• Information on the life history and ecology of penaeid shrimp relevant to viral exposure
and effects (section 3.6)
• Potential effects of viruses on shrimp and other crustaceans (section 3.7)
• The analysis plan that would be prepared for a risk assessment (section 3.8)
-------
2 PLANNING THE ASSESSMENT: THE ECONOMIC AND MANAGEMENT
CONTEXT
A risk assessment can be used to evaluate potential effects; of exotic viruses on shrimp in
aquaculture or wild shrimp. But a risk assessment is only a part of the overall environmental
decision-making process. To make management decisions concerning shrimp viruses, economic,
social, and political factors must be considered -For example, the shrimp industry includes the
shrimp farming industry, the commercial shrimp fisheries, and the processing and distribution
sectors of the seafood industry. If a risk assessment provides data indicating key control points for
shrimp virus exposures, implementation of risk mitigation actions will require discussion and
action by a diverse group of interested parties ("stakeholders"), including industry, trade
associations, environmental and other nongovernmental organizations, and state and Federal
agencies. - \
This section describes the management context for the shrimp virus problem. Key points
include the economic significance of the shrimp industry and the key roles and responsibilities that
different organizations have in managing the risks posed by shrimp viruses. In addition, trie
Shrimp Virus Work Group developed a draft management goal for a shrimp virus risk assessment.
The draft goal is intended to initiate dialogue on the purpose, scope, and use of a risk assessment.
Discussion and possible revision of the management goal would be one topic for future
stakeholder meetings that are considered an important prerequisite for a risk assessment (see
section 7.3). . •
2.1 Economic Aspects of the Shrimp Industry
Currently, the U.S. shrimp industry is valued at over $3 billion, and consumer demand for
shrimp is growing at 7 to 9 percent yearly (National Fisheries Institute, 1995). In the U.S.,
imported shrimp account for over 80% of the market (720 million pounds [tails] in 1995, worth
$2.6 billion). The U.S. domestic market is dominated by the wild shrimp fishery (190 million
pounds [tails] in 1995; NMFS, 1995); domestic aquaculture operations account for a much smaller
amount, ranging from 2 to 4 million pounds (tails) annually from 1992 to 1994 (figure 1). U.S.
marine shrimp aquaculture production decreased in 1994 because of outbreaks of IHHNV and
TSV at hatchery facilities and outbreaks of the bacterial disease hepatopancreatitis in Texas
aquaculture (Rosenberry, 1994). •
U.S. Shrimp Production. Landings of wild shrimp in the U.S. vary by geographicarea,
species, and season. In 1995, about 85% of total U.S. landings (190 million pounds [tails]) were
penaeid shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern Atlantic (NMFS, 1995; figure 2).'
Although a major fishery for the Pacific and New England coasts, pandalid shrimp production,
from the colder offshore waters of these regions, constitutes only about 10% of total U.S. shrimp
production. ,
-------
0
198485 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 1994
Years
Figure 1. U.S. marine shrimp aquaculture, 1984-1994 (NMFS, 1995).
-------
Thousand
Pounds (Tails)
360,000 -
300,000 •
240,000 •
180,000 •
120,000 •
60,000 -
0 Pacific
E Golf of Mexico
D South Atlantic
• New England
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Year
Figure 2. Approximate U.S. landings of marine shrimp by region, 1950 - 1995 (NMFS,
Unpublished) .
-------
The three major penaeid shrimp species are the white shrimp Penaeus setiferus, the brown
shrimp P. aztecus and the pink shrimp P. duorarum. Due to differences in their life histories,
responses to environmental factors, .seasonality, and variations in species distribution (see section
3.6), catches of these three species may not peak in the same year or at the same time during a
single year (Nance and Nichols, 1988). This is reflected in the variability of penaeid shrimp
production in the Gulf of Mexico, which since 1960 has ranged from a low of about 60 million
pounds (tails; 1961) to a high of about 190 million pounds (tails; 1985). Brown shrimp constitute
the majority'(- 60%) of the Gulf of Mexico catch, with most of these originating from the Texas-
Louisiana coast. White shrimp are the dominant species in Louisiana coastal waters and along the
southeastern U.S. Atlantic coasts. The pink shrimp fishery is smallest (poundage), but represents
the major penaeid fishery off the west coast of Florida.
i
Domestic wild-caught shrimp are processed locally, with shrimp landed either directly at
dockside, or offshore onto a mother ship, which then makes port with the catch from several craft.
Almost 400 firms in shrimp-related industries are located throughout the Gulf of Mexico states,
and more than two-thirds (268) of these are located in the states of Louisiana and Texas.1
U.S. Aquaculture. In the U.S., aquacultufe operations in Texas and South Carolina have
suffered significant losses due to viral diseases, even though Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) stocks
were used to avoid the introduction of these diseases. In 1995, TSV caused greater than a 95%
loss of P. vannamei crops. Less severe losses with that species occurred hi 1996. Outbreaks in
1996 resulted in estimated losses of up to 30 -50% hi affected South Carolina shrimp farms. More
recently, based on very limited data, YHV and WSSV have been found at the Waddell Mariculture
Center for Research in South Carolina. In addition to the loss of income from diseased crops in
1996, aquaculrurists had additional expense when restocking with the native white shrimp later in
the season. Further indirect costs were associated with attempts to disinfect ponds.
Imported Shrimp. Increasing consumer demand for shrimp and a flattened rate of growth
in U.S. shrimp fisheries have led to a sharp rise in shrimp imports. Since 1950, imports have
constituted an increasingly large percentage of domestic consumption (30-40%), and have
exceeded domestic production since 1960 (figure 3). By 1995, imports exceeded domestic
production by almost four to one. The largest share of this imported production comes from
aquaculture operations in Asia and Latin America (figure 4).
A combination of decreasing worldwide shrimp supplies and increasing demand kept
shrimp prices hrgh in 1996. Disease outbreaks have affected foreign aquaculture facilities and
available supplies to varying degrees. Imports from aquaculture in Ecuador reached 114 million
pounds (tails) in 1995, despite recent virus-related disease problems. Mexico has remained a
steady supplier of both wild and cultured shrimp. Over the last two years, Mexican shrimp exports
to the U.S. have risen 28 million pounds (tails); however, most of the increase comes from exports
to the U.S. of wild-caught shrimp. Asian imports from Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines,
major producers in shrimp aquaculture, were all lower. In 1995, Chinese exports to the U.S.
-------
600,000
Thousand
Pounds (Tails)
400,000
200,000
U.S. Imports
U.S. Domestic Landings
50 55 60 65 70 75
, • ^
Year
85 90 . 95
Figure 3. Approximate U.S. imports and domestic landings of marine shrimp, 1950 - 1995
(NMFS, Unpublished) ' /
-------
120,000 -
108,000 -
96,000 -
m, „ 84,000 .
Thousand
Pounds 72,000 .
(Tails)
|- Mexico
§3 Ecuador
HI India
0 Thailand
D China
1975
1980
1985
Year
1990
1995
Figure 4. Approximate U.S. imports of marine shrimp by country, 1975 - 1995 (NMFS,
Unpublished)
-------
declined by 75% from the peak export year of 1990 because of disease impacts on shrimp
aquaculture operations and increasing Chinese domestic demand for shrimp (USDA, 1996).
Disease outbreaks in foreign
aquaculture operations can increase costs to
the U,S. shrimp industry. As international
aquaculture expands to meet growing demand,
there is a greater risk that U.S. processing
plants will receive shrimp infected with
pathogenic viruses. For example, when some
foreign growers detect the presence of disease
in their stocks, they may immediately harvest
the diseased shrimp and send them to U.S.
processing plants. Costs to U.S. processors
will increase if new detection, control, and
treatment procedures are implemented to
prevent the environmental release of
contaminated wastes. Also, increased viral
disease outbreaks in foreign aquaculture may
result in more widespread occurrence of
pathogenic viruses in wild shrimp stocks
worldwide. This may result in decreased
availability of virus-free breeder stocks and
increased costs to develop SPF stocks.
2.2 Risk Managers and Stakeholders
Disease problems in the shrimp
industry may have potentially far-reaching
effects. In addition to the monetary value of
the shrimp, many individuals rely on the
shrimp industry for their livelihood. For
example, the shrimp processing industry has
over 11,000 employees in 182 companies
(NMFS, unpublished; estimate based on a
voluntary survey - actual numbers may be
> higher). With so much at stake and in view of
the complexity of the shrimp disease problem,
managing the potential risks will require a
cooperative effort by a diverse group of
interested parties, including industry, related
trade associations, environmental and other
nongovernmental organizations, and local, state
Risk Managers and Stakeholders
(U.S. EPA, 1996a)
"Risk managers are individuals and
organizations that take responsibility for, or
have the authority to take action or require
action, to mitigate an identified risk. The
expression "risk manager" is often used to
represent a decisionmaker in agencies like
EPA or state environmental offices who has
the authority to protect or manage a resource.
However, risk managers often represent a
diverse group of interested parties that
influence the outcome of resource protection
efforts. Particularly as the scope of
environmental management expands to
communities, the meaning of risk manager
significantly expands to include decision
officials in Federal, state, and local
governments, as well as private-sector leaders
in commercial, industrial, and private
organizations. Risk managers may also
include constituency groups, other interested
parties, and the public."
"The involvement of all interested
and affected parties, 'which "stakeholder" is
commonly used to represent, is important to
the development of management goals for
some risk assessments. The greater the
involvement, the broader the base of-
consensus about those goals. With strong
consensus on management goals, decisions
are more likely to be supported by all
community groups during implementation of
management plans."
and Federal agencies. This section summarizes
-------
the responsibilities, tools, and recent efforts of many of these important groups to deal with the
shrimp virus problem.
Aquaculture Industry. A voluntary SPF broodstock and shrimp seed program is used in
the United States to help prevent contamination of commercial aquaculture operations by
pathogenic viruses. The U.S. SPF-based aquaeulture industry uses animals known to be free of
specified pathogens.
High Health (HH) facilities are an important part of the SPF-based industry. These
facilities produce seed for growout. To help prevent pathogen introductions, seed should be
procured from a HH supplier that can produce a documented history of pathogen surveillance. If
adequate documentation is lacking, on-site quarantine should be implemented.. In addition to HH
seed, other elements necessary to complete an industry disease prevention strategy include farm
biosecurity practices and a quick response to disease outbreaks. The term biosecuriry refers to
practices that will reduce the probability of pathogen introduction and its subsequent spread from
one place to another (Lotz, In Press).
The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, funded by the USDA Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and cooperating institutions, consists of
the Oceanic Institute, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Tufts University, Texas A and M
Agricultural Experiment Station, South Carolina's Department of Natural Resources (Marine
Resources Division), Waddell Mariculture Center, and the University of Arizona. The U.S. Marine
Shrimp Farming Program operates a Nucleus Breeding Center and quarantine centers, and supplies
SPF shrimp stocks to the U.S. shrimp industry (Dill et al., 1994; Prader et al., 1995). These
facilities supply seed for commercial use. Currently, nine viruses and numerous other pathogens
are monitored in either primary or secondary broodstock, or in seed for commercial use (Lotz et
al., 1995). Even so, disease outbreaks have occurred in the U.S. No Federal animal health
certification protocols are currently in existence or required for U.S. commercial shrimp
aquaculture operations.
State Governments. States have responsibilities to protect the shrimp fishing industry and
to prevent the introduction of exotic shrimp viruses. Wildlife conservation agencies in all states
along the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern U.S. Atiantic.coast regulate imported fish,
crustaceans, or mollusks. In the shrimp fanning states of Hawaii, Texas, and South Carolina,
protocols have been implemented to prevent the introduction of pathogenic viruses through
movement of imported shrimp seed and brood fish for aquaculture. For example, basic
requirements in South Carolina include: facility design approval (including facility placement,
escapement prevention, and effluent treatment); broodstock and seed supplier certification; record
keeping of both stock imports, pond harvests, and daily pond monitoring (including immediate
reporting of unusual occurrences); chemical and/or mechanical treatment of effluent; quarantine of
incoming stock and nurseries; contingency plans for unusual occurrences or disease, (including
cessation of discharge); broodstock and seed from suppliers with a rninimum of 12 and 6 months
(respectively) free of listed diseases; and routine inspections. In addition to these kinds of
10
-------
procedures, states also attempt to enhance yield of wild shrimp harvests by regulating gear type,
ne^tsandmeshsize, and-me season and time of day when fishing is permitted. , i
Federal Government. Recent evidence indicates that exotic pathogenic shrimp viruses have been
imported into the U.S. Because these pathogenic viruses have the potential to be spread through
interstate commerce, the Federal government has regulatory authority in this area. Numerous
Federal agencies have different statutory authorities, roles, and overlapping responsibilities for
regulating the importation and movement of aquatic animals and products in commerce. Although
human health and food safety are clearly provided for under, existing Federal statutes, the health of
U.S. domestic shrimp, other crustaceans, and other susceptible "wild" animals may not be
adequately protected from diseases that may result from the importation of aquatic animals or
animal products into the U.S. Under the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371 to 3378; 18 U.S.C. 42),
the importation of plants or animals that are considered injurious to humans, to the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to the fisheries and wildlife resources of the U.S. is
prohibited. The implementing regulations of the Laeey Act include Title 50 (50 CFR Part 16),
which lists species of mammals, birds, fishes, mollusks, and crustaceans that are either prohibited
entry or that are subject to special provisions. Part 16.13 of Title 50 applies to importation of live
or dead fish, mollusks, and crustaceans, or their eggs. The current version prohibits importation of
live walking catfish, mitten crabs, or zebra mussels. Other species of live or dead fish, mollusks,
crustaceans, and their parts or gametes are allowed importation, transportation, and possession (but
not release into the wild), with the exception of live salmonid fish, their fertilized eggs, viable
gametes, and uneviscerated carcasses that are prohibited entry unless accompanied by a health
certificate issued in accordance with procedures specified under Title 50.
•' ' _ „ i '
To prevent future threats to aquaculture, indigenous species, and aquatic ecosystems,
Federal agencies need to better define and coordinate their roles in a number of areas, including
importation, interstate movement, release of live animals, and waste management. A variety of
Federal statutes give several different agencies responsibilities for managing risks associated with
shrimp viruses; however, as discussed above, these statutes do not specifically reference shrimp
pathogens. Those Federal departments or agencies that may have relevant authority include the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Lacey Act (18
U.S.C. 42) and Title 50 (50 CFR Part 16), has the responsibility to protect fish health from disease
transfers in live imports. Shrimp containing pathogens can be restricted from import under Title
50 in the injurious wildlife listing. When pathogens, including viruses, are determined to be
harmful, the specific pathogen can be added to the injurious wildlife listing as needed. Under a
separate authority, these viruses could be considered non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species, and
therefore could be subject to the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and
Control Act of 1990. Under this act, any affected agency or entity may recommend that the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force initiate a control effort. A number of factors must be
considered before the Task Force initiates such an effort. These factors include: 1) Is the non-
'.-. ..- .- .11 •: , ' -
-------
indigenous organism already established, and if so, for how long ? 2) Is the introduction planned
and deliberate? 3) Are risks associated with specific identified pathways? 4) Is the likelihood of
permanent establishment significant? 5) Would establishment create significant economic or
environmental harm? 6) Does opportunity exist to manage the organism and prevent introduction
and establishment?
National Marine Fisheries Service. The NMFS has the authority for the regulation and
protection of the wild shrimp resources in the waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and
cooperates with the States and other Federal agencies to protect these resources. The NMFS can
use the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. § et seq 3371; Reorganization plan 4 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2090)
(5 U.S.C. § 903}; Amended Nov. 16,1981, P-L 97-79, § 2, 95 Stat. 1073) to prevent the
movement and importation of exotic shrimp, if a state law has been violated, and the state so
requests. Also, under Title 50 (50 CFR Part 16), NMFS can act to include an injurious organism
following the processes established under the Lacey Act. In the implementation of regulatory
Shrimp Fishery Management Plans, the NMFS participates and provides technical support to the
South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. Further, NMFS conducts
regular assessments of the shrimp stocks hi the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern U.S. Atlantic
coastal waters. NMFS also conducts basic research on methods for pathogen detection, pathogen
transmission, and in development of disease control methods. The NMFS has developed,
implemented, and presently supports a voluntary seafood inspection program. Finally, the NMFS
cooperates with the Mexican Government to manage shared resources in the Gulf of Mexico and
participates in the International Commission on the Exploration of the Seas to develop transport
protocols for marine organisms. .
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), under authority of the.plant and animal quarantine laws (a complete
listing of these laws is beyond the scope of this document) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622,1624) § 203,205 as amended, is responsible for preventing the introduction
and spread of foreign diseases and pests detrimental to agriculture. The APHIS has authority to
regulate importation and interstate movement of diseased and contaminated animals and has field
offices in each state and at all U.S. ports of entry. It is the lead agency in international
negotiations regarding animal health sanitary issues and is recognized by the European Union and
other trading partners. The APHIS has experience negotiating international zoosanitary
regulations for traditional agricultural species such as livestock and poultry, eradicating introduced
pests and pathogens, and in certifying the health status of exported animals and animal products.
In addition, APHIS works with the states and with industry on cooperative programs to address
animal health issues and oversees the licensing of vaccines and other veterinary products. The
USDA's Office of General Counsel is currently investigating whether existing statutes and
executive orders can be interpreted to provide APHIS the authority to regulate the importation and
interstate movement of shrimp and shrimp products to prevent and control shrimp viruses.
12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA can use its authority under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) to regulate discharges of virus-containing effluents. Prior to the discharge of shrimp
processing wastewater to surface waters, the EPA or designated state programs can impose
physical screening or other primary treatment, at a minimum (under § 301,402 of CWA; 40 CFR
Part 125 Subpart A). To protect receiving waters designated as water quality limited, additional
treatment (i.e., beyond the minimum technology-based standards) can be imposed to meet water
quality standards and implementation plans (under § 131,302,402 of CWA; 40 CFR Part 125).
Based on these requirements and standards, permits for effluent discharge(s) are issued under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES; under § 402 of CWA; 40 CFR Part
122 -125). Ocean discharge criteria (under § 403 of CWA; 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart M) may also
be applicable. . r .
Regarding control of shrimp or shellfish disease organisms, NPDES permits have neither
addressed shrimp viruses' as pollutants, nor have they required additional treatment technology.
However, NPDES permits have addressed human disease organisms as pollutants in order to
protect shellfishing waters, bathing beaches, and drinking water supplies. Thus, the NPDES .
permitting process provides a potential mechanism for addressing shrimp viruses as pollutants,
Collaborative Activities. Besides the regulatory activities of state and Federal agencies,
there have been a number of cooperative efforts among risk managers and stakeholders to address
the shrimp virus issue. One example is a recent workshop on shrimp viral pathogens held in June
1996, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (DOC/NOAA/NMFS); U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (DOA/CREES) arid
Agricultural Research Service (DOA/ARS); and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Gulf of Mexico Program: This workshop included individuals from all major stakeholder
groups as well as representatives of the Mexican government. Workshop participants discussed
the shrimp pathogen problem and recommended research priorities aimed at controlling threats to
; cultured and wild shrimp stocks in North and Central America,
Joint research programs will play an increasingly important role hi addressing the shrimp
virus problem. One example is research sponsored by the USDA under the U.S. Marine Shrimp
Farming Program. A consortium formed through this program has been extensively involved in
research addressing the issue of shrimp viruses. Projects include developing viral diagnostic
techniques, as well as establishing a monitoring system to evaluate the health status of various
commercial culture systems and to track SPF stocks. Recommendations are being developed for
the exclusion, containment, and control of imported pathogens via the shrimp culture industry.
Another significant joint research effort is the virus containment research sponsored by
NMFS under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants program. Through this joint effort, research is
conducted on shrimp viruses. Grants have been awarded for basic research on virus virulence and
bioassay technique. In-house work on. virus control strategies, risk assessment, and monitoring is
also underway. . •
: . - '13, ' • • ' : - '"
-------
There are many tools now available to address the challenges posed by the introduction of
exotic pathogenic viruses to U.S. wild
shrimp populations. Preventing the
introduction, establishment, and spread
of pathogenic viruses to the wild shrimp
fisheries and aquaculture industries will
be achieved only by a collaborative
effort, i.e., a combination of voluntary
industry action and the application of
existing or modified regulations.
Collaboration and cooperation among
stakeholders and risk managers are
essential to protect commercial shrimp
fisheries from possible pathogens, assure
the viability of the U.S. shrimp
aquaculture industry, and provide for
sustainable growth of the entire shrimp
industry.
Planning a Risk Assessment and
Setting Management Goals
The initial planning stages of an ecological
risk assessment are critical for ensuring that the
results of the risk assessment will be useful for
environmental decision-making (EPA, 1996a).
Planning helps to (1) establish management goals
that are agreed on; clearly articulated, and contain
a way to measure success; (2) define the decisions
to be made within the context of the management
goals; and (3) agree on the scope, complexity, and
focus of the risk assessment, including the
expected output and the technical and financial
support necessary for its completion.
Both risk managers and risk assessors are
responsible for coming to agreement on the goals,
scope, and timing of a risk assessment, as well as
the resources that are available and will be
necessary to achieve the goals. Together, they use
information on the ecological systems of concern,
any regulatory endpomts, and publicly perceived
societal (environmental) values to interpret the
goals for use in the ecological risk assessment.
Management goals are generally formed as a
consensus based on many diverse values reflected
in Federal, state, and local regulations,
constituency group views, and public concerns.
Significant interactions among a variety of
stakeholders are required to generate agreed-on
management goals for the resources of concern.
23 Management Goals
A risk assessment is initiated by
planning activities involving both risk
assessors and risk managers. At this
stage, early in the risk assessment
process, it is important to establish
management goals, define the
management decisions to be made within
the context of the goals; and to agree on
the scope of the assessment (see text
box). While the scope and management
goals for a shrimp virus risk assessment
must still be determined (section 7), the
Shrimp Virus Work Group developed'a
draft management goal to initiate
discussions and provide a focus for this report:
Prevent the establishment of new disease-causing viruses in wild populations of shrimp in
the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern 'U.S. Atlantic coastal waters, while minimizing
possible impacts on shrimp importation, processing, and aquaculture operations.
Although the focus of mis report is on the impacts of pathogenic viruses on wild shrimp
populations, these viruses also pose substantial risks to the U.S. aquaculture, importation, and
14
-------
processing industries. This report identifies and discusses pathways of viral pathogens both to and
from these industries. The.focus of this report is on the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern U.S.
coastal waters because they represent the largest volume of U.S. landings of wild shrimp (figure
2). However, shrimp industries in other geographic areas of the U.S. also may be affected by
pathogenic viruses, and mere may be significant impacts on the local economies of those areas as
well.- :.',•'
15
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: PROBLEM FORMULATION
Ecological risk assessment includes
three primary phases: problem formulation,
analysis, and risk characterization (see figure 5
and text box). This report provides much of
the information relevant to developing the
problem formulation phase of the shrimp virus
risk assessment While it is premature to
describe in detail the analysis or risk
characterization phases for a shrimp virus risk
assessment, a general description of these
phases is provided in sections 4 and 5. Three
steps important for problem formulation are
described below.
• Define assessment endpoints.
Assessment endpoints are "explicit
expressions of the actual environmental
value that is to be protected" (U.S.
EPA, 1992). An example is "survival,
growth, and reproduction of wild
penaeid shrimp populations". Selecting
appropriate assessment endpoints helps
to ensure that the risk assessment
addresses important scientific issues
while being responsive to management
concerns.
• Develop the conceptual model. Conceptual models portray the relationships between
stressors, their sources, and the ecological effects they may cause. Frequently shown as a
diagram, a conceptual model helps risk assessors focus a risk assessment on the most -
important sources, stressors, and effects.
• Develop an analysis plan, in. the analysis plan, risk assessors identify what will be done in
an assessment. The analysis plan also describes the data and measures to be used, the
analyses to be performed, and how risks will be characterized.
3.1 Assessment Endpoints and the Conceptual Model
The previous section proposes a management goal for a shrimp virus risk assessment. In
this section, that goal is linked to assessment endpoints, i.e., formal expressions of environmental
Ecological Risk Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 1996a)
Problem formulation is the initial
planning phase of an ecological risk
assessment, where assessment endpoints are
selected, a conceptual model is prepared, and
a plan for the assessment is developed. Next,
during the analysis phase, exposure and
effects data are evaluated to determine the
relationship between stressor levels and
ecological effects. In the risk
characterization phase, risks are estimated by
integrating exposure and effects information
and major uncertainties are evaluated.
Finally, risks are described by discussing any
relevant lines of evidence and the potential
for ecologically adverse consequences.
Interactions between risk assessors, risk
managers, and stakeholders at the beginning
and end of the risk assessment are critical for
ensuring that the results of the assessment
can and will be used to support a
management decision.
16
-------
Planning
(Risk
Assessor/
Risk
Manager
Dialogue)
-
Ecoloaical Risk AssA" •»•'
- ^ - - - ^. ^ -„ . ^ . ,
^ " -^4v X ^ -^
- . --*" ; 4^ * --
f
^ ^ ""v
'~f e of
>sure Ecological
Effects
r A~ 'I~ - ^^
> ~ - "-. . •<£.
vrfarf** *" — K*
^ ^ T <^ ^ ?4 *
™ ^ ji s "
' J "*, - '"*-'„-,
r~r ** *" " ^ ^ ^ *^x
•**'£-'»<.
« --»* ° ^ «.-
~s s- „ " *"^» » j,
•« — ^ f
ACTERIZATIOIS
"' ^
">2~ "-
x, *
i~"h.
f~. .*, •*• *
• ~ -w-"* -' -*..
-V f
V ^ r ^ ^
< " V - " c5
— rf* r
-5, •». ^
**•** "T "^ *
-" ^X-
U ^
^-S- ~~^
*s
L
.
>
(0
Necessary: Acquire Data, Iterate Process,
Monitor Results
A
J
Communicating Results to
the Risk Manager
I
Risk Management
Figure 5. The ecological risk assessment process
17
-------
values to be protected (see text box). Information contained in this report is directed primarily
toward the following assessment endpoint:
Survival, growth, and reproduction of wild penaeid shrimp populations in the Gulf of
Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters.
The focus of this report is on wild
penaeid shrimp because of their societal and
ecological importance (section 2.1) and
because of their known susceptibility to the
identified stressors (viruses, section 3.3). •
While population-level effects on shrimp (e.g.,
mass mortality, disease) are the primary
concern of this report, it is recognized that
shrimp populations cannot be protected
without considering the ecological systems
they inhabit Thus, the Shrimp Virus Work
Group has proposed a second assessment
endpoint:
Ecological structure and Junction of
coastal and near-shore marine
communities as they affect wild
penaeid shrimp populations.
To illustrate the appropriateness of this
secondary endpoint, consider the following
example. Other crustaceans such as copepods,
amphipods, or crabs are year round residents of
coastal marshes where penaeid shrimp spend
an important part of their life cycle (i.e.,
postlarval to juvenile stages). Some of these
other crustacean species could be alternate
hosts for the viruses, thus serving as a potential
reservoir and vector for transmission of the
viruses for infection of penaeid shrimp during
susceptible life stages. In Asia, for example,
WSSV has already been found in field samples of several species of crabs, copepods, shore flies,
and crayfish (section 3.7). If these other species are themselves affected by the virus, resulting
ecological effects (e.g., removal of copepods as a food source) could be detrimental to penaeid
shrimp as well as other ecosystem inhabitants (e.g., crabs, fish).
Assessment Endpoints
Assessment endpoints are developed
jointly by risk managers and risk assessors in
cooperation with a diverse group of
stakeholders. Assessment endpoints contain
two elements: a valued ecological entity (e.g.,
wild shrimp) and an attribute of mat entity
(e.g., population growth and development).
Effective assessment endpoints are clearly
defined, biologically and socially relevant,
accessible to measurement, estimation or
prediction, susceptible to environmental
stressors of concern, and representative of
management goals (Suter, 1990).
For a risk assessment to have
scientific validity, assessment endpoints must
reflect ecologically important components of
the systems they represent. Assessment
endpoints that adequately reflect societal
values and management goals are more
effective hi that they increase the likelihood
that the risk assessment will be used hi
environmental management decisions.
Additional information oh developing
management goals and objectives and
assessment endpoint is described elsewhere
(U.S. EPA, 1995,1996a).
18
-------
Conceptual models show linkages
between human activities, stressors, and,
•assessment endpoints that are useful in
developing risk hypotheses (see text box).
Diagrams are useful tools for communicating
important pathways in a clear and concise
way and for identifying major sources of
uncertainty. The Shrimp Virus Work Group
developed a proposed conceptual model
diagram (figure 6) to describe the potential
scope for a shrimp virus risk assessment. The
simple model shows the important links
between major potential sources of stressors
(viruses and anthropogenic stressors),
possible routes of exposure of wild penaeid
shrimp, and potential ecological effects of
these pathogenic viruses. The first row of
boxes shown under virus sources represents
major potential pathways by which wild
shrimp populations may be exposed to exotic
pathogenic viruses. It is conceivable that
viruses may be transferred between any of the
potential sources via the pathways shown.
Later in this report, more detailed descriptions
of the major sources and pathways are
provided. Other sources1 thought to be of lessor
Conceptual Models and Risk Hypotheses
Developing, a detailed conceptual
model helps the risk assessor identify the risk
hypotheses to be evaluated in the risk
assessment. Risk hypotheses describe
predicted relationships between the source,
stressor, and potential effects on an
assessment endpoint. For example, a simple
risk hypothesis might be: diseased shrimp in
aquaculrure grown from infected seed may
escape in pond effluents and reach wild
populations of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico.
Risk hypotheses do not necessarily require
statistical testing or any particular analytical
approach. Risk hypotheses may predict the
release of a virus or they may postulate the
causes of observed declines in shrimp
populations. A complex assessment can lead
to a large number of possible hypotheses.
Thus, a critical aspect of problem formulation
is to select the key hypotheses that will be the
focus of the assessment.
importance are also described.
The next row of boxes in figure 6 identifies four viruses mat are the primary stressors of
concern for this report. The potential effects of these viruses on wild shrimp must be determined
with consideration of other factors that may significantly affect shrimp populations, including non-
viral stressors.resulting from human activities and important environmental and ecological factors.
A generalized penaeid shrimp life cycle is provided to emphasize the importance of
shrimp life history on exposure to the pathogenic shrimp viruses. Exposure to the virus 'depends
not only on the'spatial and temporal patterns of viral entry into coastal and marine systems, but
also on the movements and life history patterns of the shrimp. For example, shrimp would most
likely be exposed to a virus-contaminated effluent discharged at the inlet to an estuary if the
discharges occurred during their seasonal hnmigration or emigration through the inlet. Finally,'the
diagram shows that effects (bottom row) on penaeid shrimp populations may occur either directly ,
(through the combined effects of individual mortality), or through direct or indirect effects on
other ecological entities (e.g.j other susceptible crustaceans).
,19
-------
VIRUS SOURCES-AMD PATHWAYS
I-* " '•— >
Aquaculture
Shrimp
Processing
h>- ~
f
Other
Sou rces/Pathways
i 1!
*-Q. J *
STRESSORS
VIRUSES
Taura Syndrome
White Spot
Yellow Head
IHHNV
Other Anthropogenic
Stressors
(e.g., harvesting,
contaminants,
habitat destruction)
Environmental and
Ecological Factors
(e.g., temperature,
salinity, predation)
EXPOSURE
P
,.:£
enaeid
Shrimp
Life
Cycle
f Protozoea
*
Naupilus
ESTUARY
VIRAL EFFECTS
Individual
Mortality
Viral Effects
on Other
Species
Indirect
Ecological
Effects
Population
Effects
Assessment Endpoint:
Ecological structure and function of
coastal and near-shore marine
communities as they affect penaeid
shrimp populations
J
Assessment Endpoint:
survival, growth, and
reproduction of Penaeid
shrimp j
Figure 6. Proposed shrimp virus conceptual model
20
-------
3.2 Virus Sources and Pathways
A critical aspect of evaluating the risks of shrimp viruses is understanding the sources of
virus and the pathways to the wild penaeid shrimp. This section provides more detail on two
possible sources and potential pathways for the viral effects shown in the conceptual model (figure
6): aquaculture, and shrimp processing. The Shrimp Virus Work Group considered these two
sources as those with the greatest potential to introduce viral diseases into wild penaeid shrimp
populations; this report also describes many other potential sources and pathways that were
considered less critical (section 3.2.3).
3.2.1 Aquaculture .
Several penaeid shrimp species are reared commercially worldwide, with the largest
production in Asia and South America. Intensive penaeid culture was first developed in Japan
(Hudinaga, 1942; Fujinaga, 1969) using P.japonicus. Later, during the 1970's, penaeid culture
was developed as a large-scale industry in the third world. During this period, many U.S.
companies that used native species failed because of difficulties spawning broodstock and rearing
succeeding generations. However, research in the U.S. has continued with attention devoted to P.
vannamei, the species most commonly reared in Latin America. Penaeus monodon, representing
nearly 80% of the world penaeid aquaculture supply, remains the species of choice in Asia.
":'-.'* ' l
- • . , .? -
At present, most penaeid aquaculture in the continental U.S. occurs in Texas and South
Carolina. Figure 7 shows the number and distribution of aquaculture facilities located in Texas:
There are 17 Texas facilities; 12 of these covering approximately 1625 acres are presently in active
penaeid production (Reisinger, Pers. Comm.). In 1994 there were 15 commercial farms operating
in South Carolina, including 115 hectares (284 acres) of ponds and supplying 450 metric tons
(3,913 kg/hectare) of shrimp. The maximum number of farms ever operating in South Carolina
was 18 (Browdy, Pens. Comm.). Some additional commercial rearing of postlaryae occurs in
Florida and Hawaii. , '_
Nearly all U.S. aquaculture facilities stocked P. vannamei until 1995, when major
outbreaks of TSV decimated crops of P. vannamei in South Texas (more than 95% loss; - .
Reisinger, Pers. Comm.). In 1996, P. vannamei stocks in both Texas and South Carolina were
again severely impacted by TSV. As a result, Texas aquaculture facilities began restocking with
P. setiferus. Following restocking at these facilities, WSSV and YHV occurred for the first time
in the western Hemisphere shrimp aquaculture (Lightner, 1996a, 1996b). Prior to November
1995, there had been no documented occurrences of either WSSV or YHV in U.S. commercial
facilities, and lethal outbreaks of these viruses had been confined to Asian production facilities.
Although there are few outbreaks with confirmed sources, figure 8 suggests several ways
in which viruses may enter aquaculture facilities! For those viral outbreaks in Texas in 1995, it
21
-------
58 acres
.s 70 acres
20 acres
40 acres
Figure 7. Active commercial shrimp aquaculture facilities on the Gulf Coast of Texas
(acreage does not indicate acres stocked)
22
-------
Aquaculture
Contaminated
Vehicles or
Transport
Containers
Bird and
Animal
Transport
Contaminated
Feed
Infected Brood
Stock/Seed
Pond Effluent
Escapement
Bait Shrimp
Transport to
Processing Facility
Sediment and Solid
Waste Disposal
Pond Flooding
Factors Affecting
Exposure
Location
Timing
Facility Size
Disinfection
and Quarantine
Figure 8. Conceptual model: virus sources and pathways for aquaculture
23
-------
was speculated that viruses might have been transferred by birds (i.e., by seagulls via feces) to the
affected aquaculture facilities. Though never confirmed, nearby shrimp packing plants, major
importers and re-processors of large quantities of shrimp from the far east, were suspected as the
ultimate source of the imported viruses. Reports that non-shrimp animal species may have been
the source of some infections (i.e., either as carriers or transmitters) have been unsubstantiated, but
non-shrimp species (e.g., crabs, crayfish, squid, other crustaceans, amphipods, isopods) have only
recently been subjected to bioassay and other definitive tests for the presence of viruses.
The 1996 TSV outbreaks in South Carolina and Texas apparently resulted from broodstock
that were contaminated after they arrived at a hatchery (Lotz, Pers. Comm.), although the original
source of broodstock infection is unknown. Farmers purchased infected seed from this facility,
although recommended procedures direct farmers to avoid purchasing seed from a supplier having
a recent history of disease. See Pruder (1996) for a further description of these outbreaks. Other
potential sources for entry of viruses into aquaculture include contaminated feed (see section
3.2.2) and contaminated vehicles or transport containers (figure 8).
Shrimp used in U.S. commercial aquaculture originate from the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farm
Program. A total of 4-5 original groups of wild shrimp have been used to date. Offspring of these
are used as the primary source of stock and are kept at the Nucleus Breeding Center at
the Oceanic Institute. These are routinely tested for nine viruses, including IHHNV, TSV, WSSV
and YHV, and numerous other pathogens. These shrimp are determined to be specific pathogen-
free through two generations before use in commercial postlarvae production (Lotz et al., 1995).
Shrimp from the Nucleus Breeding Center are provided to Consortium research facilities,
commercial suppliers of postlarvae (seed), and to commercial broodstock multiplication centers.
Pathogen screening is much reduced once shrimp enter either commercial broodstock
multiplication centers or commercial posllarvae producers.
Postlarvae available to commercial growout facilities (i.e., farmers) are purchased from
commercial seed producers. Currently, seed are obtained from commercial hatcheries hi Hawaii,
Texas, and Florida, and research facilities in Mississippi and South Carolina. Although the extent
to which postlarvae are screened for pathogens varies from producer to producer, individual
shipments are not routinely examined for diseases. South Carolina requires certification that
suppliers have a history of at least 6 months free of listed specific pathogens, including TSV,
IHHNV, WSSV, YHV. Presently, there is no Federal program to certify individual shrimp
shipments or facilities.
Shrimp farmers usually stock postlarvae in the early spring, and harvest at least one crop
prior to the onset of cold weather. Though stocking densities vary widely, most U.S. commercial
farmers are semi-intensive. As an example, south Texas ponds are usually stocked at about
100,000 - 200,000 postlarvae per ha, and the average pond covers less than 3 ha. Farms are
generally located near a source of brackish or saline water, and may recirculate wastewater back to
their source waters. Under normal conditions, effluent is held hi ponds to settle before
24
-------
discharge. In South Carolina, at the onset of disease, farmers are. required to hold water on their
farms. Under these conditions, water quality in the ponds is maintained by constant aeration, and
wastewater is discharged only after harvest. Once an aquaculture facility becomes infected with a
shrimp virus, there are no reliable, generally accepted, or standardized procedures available for
pond disinfection.
As shown hi figure 8, native shrimp' species may be exposed to viruses through a number
of pathways from aquaculture, including pond effluents or flooding of ponds, escape of infected
shrimp, spills or losses during transport to shrimp processing facilities, disposal of pond sediment
or solid waste, or through infected bait shrimp. Wild shrimp may be most susceptible to these
exposures during certain critical time periods (see section 3.2). Wild penaeid populations are most
dense during immigration of postlarvae (e.g., usually spring and early summer) and emigration of
juveniles (e.g., later summer into fall). In addition to these spatial and temporal relationships,
other important factors in assessing potential exposures to native shrimp species include .the ,
volume of effluent discharges from shrimp farms and processors, as well as disinfection and
quarantine procedures used in these facilities. Infected wild shrimp may contaminate aquaculture
stocks through the use of infected wild broodstock and postlarvae or from contaminated materials
entrained in local water supplies. ,
Data Gaps; •
• Water exchange with natural waters - protocols for aquaculture operations, water
treatment, etc; ,
• Number and size of U.S. aquaculture operations in relationship to receiving
waters/habitats harboring native shrimp
• Volume, disposal patterns, and treatment for solid wastes from aquaculture
• Estimates of the extent of virus contamination of feed, broodstock/seed, vehicles, and
birds/animals that could transport virus
3.2.2 Shrimp Processing
Historically, the shrimp processing industry in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S.
Atlantic coastal area has been a seasonal industry. Shrimp were generally caught hi the spring,
summer, arid fall of each year and were either frozen as green headless shrimp, or canned. They
were held through late fall, and as supplies diminished during the winter months, the shrimp were
marketed at a premium price. Most of the processing facilities were located adjacent to the fuel
and ice docks that supported the, fleets, so that during the fishing season the shrimp catch ,could be
off loaded, the boats refueled, iced, and returned to the fishing grounds as quickly as possible.
This arrangement cut down on costs and the time required to transport and handle the catch.
Processing plants were generally located on a waterway and any processing wastes,both
solids and liquid, were discharged directly into the adjacent waters. During the late '70's, it was
recognized that due to waste volume and seasonality, the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
••••''' • . 25
-------
levels in the processing wastes imposed too great a burden on receiving waters (i.e., because
discharges were greater during spring and summer months when light intensity, ambient water
temperatures, and biological productivity are higher). To reduce BOD levels, methods were
developed to screen out the solids (i.e., heads and shells). After screening, solids were either
disposed of in a landfill, or were dried and processed into a shrimp meal or feed, and the remaining
process wastewater was discharged directly into local waters. In recent years, efforts have been
underway in the southeast to route process effluents through some type of treatment facility before
discharge. Because of irregular effluent volumes, the large area over which plants are distributed,
and the seasonaliry of the processing industry, it has been difficult to build treatment facilities to
accommodate the needs of this industry.
Increasing demand for shrimp in the U.S. (section 2.1) has had a major impact on the
operation of shrimp processing facilities. Prior to about 1955, imports of foreign shrimp were
negligible, and processing plants mainly relied on locally produced wild shrimp for their raw
product. However, during the 1960's and 70's, U.S. shrimp imports rose dramatically along with
increasing market demand. There are approximately 400 firms in shrimp-related industries located
along the Gulf of Mexico, and two-thirds (268) of these are located hi Louisiana and Texas. These
plants are generally larger than those hi the past and are in production year round.
Currently, there are over 60 countries exporting both pond-raised and wild shrimp to the
U.S. Over one-half of the shrimp processed in the U.S. is imported from Thailand, India, and
numerous other countries where viral diseases are a major problem. Some countries harvest
shrimp during the early stages of a disease outbreak hi order to minimize disease effects on
cultured shrimp yield. This strategy effectively avoids high mortality and catastrophic economic
losses in those countries, but increases the likelihood that shrimp imported into the U.S. will be
contaminated with viable virus particles (Lightner, 1996a, 1996b). In fact, shrimp infected with
WSSV, YHV, and TSV have been identified hi retail stores hi the U.S. (Lightner, unpublished
data). Thus, the importation of infected shrimp for processing by the U.S. shrimp industry
significantly increases the potential for the introduction of pathogenic viruses into coastal waters
adjacent to the processing plants. This pathway may pose a significant threat to wild shrimp
populations.
Infected shrimp processed in the U.S. may infect wild shrimp via solid wastes, effluents,
bait shrimp, and infected material from processing used in shrimp and fish feed (figure 9). For
example, solid wastes from processing facilities are often processed into meal at low temperature
(I.e., not sufficient to inactivate pathogenic viruses). This meal is added as a protein source to
shrimp feeds. If this contaminated feed is used for animals in aquaculture, and wastewater
containing pathogenic viruses from culture facilities is discharged into local receiving waters, local
wild shrimp stocks may be at risk from this pathway. Shrimp processing wastes containing viable
viruses could also result in the infection of aquaculture facilities through one of the entry
mechanisms shown hi figure 8. Important factors modifying potential exposures include facility
location, seasonal patterns and varying volumes of effluent discharges, the source of potentially
26
-------
Shrimp Processing
™>v^fe^«ws^!3^^>^3&^^
Infected Domestic Shrimp
(Aquaculture or Wild-Caught):
Heads On/Heads Off/Peeled
infected imported Shrimp
(Aquaculture or Wild-Caught)
Heads On/Heads Off/Peeled
Retail
Market
Processing
Solid Waste
Shrimp/
Fish
Feed
Effluent
(Treated/Untreated)
Factors Affecting
Exposure
Location
Seasonally
Volume
Shrimp source
Waste treatment
Figure 9. Conceptual model: virus sources and pathways for shrimp processing
27 ,
-------
contaminated shrimp for processing, and waste treatment procedures used are important for
evaluating risks to native shrimp populations.
An approach for controlling potential sources of virus exposure from processing facilities
is to apply concepts developed for preventive food safety (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
program; NACMCF, 1992). A logical extension of this preventive approach could be used to
identify specific sources of exposure that may occur during shrimp processing and develop control
measures to prevent significant exposures.
Data Gaps: .
• Volume, disposal patterns, and types of treatments for shrimp processing effluents
and solid wastes
* Number and size of shrimp processing facilities in relationship to receiving
waters/habitats harboring wild shrimp
• Estimates of the extent of virus contamination of shrimp received for processing
• Extent and distribution of contaminated shrimp in retail seafood markets and
disposal patterns
• Presence of virus in fish and shrimp feed
3.2.3 Other Sources/Pathways
During preliminary discussions leading to the development of this report, the Shrimp Virus
Work Group identified several other virus sources/pathways to wild shrimp. The Shrimp Virus
Work Group felt that a risk assessment should focus on the two major sources described above,
but it is also important to recognize the potential risks associated with these other less significant
sources/pathways.
Bait Shrimp (live or frozen). Pathogenic viruses may be found in infected bait shrimp
that could contaminate wild stocks through use in recreational and subsistence fishing. The bait
shrimp industry is integral to and is a significant segment of the U.S. shrimp fishery that supports
a large and economically-important sportfishing industry in the southeastern United States. For
example, in Texas alone, about 1786 bait shrimp licenses were issued in 1996 (Robinson et al.,
1996). Bait shrimpers generally target small shrimp in the shallow, muddy estuarine nursery
areas. These small shrimp are usually trawl caught (Baxter et al., 1988: Salomon, 1965), kept
alive with recirculated seawater on board ship, and are delivered to shore-based facilities, where
they are kept in recirculated seawater tanks while being held for sale. Because the demand for bait
shrimp is high, especially when local shrimp supplies are limited, many bait shrimpers haul live
shrimp between bays within a state or across state lines. This practice could result in the
movement of contaminated shrimp from one area to another..
At certain times of the year, the demand for bait shrimp has been so great that suppliers to
the recreational fishery have had to depend on imported shrimp to meet the demand. Because
28 .
-------
these imports may be contaminated with viruses, their use as bait shrimp could provide a potential
pathway for the introduction of pathogenic viruses. When contaminated bait shrimp are discarded,
wild stocks feeding on these discards could be vulnerable to infection,' especially during the spring
and summer when postlarval shrimp are immigrating into coastal nursery areas. If the shrimp
culture industry expands to meet the needs of the bait shrimp industry, cultured bait shrimp
represent another potential pathway for introduchig pathogenic viruses into wild shrimp
populations.
Ballast Water. The transport of live shrimp in ballast water is well documented (Carlton
and Geller, 1993; Williams et al., 1988; see section 3.4). It is estimated that 25 or more species of
shrimp have been released to U.S. surface waters from ship ballasts. There is no accurate estimate
of the number of shrimp species that, through the movement of ballast water, may have been
established worldwide. While many of these shrimp establishments may have been overlooked, a
few well-documented records include the Indonesian shrimp (Exopalaemon styliferus) from
Indonesia/India introduced to the Arabian Gulf; the Korean shrimp (Palaemon macrodactylus).
introduced to California, Oregon, and Australia; the Asian shrimp (Exopalaemon mddestus)
introduced to the Columbia River in Oregon; the Japanese shrimp (Salmoneus gracilipes)
introduced to. California; and the Atlantic shrimp (Hippolyte zostericold) introduced from U.S. -
Atlantic coast to Colombia, South America (Carlton, Pers.Comm.). The introduction of
pathogenic viruses may be possible with the establishment of these new species.
Introduction of pathogenic shrimp viruses to wild stock may result even if exotic shrimp
species originating in ballast water-do not become established. For example, diseased, dead, or
dying shrimp discharged from ballast .may be eaten by or come in contact with wild crustaceans
Ballast water can be a source of a mix of crustacean species (e.g., crab larvae, amphipods, and
isopods), and some of these may not normally co-occur in nature. The possibility of viral
transmission from one .crustacean species to another may be amplified under these conditions.
Research and Display. Pathogenic viruses may be unwittingly released in association
with wastes, feed, or organisms from research activities at public agencies, universities, or large
public aquaria, or by discarded ornamental cultures of shrimp or other crustaceans. Many of these
facilities are located in coastal areas hi proximity to habitat for wild shrimp populations. Proper
quarantine or disinfection procedures for new or exotic organisms (i.e., especially those known to
carry pathogens) are critical for preventing the release of pathogenic organisms, but the extent of
these procedures varies greatly among research and display facilities.
• • , ' . ' ' , i
Non-Shrimp Translocated Animals. Animals other than shrimp may carry viruses that
could infect shrimp populations (see section 3.7). Potential pathways for viral entry include
international, national, or regional transport of infected live animals, bait, or, feed materials.
Important factors affecting exposure to wild shrimp include location, seasonality, the number of
animals, and the proximity of their habitat relative to wild shrimp. All but the most basic
information is unavailable for evaluating the potential exposures these, animals represent to wild
shrimp.
' ' ' "• , ' ' 29 ' ."."•'• " ' . " "
-------
Natural Spread. While this report considers the importance of anthropogenic pathways
for the introduction of pathogenic viruses to wild shrimp, it is possible that the spread of a virus
could be enhanced by natural processes. Examples include movements by large scale water
currents, hurricane or flood events, and translocation by birds or other animals. Little information
is available on this potential pathway for exposure to pathogenic shrimp viruses.
Two other sources are considered less important than the preceding sources: fishing vessels
and intentional introductions. When fishing vessels based in U.S. ports return from foreign
waters, their nets and other equipment may be contaminated with organisms or materials that
harbor pathogenic shrimp viruses. While intentional introduction of a virus is possible, it is not
considered likely, and it would be difficult if not impossible to predict or control.
33 Viral Stressors
The conceptual model (figure 6) shows types of stressors affecting wild penaeid shrimp
populations. This report focuses on four disease-causing viruses: IHHNV, TSV, WSSV, and
YHV. There are many other viruses as well as other organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and
commensal organisms that may cause disease in shrimp. For each virus, this section describes
available information on the following topics: virus taxonomy, where first identified, infectivity,
virulence and resistance, transmissibiliry and carrier, status, host range, geographic distribution,
and disease symptoms and detection methods.
Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV) is a small (20-22
nm), single stranded DNA virus belonging to the Parvovirus group. This disease was first
described by Lighmer et al. (1983a, 1983b) hi postlarval P. stylirostris and P. vannamei isolated
from aquaculture facilities hi Hawaii. IHHNV is a highly lethal disease, causing up to 90%
mortality in affected populations of susceptible P. stylirostris. Some members of the population
that survive IHHNV infections and/or epizootics are apparently carriers, passing, the virus to
progeny and other populations (Lightner, 1996b).
IHHNV has been documented hi wild species of shrimp including P. stylirostris, P.
vannamei, P. occidentalism P. califomiensis, P. monodon,P. semisulcatus, an&P.japonicus. All
three species (P. setiferus, P. aztecus, and P. duorarum) native to the U.S. have been infected
experimentally (Lightner et al., 1985).
IHHNV is widely distributed hi aquaculture facilities hi both the Americas and throughout
Asia. It is assumed to be enzootic (i.e. endemic) hi wild penaeids hi the Indo-Pacific and Ecuador.
In the Americas., IHHNV has been found hi wild penaeids hi Ecuador, western Panama, and
western Mexico.
Clinical symptoms of IHHNV are not specific. Juvenile P. stylirostris show reduced food
intake and other behavioral changes. There are buff-colored lesions hi the cuticular epidermis.
30
-------
P. vannamei display runt deformity syndrome, including cuticular deformities. A gene probe
(definitive diagnostic method) is available commercially.
Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV) is a small (28-30 nm), single-stranded RNA (ssRNA)
virus, belonging to the Picqmavirus group (Hasson et aL, 1995). The disease, also variously
described as Red Tail or Blackspot disease, was originally reported in mid-1992 in cultured
P. vannamei near the Taura River, Ecuador. This first outbreak resulted in catastrophic
mortalities of 80 - 90% of young P. vannamei. TSV has been identified in live shrimp postlarvae
and brood stocks in hatcheries. TSV has also been identified in seagull feces and water boatmen.
. Numerous shrimp species native to the western hemisphere, including the U.S., are
susceptible to TSV under experimental conditions. All three species native to the U.S.
(P. setiferus, P. aztecus and P. duorarmri) have been infected experimentally (Lightner, 1996a,
1996b; Overstreet et al., 1997). Once infected, P. setiferus experiences heavy mortality.
TSV disease has reportedly spread throughout aquaculture facilities Ideated in the
Western Hemisphere including Peru, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil and
western Mexico (Lightner, 1996a, 1996b) and has been documented in wild postlarval and adult
P. vannamei from near-shore and off-shore fisheries in Ecuador, El Salvador, and off the
Mexican state of Chiapas near the borderof Guatemala. It has also been reported in U.S.
aquaculture and hatchery facilities in Hawaii, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina (Lightner
1996a, 1996b). S '
Gross signs of the disease are red tails and/or appendages, cuticular necrosis, soft shells,
and cuticular black spots. Positive identification of acute but not chronic infections can be made
through histological examination. Chronic infections can be diagnosed by bioassay with SPF P.
vannamei or by commercially available gene probe. Definitive diagnostic methods are available
and include a gene probe and PCR (polymerase chain reaction). TSV has been identified by
bioassay in imported frozen shrimp (Lotz, Pers. Comm.; Lightner, In Press).
White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), a non-occluded baculovirus, is a medium size
(100-290 nm), double-stranded DNA virus. The disease, also variously described as Red
Disease, China Virus Disease, and Shrimp Explosive Epidemic Disease, was first identified in
1992-93 in China and Taiwan. Where, it has been confirmed, WSSV has caused mass mortalities
reaching 90-100% in several species of shrimp in aquaculture. This virus has been shown to
infect a number of other crustacean species (e.g., amphipods, ostracods, swimming crabs,
crayfish, copepods, and shore flies), some of which have transmitted the disease into Asian
penaeid aquaculture facilities (Chang et al., In Press a, In Press b; Lo et al., 1996; Wang et al.,
1995; Wang et al., In Press, Lan et al., 1996; Flegel et al., 1996). The infection of numerous
non-shrimp species and other crustaceans raises concerns that these organisms could act as a
reservoir, or intermediate host, presenting a possible pathway to infect not only native shrimp,
but also other,native marine and freshwater species (see potential effects, section 3.7).
31
-------
All native U.S. species of shrimp are susceptible to WSSV under experimental conditions
(Lightner, 1996a, 1996b). WSSV infects and causes disease in many foreign species of shrimp
including P. monodon, P. semisulcatus, P. merguiensis, P. indicus, P. chinensis, P. penicillatus,
and P.japoniajs. Outbreaks were recorded in 1994-95 in Thailand, India, Japan, and Korea.
WSSV is now believed to infect shrimp farms throughout east Asia, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, •
India and was reported in Texas in November 1995.
Clinical signs of the disease include a red color to the entire body and appendages along
with small subcutaneous white spots. Histological examination reveals prominent intranuclear
inclusion bodies in cuticular epithelium, subcutis and connective tissues. Definitive diagnostic
techniques have been developed, and include a gene probe and PCR hybridization. WSSV has
been identified by bioassay, gross examination, and PCR in imported frozen shrimp products in
retail stores in the U.S. (Lightner, In Press; see section 3.2.2).
Yellow Head Virus Syndrome (YHV) is a small to moderate size (44 x 173 nm), ssRNA
rhabdo-like virus. • The virus was first reported in aquaculture operations of the tiger prawn
shrimp (P. monodon) in Thailand in 1992. YHV is widespread in cultured P. monodon and is
suspected as the causal agent of major losses of cultured shrimp production in Taiwan, Indonesia,
China, and the Philippines in the late 1980's (Lightner, 1996b).
Juvenile shrimp are apparently the most vulnerable to YHV infection, although earlier
and later stages appear to be somewhat resistant. Thus, juvenile stages of P. setiferus, P. aztecus
and P. duorarum can be infected experimentally with YHV, although then: postlarval stages
appear to be resistant (Lightner, 1996b). However, all stages of live shrimp in aquaculture,
including nauplii, postlarvae, and broodstock may be carriers of YHV. Asymptomatic YHV
carriers were identified in shrimp from Australia, as well as in shrimp showing signs of WSSV "
disease in Thailand, India and Texas (Lightner, 1996b). YHV has also been found in P.
merguiensis and Metapenaeus ensis in Australia. YHV has been experimentally transferred to P.
vannamei, P. stylirostris, and P. setiferus, and has been detected in the carrier state hi Acetes sp.
(krill) and Palaemon stylifertis (mysid shrimp), both ecologically important species in marine
environments. The ability of YHV to infect a number of other genera and species is a warning
that YHV could pose a problem to other U.S. marine crustaceans (see section 3.7).
By 1994, YSV had also been identified hi India, Malaysia, and Indonesia. In November
1995, YSV was found hi aquaculture operations hi Texas.
The most obvious clinical sign of the disease is the yellow coloration of the shrimp's .
head. Histological examination reveals generalized necrosis of lymphoid organs, and connective
tissues and cuticular epidermis, with cells showing pyknosis and cytoplasmic inclusions.
Available diagnostic techniques include histology, electron microscopy, and bioassay. YHV has
been identified by bioassay hi imported frozen shrimp (Lightner, In Press).
• 32
-------
Data Gaps:
Temporal and spatial distributions of wild penaeid shrimp relative to the viruses
Concentrations, frequency, duration, location, and environmental medium of the
viruses
Species-specificity of the viruses
Alternative hosts of the viruses "• • ' .
Infectivity, transmissibility, and virulence of viruses
Persistence of viruses in different environmental media
Extent and rate of spread of the viruses among wild shrimp populations
Analogous information from other introductions of exotic diseases
Potential for immunity/resistance and length of any immunity
Carrier status of surviving infected shrimp
3.4 Other Anthropogenic Stressors on Wild Shrimp Populations
Although this report focuses on the potential effects of pathogenic viruses on wild shrimp
populations, other factors acting alone or in conjunction with shrimp viruses may also have
detrimental effects. These include natural environmental factors (see section 3.5) as well as other
anthropogenic (i.e., human-introduced) Stressors such as hypoxia (i.e., low dissolved oxygen),
coastal wetland habitat modification, harvesting practices, and the introduction of exotic species.
The potential risks from combinations of multiple Stressors are also considered.
Hypoxia. Recently, evidence of an increasing area of hypoxia (up to 9500 km2 in 1993)
has been documented, extending west from the mouth of the Mississippi River, along the coast of
Louisiana, and into the Gulf of Mexico (Rabelais et al., 1996, U.S. EPA, 1996b). The extent of
this hypoxic area varies in both temporal and spatial extent, depending upon environmental and
meteorological conditions. These large-scale hypoxic areas are rich in nutrients that can promote
phytoplankton blooms. Some of these blooms may create toxic byproducts that could have
deleterious ecological impacts.
Because these hypoxic areas often overlap with fishing grounds for both white and brown
shrimp (Zimmerman et al., 1996), their potential effects on wild shrimp populations cannot be
disregarded. Laboratory studies have shown that penaeid shrimp avoid hypoxic waters (Renaud,
1986a), and field evidence has documented lower shrimp population densities in hypoxic coastal
areas (Renaud, 1986b). Recent studies suggest that shrimp landings are negatively affected in
areas of hypoxia; shrimp apparently concentrate in near shore areas between the area of hypoxia
and the shoreline. This inshore concentration of migrating shrimp near shore-based sources of
virus may increase their potential for exposure to disease. Zimmerman et al. (1996) found that
diminished catch appeared to extend offshore beyond the hypoxic area, suggesting that these
areas may block critical zones through which shrimp migrate.
33
-------
Habitat Modification. Although the effects are largely unknown, loss of coastal
wetland habitat can affect the shrimp populations which utilize them. Juvenile shrimp spend a
significant portion of the life cycle in coastal wetland areas, where they grow and develop to high
densities (Fast, 1992). These areas of critical habitat, however, are under increasing pressure due
to coastal development, levee construction, channelization, and dredge spoil sediment disposal.
Consider, for example, the state of Louisiana. Since 1930, Louisiana has been
particularly hard hit by coastal development and habitat modification. Because of man's
activities (e.g., marsh inundation, erosion, and such human interventions as construction of
canals, levees, and dikes), the state has lost wetland areas amounting to 3950 km2 (Boesch et al.,
1994). As a result of coastal habitat modification, saltwater intrusion has occurred in some areas.
The effects of saltwater intrusion, both positive and negative, on migratory fishery fauna (i.e.,
including shrimp) have been documented elsewhere (Rogers et al., 1994; Herke et al., 1996:
Rozas, 1992; and Rozas and Reed, 1994).
Evidence suggests that marsh edge (i.e., marsh to open water interface), which is
important as a source of food, substrate for growth and development, or refugia to avoid
predators, is utilized extensively by juvenile shrimp (Minello et al., 1994). Eroding salt marshes
have greater available edge; thus, it is thought that coastal development may, at least initially,
result in increased shrimp population levels. At some critical threshold however, shrimp
populations will be detrimentally affected by increasing losses of critical habitat.
The indirect effects of habitat modification on other ecologically important species may
also be significant. As losses become more extensive and as wetland areas become more highly
fragmented (or disappear altogether), non-shrimp species that depend on shrimp as a food source
may also be severely impacted,
Harvesting Practices. The possible negative effects of shrimp harvesting practices on
population levels in Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters has been
discussed since the early 1930's (Higgins, 1938). Although catch and fishing, effort, as well as
landings, have increased over the years, catch per unit effort (i.e., yield) of the major shrimp
species has not shown a significant decline (Nance and Nichols, 1988). There are several
possible explanations for the lack of decline in shrimp yield. These findings assume an annual
shrimp crop, but some shrimp live longer than one year, thus increasing the reproductive
potential of the population. Also, given the tremendous fecundity of adult shrimp, population
levels seem to depend less on adult survival than on many critical environmental factors affecting
young shrimp. Environmental factors such as the salinity and temperature of coastal waters, and
predation by other organisms, appear to have a greater influence (i.e. higher mortality rates) on
the survival of the larval and juvenile shrimp than do current fishing practices.
Introduction of Exotic Species. It is well documented that the introduction,
establishment, and spread of non-indigenous species in fresh, estuarine, and marine
environments, have had adverse environmental effects (OTA, 1993; NOAA, 1994; EC, 1993;
34
-------
' ••<'"-.". *
and NEMO, 1994). Data from around the world clearly indicate that the current rate of
movement and establishment of exotic organisms in marine and estuarine environments is
unprecedented. Changes in the ecological structure and function of estuarine habitats have
resulted from such exotic introductions. •
In estuaries that have been monitored carefully overtime, the establishment of exotic
species has caused extensive changes in species composition arid structure (Cohen and Carlton,
1995). For example, in San Francisco Bay, exotic species account for 40% to 100% of the
common or dominant species in benthic and fouling communities measured at various sites
throughout the estuary (Cohen, 1996). One species, the Amur River clam (Potamocorbula
amurensis)vjas first detected in San Francisco Bay in October 1986. By the summer of 1987
(nine months later), the Amur River clam had become the most abundant clam in San Francisco
Bay, attaining densities of 2,000 clams per square foot. Because the clam can completely filter a
volume of .water equivalent to the entire bay every few days, it can deplete the phytoplankton
that form the base of the food web for many native fish and marine mammals (Cohen, 1996).
Impacts on shrimp populations due to introduced species, could be either direct or
indirect. An exotic species may affect the shrimp population directly, as a predator, parasite, or
pathogen of shrimp, or as a carrier of parasitic or pathogenic organisms. However, the most
damaging exotic species have been those that resulted in indirect ecological effects through
habitat alteration. Examples include the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great
Lakes and the ctenophore (Mnemiopsis leidyi) in the Black Sea, two of the most devastating
exotic invasions of the 20th century.
. - -i , •
The ecological structure and function of Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic
coastal waters are currently threatened by the establishment and spread of many exotic
invertebrates (e.g., barnacles, sea squirts, anemones, crabs, and wood-boring crustaceans),
seaweeds, and green algae. Problems specific to southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal areas include
the recent establishment of the Japanese shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) and the
Indo-Pacific swimming crab (Charybdishetteri). The shore crab may threaten salt-marsh
ecosystems through its extensive burrowing activity (Geller, 1996), while the swimming crab is a
potential competitor of the economically-important blue crab.. The Indo-Pacific swimming crab
has become established along the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the exotic brown mussel (Perna
pernd) is quickly spreading along the Gulf Coast, where it has shown the potential to displace
native species and has already caused fouling of-offshore oil platforms and navigation buoys.
Multiple Stressors. The interactive effects of multiple environmental stressors, both
natural environmental parameters and anthropogenic stressors, are very difficult to predict, but
may be substantially greater than might be predicted based on an analysis of the individual
factors. "When any of these environmental stressors are present, either singly, or in combination,
the effects on resident populations may be severe. For example, man-fnade alterations hi marsh
habitat can alter many important environmental parameters resulting in adverse environmental,
conditions (e.g., higher temperatures, absence of cover, altered species composition). As the area'
' •' ' ' -.'•.-'•'.. 35 , " . ;
-------
of marsh available to the species is decreased, both food supply and cover are reduced; thus,
increasing the likelihood of predation and disease. Physiological stress imposed by multiple
environmental stressors (e.g., hypoxia, habitat modification, exotic introductions, and harvesting
practices) acting on individual wild shrimp may increase their susceptibility to, as well as the
effects of, infection by pathogenic viruses.
DataGaps:
• Relationship between stress and disease susceptibility in shrimp
• Evaluating the effects of interactions among multiple stressors
3.5 Environmental and Ecological Factors Regulating Wild Shrimp Populations
Wild shrimp population dynamics (e.g., mortality, growth, reproduction, and movement)
are regulated by environmental and ecological factors (see also section 3.6). Predation is a major
ecological regulator of mortality in wild juvenile penaeids (Minello et al., 1989; Minello and
Zimmerman, 1991). Changes hi environmental factors such as temperature or salinity may be
adverse during certain critical life stages (e.g., juvenile stages hi the marshes). Species differ,
however, in their responses to changes in these environmental factors. For example, white
shrimp juveniles tolerate warmer temperatures, but are stressed by temperatures less than 18°, as
indicated by decreased growth and survival hi laboratory studies.
When changes hi environmental factors occur in combination, interactions among
stressors may be extremely important (Zein-Eldin and Renaud, 1986). Exposure to extremes of a
single factor may be tolerated, however, combinations may be adverse or even lethal. Under
these conditions, exposure to additional stressors such as hypoxia, habitat loss, etc., may
predispose the animals to infection or disease.
3.6 Shrimp Life History and Ecology
Understanding the life history and ecology of penaeid shrimp is critical for evaluating
their exposure to pathogenic viruses as well as the ecological effects of disease on shrimp
populations. The life histories of penaeids worldwide are similar, although species differ in
distribution, seasonality, and response to various environmental factors. Three penaeid shrimp
species are of principal importance to the U.S. commercial fishery: the white shrimp (P.
setiferus), the brown shrimp, (P. aztecus) and the pink shrimp, (P. duorarum).
The three species are discontinuously distributed from New Jersey to the Florida Keys,
and along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico from Florida through Texas, and into eastern Mexico
(Lindner and Cook, 1970). The white shrimp, fishery does not occur along the south and west
coasts of Florida, but occurs again around the northwestern and western Gulf as far south as
Tampico, Mexico (figure 10). The white shrimp, the principal species hi the south Atlantic, is a
daytime fishery, usually hi waters less than 27 m (Lindner and Anderson 1956).
36
-------
FIRE ISLAND
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS
PAMLICO SOUND
VERO BEACH
ST. LUC1E INLET
Atlantic Ocean
Figure 10. Distribution and major fishing areas for the white shrimp, P. setiferus
37
-------
The brown shrimp, the most important U.S. commercial species, occurs as far north as
Martha's Vineyard, and south to Florida, It is found hi the Gulf of Mexico along the panhandle
of Florida, and westward as far as Campeche, Mexico (Cook and Lindner, 1970); however, major
fishing areas are off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana (figure 11). Compared to the white
shrimp, it is a night fishery, at distances farther offshore (up to 198 km) and at greater depths (up
to 110 m) (Temple and Fischer, 1967).
Of the three species, the pink shrimp has the most limited distribution, and the smallest
fishery. It is fished to some extent off North Carolina and the northeast coast of Florida, but is
the major species from Sannibel along the Florida Keys (Costello and Allen, 1970). Most of the
pink shrimp found in the western Gulf of Mexico range from south Texas to Campeche, Mexico
(figure 12). Like brown shrimp, pink shrimp are caught at night.
The sexually mature adults of all species are present hi offshore, more saline waters.
Spawning, followed by hatching and completion of a complex larval development process,
occurs at various distances-offshore (Renfro and Brusher, 1982). All larval stages differ
morphologically, and include five naupliar, three protozoeal, and three mysis stages. Depending
on the season (Temple and Fisher, 1967; Brusher, Renfro and Neal, 1972), all larval stages
usually occur at fairly low densities (less than 1 /m3; Temple and Fisher, 1965) in offshore waters
near their spawning grounds.
The bulk of white shrimp spawn in waters less than 27 m deep (Lindner and Anderson,
1956), brown shrimp spawn hi deeper waters (up to 110 m), and pink shrimp generally spawn in
waters between 15 and 48 m. The dense eggs sink to the bottom, where they hatch within hours.
Pelagic development is usually rapid, but occurs at a rate dependent upon temperature.
Early postlarvae (less than 10 mm total length) are transported by currents and tidal
action onto the beaches, and enter through coastal passes hito estuaries and marshes. Densities at
time of entry vary considerably, from day to day, within a single 24-hour period, vertically in the
water mass (Baxter and Renfro, 1967; De Lancy et al., 1994; Duronsolet, etal. "1972; King,
1971; Matthews et al., 1991), and especially with season. Concentrations of entering postlarvae
greatly exceed those of offshore stages. For example, during 1960 to 1963, Baxter and Renfro
(1967) recovered between 50 and 100 postlarval brown shrimp/m3 from the Galveston Bay
entrance between late February and early April (i.e., period of maximum immigration for that
species). Higher densities of brown shrimp have been reported; 2000 brown postlarvae/m3 were
recorded hi the same area following an early spring "norther" that kept postlarvae on the ocean
beach fronts rather than allowing them to enter through the passes (Matthews, Pers. Comm.).
Brown shrimp postlarvae (11-13 mm total length), thought to be from late fall spawns of adult
brown shrimp (Temple and Fischer, 1965) arrive earliest hi the year. Depending upon water
temperature and currents, brown shrimp postlarvae enter the estuaries as early as late February
and early March (Baxter and Renfro, 1967), peaking hi March and April. Brown postlarvae
continue to enter the passes hi waves throughout the spring. A second peak of somewhat smaller
38
-------
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS
PAMLJCO SOUND
Atlantic Ocean
T ^§ VERO BEACH
ST. LUCIE INLET
Caribbean Sea
Figure 11. Distribution and major fishing grounds for the brown shrimp, P, aztecus
39. .
-------
DISTRIBUTION
MAJOR SPAWNING FISHING GROUNDS
MAJOR OFFSHORE FISHING GROUNDS
Afchafalaya Biy
Gulf of Mexico
Chesapeake Bay
Tamaullpac
Atlantic Ocean
Tabasco
Figure 12. Distribution and major fishing grounds for the pink shrimp, P. duorarum
40
-------
(about 10 mm total length) postlarvae occurs in late summer, and rarely results in more than 10
postlarvae/rn3.
Early brown postlarvae are usually longer (10-12 mm) and heavier than those entering
subsequently, and are more tolerant of low temperature, suggesting acclimation to colder
- offshore temperatures. Laboratory studies have shown that growth in brown shrimp postlarvae
occurs at temperatures below 20° C (from 11 to 18° C in the laboratory; Zein-Eldin and Aldrich,
1965). In contrast, at temperatures 20° C and above, growth can be expected among the estuarine
shrimp population as a whole.
The white shrimp appear to have a shorter spawning season than the browns. Mature
white females are found (May through summer) in near shore waters less than 3 m. Postlarval
white shrimp do not immigrate (enter the bays) until mid-May to June and continue to enter the
estuaries throughout the summer. White shrimp postlarvae were recorded in, numbers greater
than 100/m3. only once hi more than 400 sampling days at the Galveston Bay entrance (Baxter
and Renfro, 1967). m contrast to both the brown and white shrimp, pink shrimp postlarvae enter
the estuaries continuously throughout the spring, summer, and into autumn, with peaks in April
through June in south Florida (Tabb et'al., 1962; Allen et al., 1980) and somewhat later in North
Carolina (Williams, 1959). Their numbers increase again hi late fall.
Postlaryae rapidly become benthic and, as juveniles, brown shrimp are present hi large
numbers (densities up to 43/m2) in the marshes from March through July (Zimmerman et al.,
1984; Zimmerman and Minello, 1984). White shrimp., present later in the season, may exhibit
densities as high as 115/m2 (Zimmerman et al., 1984). The growth and development of all three
species during this estuarine-marsh stage are rapid, but are affected by temperature and salinity,
the presence of desired food, cover (e:g., sea grasses), substrate type, and the presence of
predators (Zein-Eldin andRenaud, 1986). •
Zimmerman and Minello (1984) reported that juvenile brown shrimp appeared to select
for vegetation, but white shrimp present during the same summer periods showed no significant
preference. In fact, during the estuarine portion of their life cycle, postlarval and juvenile white
shrimp are relatively evenly distributed throughout the estuary, on both vegetated and non-
vegetated bottom. Consistent with Zimmerman and Minello, various studies have shown that
brown shrimp, the more carnivorous of the species, prefer marsh edges (Spartina sp.;
Zimmerman et al, 1984), where they can graze on nematodes, amphipods and other benthic fauna
(McTigue and Zimmerman, 1991; Gleason and Wellingon, 1988; Gleason and Zimmerman,
1984). The distribution of pink shrimp appears to be determined by the presence of sea grass, as
well as the type of available substrate (i.e., coarse sand-shell substrate, Williams, 1960).
Juvenile shrimp emigrate out of the marshes for completion of their life cycle in open
water. Factors controlling emigration are not well understood, although size and lunar stage
(particularly for pink shrimp) are thought to be important (Costello and Allen, 1970). Juvenile
brown shrimp (about 100 mm total length) emigrate to open waters from about mid-June through
• ' • ' - ' ' ' 41. '- "...-..' -..•'"-.
-------
early August, perhaps under the influence of strong lunar tides. Brown shrimp are not reported
in large numbers during the hot summer months, and have largely left the bays by the end of the
summer. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that brown shrimp are.less tolerant of
temperatures above 30° C than are white shrimp (Zein-Eldin and Griffith, 1969). White shrimp
remain until the first cold periods in fall and winter. Major emigration of white shrimp through
the passes usually follows the onset of a "norther". Even then, some white shrimp remain in the
bays where they overwinter until the following season.
Data Gaps;
'• Population models that adequately explain observed variability of wild populations
* Distribution and genetic diversity of off-shore populations
3.7 Potential Effects of Shrimp Viruses
This section summarizes the potential effects of pathogenic viruses on wild shrimp
populations. In addition, the possibility that widespread virus infection of wild shrimp
populations may limit the availability of pathogen-free broodstock and seed for aquaculture is
considered. Also, examples of possible viral effects on ecosystem structure and function are
discussed. Finally, available information on related topics such as viral symptoms, infectivity,
immunity, etc. are addressed in the section on virology (section 3.3).
3.7.1 Wild Shrimp Populations
The geographic distribution of IHHNV, TSV, WSSV, and YHV and other pathogenic
viruses is likely to increase because of the extensive worldwide transport and trade of live shrimp
and shrimp products. Although there are examples noted below of the occurrence of pathogenic
viruses in wild shrimp populations in other parts of the world, the presence of these viruses has
yet to be confirmed in wild shrimp found in U.S. coastal waters. Brock et al. (1996) noted that
TSV has not been observed hi any native U.S. species, nor has any impact of TSV on U.S.
fishery stocks been reported recently. However, there is some imconfirmed, preliminary evidence
of WSSV in wild shrimp and other organisms in South Carolina. Therefore, either the viruses
are not present in U.S. wild stocks, or they may be present but undetected for the following
reasons.
• Virus surveillance has not been conducted. The annual variability in wild shrimp harvests
is well known, but until the recent virus-related problems hi aquaculture there was no
compelling reason to consider viral pathogens as a potential cause for these variations.
Thus, there was no reason to search for viruses in wild populations.
• Where surveillance has been conducted, population sampling methods may have been
inadequate to detect low levels of virus occurring in wild shrimp populations. Because of
the rapid onset of viral diseases and the known intensity of predation pressures in wild
42
-------
shrimp populations, it is unlikely that wild shrimp showing frank symptoms of the
disease would be found. ,
* Surveillance was conducted on shrimp, but viruses were not detected in infected shrimp
Viruses may not have been detected because methods for known viruses were not yet
available, were insufficiently sensitive, or because shrimp were infected with previously
unknown viruses. Until disease outbreaks are observed, research to detect a pathogenic
virus Is not initiated. Because of the rate of increase in the occurrence of previously
unknown viruses, research to develop detection methods with the necessary specificity
and sensitivity lags substantially behind the initial recognition of the problem.
It is also possible that viruses have been present at low levels in wild populations without
causing observable disease incidents, but aquaculture conditions (e.g., crowding and
physiological stress) potentiate the development and spread of disease.
! ,
There are several examples of the occurrence of pathogenic shrimp viruses in wild
populations. In Asia, WSSV is reported to have spread from naturally-occurring organisms to
shrimp in aquaculture (Chang, In Press a, In Press b; Wang, et al., In Press). Other evidence
suggests that some wild shrimp species in Asia may either be infected or are carriers of virus
(Chen, Pers. Comm.). In Mexico, blue shrimp (P. stylirostris) populations in the Gulf of
.California declined to levels which could not support commercial harvests until 1994, coincident
with onset of IHHNV disease (Lightener et al., 1992,1996a; Pantoja, 1993; Pantoja-Morales and
Lighterier, 1991). Beginning with the 1987-88 season, landings of blue shrimp decreased by
about 1000 tons per year for four consecutive years. Stocks began to recover only after about
six years. This is the best chronological association of disease and wild population effects
currently known. The source of virus that caused the outbreak is not confirmed, but may have
resulted from the release of infected cultured shrimp. In south and central America, TSV has
been documented in wild stocks of P. vannamei (postlarvae and adults) collected from near-shore
or off-shore fisheries in Ecuador, El Salvador, and the southern Mexican state of Chiapas
(Lightner, 1996a). Finally^ IHHNV appears to be endemic in wild penaeids in the Indo-Pacific,
Equador, and western Panama, but it is not known whether there have been effects of IHHNV on
wild shrimp populations in these areas. . -
" ' ' \
Data Gaps:
• Baseline information on presence and distribution of pathogenic viruses in U.S. wild
stocks (e.g., data from summer trawls in Galveston Bay)
• Population models that adequately explain observed variability of wild populations
• Relevance of data from viral disease outbreaks in aquaculture for predicting the
occurrence of disease in wild populations (e.g., effects of differences in Me stage,
density, water quality, survival, recovery, and carrier status of diseased shrimp, etc.)
43
-------
3.7.2 Ecological Effects
Shrimp viruses may affect penaeid shrimp populations either directly (i.e., through the
combined effects of individual mortality) or through direct or indirect effects on other ecological
entities. Significant indirect changes might include alterations in ecosystem structure (e.g.,
species composition) or function (e.g., predator/prey relationships, competition, nutrient cycling).
In this section, we are concerned with the unpredictable ecological consequences mat may result
from alterations in shrimp populations caused by disease and with the potential consequences of
viral infection of crustaceans other than shrimp.
WSSV has been identified in a number of non-penaeid shrimp and crustacean species
throughout Asia, but its disease-causing potential in these species is unknown. WSSV has been
experimentally induced in four Asian crustacean species: a penaeid shrimp, Trachypenaeus
curvirostris., two non-penaeid shrimps, Exopalaemon orientalis, Macrobrachium sp, and the red
swamp crayfish, Procambarus clarkii (Lan et al., 1996). WSSV has been detected at low levels
in naturally-occurring Asian crab species (Scylla serrata, Charybdis feriatus, Portunus
pelagicus, Portunus sanguinolentus, and Thalamita sp.), copepods, and shorefiies (Lighmer, In
Press). In the U.S., WSSV infections have been reported in crayfish (Procambarus sp.) in the
National Zoo (Eichman, unpublished data). The persistence of WSSV hi native biota may
increase the potential for disease transmission to susceptible organisms over time.
Potential adverse ecological effects include the transmission of virus to economically
important penaeid species or the displacement or loss of ecologically or economically important
species via food web interactions. For example, if WSSV infection and mass mortality occurred
in wild (native) copepods, other marsh inhabitants such as juvenile shrimp and crabs that rely on
copepods as a food source could also be impacted, and these species could, in turn, serve as
reservoirs for infection of other species.
Data Gaps;
• Distribution and effects of virus in non-shrimp organisms
• Ecological importance of affected non-shrimp species
3.73 Aquaculture Effects
Shrimp aquaculture today depends on the availability of pathogen-free brood stocks. If
wild shrimp populations become infected with pathogenic viruses, pathogen-free brood stocks
may be difficult or impossible to obtain. Moreover, new pathogens, including viruses, likely will
be discovered as international trade of shrimp and other fisheries products expand. If the
introduction of new pathogens to wild shrimp populations is not prevented, the ability to obtain
pathogen-free broodstock will be further eroded. Because the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming
Program can only address known diseases for which analytical methods are available, this
program alone cannot and will not prevent the entry and spread of all shrimp diseases.
44
-------
3.8 Analysis Plan
An analysis plan, usually the final stage of problem formulation (Fig. 5), is a necessary
and important part of the risk assessment process, particularly in complex risk assessments like
the proposed shrimp virus assessment. The analysis plan evaluates risk hypotheses and
summarizes the assessment design, data needs, measures, and methods for conducting the
analysis phase of the risk assessment. It may be brief or extensive, depending on the nature of
the assessment.
Using the conceptual model developed during problem formulation, the analysis plan
identifies the pathways most important to exposure and specifies which relationships are most
critical for evaluating risks. The analysis plan also identifies measures of effects, exposure, and
ecosystem characteristics that will be evaluated. Issues are identified concerning the level of
confidence that can be expected from the available data relative to the level of confidence
required for effective decision making. If new data are required for estimating exposures or
effects, the feasibility of acquiring these data is evaluated. The risk assessment may be designed*
in a tiered approach to allow the collection of new data hi a step wise fashion that will provide
risk managers with an opportunity to make decisions on issues or data as they become available.
A good analysis plan can help ensure that managers will receive the type and extent of
information required for effective decision making. Because this report is not a risk assessment,
an analysis plan has not been detailed here, but will,be included during the development of an
actual risk assessment.
45
-------
4 ANALYSIS
The analysis phase of a risk
assessment (figure 5) follows problem
formulation and includes two principal
activities: characterization of exposure and
characterization of ecological effects.
Characterizing exposure for viral infections
of wild populations of penaeid shrimp
involves a number of considerations:
• Temporal patterns (seasonal
migration, changes in life stage,
frequency of viral introductions).
• Spatial patterns (distribution of
shrimp relative to virus).
• Species-specificity of viruses (i.e.,
species differences hi infectiviry and
virulence)
• Susceptibility of wild populations to
infection.
• Ability of carriers and hosts to
transmit disease.
• Ability of virus to undergo genetic
change or mutation.
• Effects of shrimp processing on
virulence.
• Alternative hosts for the viruses.
• Persistence of virus in different
environmental media
• Minimum effective dosage;
frequency and concentrations of
virus in the environment.
Mode of infection.
Inter-/Intrapopulation transfer rates.
Food chain transfer.
Co-occurrence of shrimp with virus.
Efficacy of disinfection methods.
„ In characterizing ecological effects, direct or indirect impacts on wild shrimp populations
are considered. As with characterizing exposure, there are a number of factors to consider. If
infection occurs in a wild population, what level of mortality is expected and how might
individual mortality be translated into population effects? Could viral effects on other
The Analysis Phase
The characterization of exposure and
characterization of ecological effects both
involve evaluating available data for its
scientific credibility and relevance to
assessment endpoints as well as the
conceptual model. In ecological effects
characterization, stressor-response
relationships or evidence that exposure to a
stressor causes an observed response are
evaluated. In exposure characterization, the
source(s) of stressors, the distribution of
stressors hi the environment, and the contact
or co-occurrence of stressors with ecological
receptors are described. The process should
be flexible, with interactions between
evaluations of ecological effects and
exposure.
The products of the analysis phase are
summary profiles that describe exposure and
effects (stressor-response relationships).
These profiles may be written documents or
may be modules of a larger process model.
Alternatively, documentation may be deferred
until risk characterization. In any case, the
objective of the analysis plan is to ensure that
the information needed for risk
characterization has been collected and
evaluated.
46
-------
susceptible species cause indirect effects on penaeid populations? Some other possible effects
issues include: ,
Relevance of aquaculture survival rates and clearance of virus from survivors to wild
populations.
Individual morbidity/mortality/fecundity/growth, behavior, and appearance of infected
organisms.
Potential for immunity/resistance and length of any* immunity.
Carrier status of surviving infected shrimp.
Which species are of concern (e.g., species withcritical ecological or economic
importance); effects on species that may affect shrimp (e.g., food chain dynamics).
Known outbreaks/epizootics of viruses.
Relative sensitivity of different life stages.
Potential for population recovery.
Utility of analogous information from other aquatic disease examples.
47
-------
5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Risk characterization (figure 5) is the final phase of an ecological risk assessment.
During this phase, risks are estimated and interpreted. The strengths, limitations, assumptions,
and major uncertainties about the risks are summarized. Risks are estimated by integrating
exposure and effects profiles, using a wide range of techniques including comparisons of point
estimates or distributions of exposure and effects data, process models, or empirical (e.g., field)
approaches. For a shrimp virus risk assessment, the specific approaches) for estimating risks and
describing uncertainties will depend on the availability and quality of data and the resources for
the assessment (e.g., time, funding, etc.).
To describe risks, risk assessors evaluate the evidence supporting or refuting the risk.
estimate(s) and interpret the potential for adverse effects on the assessment endpoint. Criteria for
evaluating adverse effects include the nature and intensity of effects, spatial and temporal scales,
and the potential for recovery. Agreement among different lines of evidence increases
confidence in the conclusions of a risk assessment. Some of the possible lines of evidence that
could be drawn upon to describe the risks associated with different exposure pathways include:
laboratory bioassay of shrimp viruses; observations of viral outbreaks in aquaculture;
observations of effects (or lack of effects) in exposed wild shrimp populations; and predicted
effects based on anticipated exposure scenarios.
48
-------
6 SUMMARY
This section highlights the most important uncertainties surrounding the shrimp virus
issue (section 6.1) and summarizes major points identified in this report concerning exposure to
and effects of shrimp viruses'(section 6.2).
6.1 Data Gaps and Research Needs
This section highlights areas where additional information would be most useful in
supporting the risk assessment process.
Potential Yiral Effects
• Baseline information on presence and distribution of pathogenic viruses in U.S. wild
stocks (e.g., data from summer trawls in Galveston Bay)
• Population models that adequately explain observed variability of wild populations
• Relevance of data from viral disease outbreaks in aquaculture for predicting the
occurrence of disease m wild populations (e.g., effects of differences in life stage5
density, water quality, survival, recovery, and carrier status of diseased shrimp, etc.)?
• Distribution and effects of virus in non-shrimp organisms
• Ecological importance of potentially affected non-shrimp species
Virus Information
Temporal and spatial distributions of wild penaeid shrimp relative to ithe virus
Concentrations, frequency, duration, location, and environmental medium of the virus
Species-specificity of the viruses
Alternative hosts of the virus ,
Infectivity, transmissibility and virulence of virus . . "
Persistence of virus in different media
Extent and rate of spread of me virus among wild shrimp populations
Analogous information from other introductions of exotic diseases
Potential for immunity/resistanqe and length of any immunity
Carrier status of surviving infected shrimp
Relationship between stress and disease susceptibility in shrimp
Virus Pathways
Water exchange^ with natural waters - protocols for aquaculture operations, water
treatment, etc.
Number and size of U.S. aquaculture operations in relationship to receiving
waters/habitats harboring native shrimp '
Volume, disposal patterns, and treatment for solid wastes from aquaculture
49
-------
• Estimates of the extent of virus contamination of feed, broodstock/seed, vehicles, and
birds/animals that could transport virus
• Volume, disposal patterns, and treatment for shrimp processing effluents and solid wastes
• Number and size of shrimp processing facilities hi relationship to receiving
waters/habitats harboring native shrimp
• Estimates of the extent of virus contamination of shrimp received for processing
• Extent and distribution of contaminated shrimp in retail seafood markets and disposal
patterns
• Evidence of virus transfer between aquaculture and wild shrimp populations
6.2 Key Findings for Exposure to and Effects of Pathogenic Shrimp Viruses
The Shrimp Virus Work Group identified a number of important findings relative to the
exposure and effects of pathogenic shrimp viruses. A summary of these findings follows.
• Shrimp viral diseases are widespread throughout the world, both in wild and cultured
shrimp. IHHNV and TSV are endemic in wild populations of shrimp throughout much of
Central and South America. WSSV and YHV are endemic throughout much of Asia.
• In at least one incident, viral disease has been associated with drastic reductions in wild
shrimp harvests. Beginning in 1987, one viral disease (IHHNV) was associated with a
decline in the Gulf of California shrimp fishery to levels that could not support
commercial harvests until 1994.
• Although these viruses have not yet been positively identified hi native U.S. shrimp
populations, very little effort has been expended to look for them. Where investigations
have been conducted, analytical methods (if available) or sampling intensities may have
been inadequate to detect infection.
• Viruses have affected cultured shrimp throughout the world, often with catastrophic
effects on production. For example, imports from Chinese aquaculture operations
dropped substantially (1990 to 1995) due hi part to viral disease. Outbreaks hi 1995 and
1996 on U.S. shrimp farms caused a 50 to 95 percent loss of production at affected farms.
• Despite extensive efforts to prevent outbreaks on U.S. farms by the U.S. Marine Shrimp
Farming Program, state agencies, and producers, numerous disease outbreaks have
occurred hi 1995,1996, and early 1997.
• There are major economic concerns at stake. The U.S. shrimp processing industry
employs over 11,000 people hi 182 companies. Any new requirements that may be
necessary to reduce disease risks will increase costs to producers and processors, and
ultimately to consumers.
• Some foreign aquaculture operations, harvest then: ponds immediately upon finding
disease and export the infected shrimp. This management practice, combined with
tremendous increases hi shrimp importation, may increase risks to U.S. natural resources.
Infected shrimp are now routinely found in U.S. .retail markets.
• Shrimp may become infected from many sources. Major potential exposure pathways to
wild shrimp in the U.S. include shrimp processing plants wastes and wastes and
50
-------
escapement from aquaculture ponds, Other potential viral sources include infected bait
shrimp, ship ballast water, non-shrimp translocated animals, and natural spread of the
virus. Fishing vessels and intentional introductions are also possible sources.
Domestic shrimp are vulnerable. Specific life stages of all of the principle U.S. shrimp
species are highly susceptible to infection and disease from one or more of the four
subject viruses as demonstrated in laboratory tests and outbreaks at aquaculture facilities.
Recently discovered Asian viruses appear to be more virulent to domestic shrimp species
man those viruses thought to be endemic to South and Central America. ,
Species other than shrimp may be at risk. One or more of these viruses have been found
in samples of other crustaceans from around the world, including copepods, crabs, shore
flies and crayfish. A number of alternate host species for the viruses have been identified.
51.
-------
7 ACTION ITEMS
In response to the potential risks of pathogenic shrimp viruses to wild shrimp
populations, the Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends that the JS A evaluate and select among
several options for conducting a risk assessment and consider endorsing the following actions:
publish a scoping notice for a risk assessment in the Federal Register; sponsor stakeholder
meetings to involve interested parties in the risk assessment process; coordinate an expert
workshop to initiate the risk assessment; and, enhance interagency coordination to improve
Federal agency responsiveness to the shrimp virus problem. Each of these actions is discussed in
more detail below.
7.1 Evaluate Risk Assessment Options
The scope and focus of a risk assessment are driven by the management decisions
supported by the assessment, the extent and quality of available data, and the resources (e.g.,
funding and time) available. In general, the lower the tolerance for uncertainty in the conclusions
of the risk assessment, the greater the expenditure of resources that will be required. In this case,
the principal driver for the shrimp virus assessment may be time limitations. The perceived need
to complete a risk assessment may preclude waiting for the additional research that may be
required for a more in-depth assessment.
To help initiate discussions, the Shrimp Virus Work Group offers three possible risk
assessment options. While many approaches are possible, and a final selection cannot be made
without a more thorough evaluation of available data, this discussion is intended to highlight the
advantages and limitations of different approaches and to illustrate the trade-offs between the
time required for the assessment and the degree of uncertainty hi the results. It is important to
note that while it is critical to include stakeholders in the risk assessment planning process (next
section), to do so will lengthen the time required to complete a risk assessment.
• Qualitative assessment This approach is illustrated by the Aquatic Nuisance Species
methodology (Risk Assessment and Management Committee, 1996). An expert panel
compiles available information and judges risks and uncertainties based on qualitative
(e.g., low, medium, and high) categories. Usually, this type of assessment can be
conducted quickly (e.g., 3-6 months after the expert workshop [section 7.4]) and for
relatively little cost (e.g, S30-50K). Such a screening assessment can help identify key
uncertainties and research as well as provide a basis for immediate or interim policy
decisions. Nevertheless, this approach does not provide quantified risk or uncertainty
estimates.
• Quantitative Assessment. A quantitative assessment would provide numerical estimates
of the likelihood of risks to wild populations of shrimp from viral exposure from a
number of sources. In this approach, uncertainties are quantified. Such an approach
offers risk managers a definitive basis for making risk mitigation decisions. The
availability of stressor-response information could be used to evaluate how the level of
52 , . . , .
-------
. effects vary with the level of exposure. However, the current state of scientific
'• knowledge may not support this type of risk assessment. For example, models for shrimp
, populations in the Gulf of Mexico are probably inadequate for use in risk assessments.
Thus, the greater time and cost requirements for a quantitative assessment (e.g., one year
and $200-300K) are compounded by the need for additional research that may take
months or years to complete.
• Tiered Assessment. Rather man an either/or choice between qualitative and quantitative
assessments,it may be possible to conduct the risk assessment in a tiered approach,
. starting with a simple approach and advancing to a more complete assessment as the state
of knowledge develops and time and resources permit. Management decisions made
based on a preliminary assessment can be revisited based on additional findings from a
more comprehensive risk assessment. .
7.2 Publish Federal Register Scoping Notice
The Shrimp Virus Work Group proposes the following notice for publication in the
Federal Register to notify interested parties of the ISA's intent to conduct a risk assessment on
shrimp viruses, the availability of this report, and the dates and locations for public (stakeholder)
meetings to facilitate public comments on report findings
.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 060297C]
An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and on Wild
Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters
>\, - ' .... '•
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Commerce, on behalf of the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture.
ACTION: Advance notice of a proposed shrimp virus risk assessment and public meetings.
SUMMARY: The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA); Office of Science and Technology
Policy, is releasing a report describing the potential impacts of shrimp viruses on cultured shrimp
and on wild shrimp populations in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal
waters. Comments received in writing, or at public meetings, will be used to help develop plans
for an ecological risk assessment on shrimp viruses.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to those comments received on or before [insert date
60 days after date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. In addition, comments may be
provided at any of three public meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for further details regarding these meetings.
53
-------
ADDRESSES: Copies of a report prepared for the JSA entitled, "An Evaluation of Shrimp Virus
Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and on Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters" (the shrimp virus report) may be obtained by
contacting NMFS Assistant Administrator's Office of Industry and Trade, at: (301) 713-2379 or
by accessing the NMFS Home Page, at: http://kmgfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/oit/oit.html. To ensure that
•written comments are considered, send an original and three copies to Mr. Jerome Erbacher,
Office of Industry & Trade, Room 3675, SSMC3, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, or facsimile to (301) 713-2384. To attend any of the public meetings, contact
the Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Conference Registration Line,(617) 674-7374.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Thomas Mcllwain, Chairperson of the
JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group, NMFS, 3209 Frederick Street, Pascagoula, MS 39567, (601)
762-4591 or Dr. Thomas C. Siewicki, 219 Ft. Johnson Road, Charleston SC 29412,
(803)762-8534.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Evidence suggests that exotic shrimp viruses may be
inadvertently introduced into U.S. coastal regions. If established, these introduced viruses have
the potential to infect both wild shrimp stocks and shrimp hi aquaculrure through a number of
different pathways. Two potentially significant pathways involve the shrimp aquaculrure and
shrimp processing industries. Though considered less significant, examples of other potential
pathways include bait shrimp, ship ballast water, research and display, translocated animals (non-
shrimp), and natural spread (e.g., migratory birds, large scale currents, flooding).
In 1995, Taura Syndrome Virus (TVS) was documented in shrimp culture ponds in Texas. After
the Texas outbreak, ponds were restocked with shrimp seed native to the Gulf of Mexico.
However, some of the shrimp in the second stocking were later found infected with other
pathogenic viruses (e.g., White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and Yellow Head virus (YHV)),
only previously identified hi shrimp imported from the far east, hi 1996, a repeat outbreak of
TSV was documented. In 1997, YHV and WSSV were identified (based on very limited data) in
South Carolina. These outbreaks have raised concerns that viruses could be spread from
aquaculrure facilities to the wild shrimp stocks in U.S. coastal waters, with potentially serious
implications.
To determine the likelihood and the potential impacts of exotic shrimp viruses on wild shrimp
populations in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal waters and on cultured
shrimp hi aquaculrure hi these areas, the JSA has decided to conduct an ecological risk
assessment. (The JSA consists of representatives from several Federal organizations, including
the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), hi support of information exchange and
education, and to determine any necessary course of action to avert the introduction of
pathogenic viruses, the JSA tasked a Federal interagency work group (Shrimp Virus Work
Group; SVWG) with identifying research on shrimp viruses, the mode of virus transmission, and
the potential for the introduction of these viruses into the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S.
54
-------
Atlantic coastal waters. The SVWG helped to organize and participated in a shrimp virus
workshop in New Orleans, LA, in June 1996. Recently, the' SVWG prepared a shrimp virus
report that summarizes readily-available risk-relevant information on shrimp viruses. This report
has been approved by the ISA and is available to the public for comment Comments on the
shrimp virus report received from the public (whether hi writing or at the public meetings) will
be used as input to a workshop that will help finalize plans for conducting a shrimp virus ,
ecological risk assessment.
Meeting Locations and Times: July 15, hi Charleston, South Carolina; July 21, in Mobile,
Alabama; and July 23, hi Brownsville, Texas. There is no charge for attending the public
meetings listed above; however, seats are limited, so it is advisable to register as soon as
possible. Participants wishing to make comments or address issues can register with ERG prior
to the workshop, or on site.-Each participant will be assigned a time slot on a first-come, first-
served basis. Individual comments should be limited to 3 to 5 minutes; additional or lengthy
comments may be submitted hi writing to the address provided above. •
Dated: June 10,1997.
Holland Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, ,
National Marine Fisheries Service. '
7.3 Sponsor Stakeholder Meetings
' . , '
Given the scope.and potential impact of the shrimp virus risk assessment, it would be
useful to include a,wide range of interested parties ("stakeholders") in the initial planning
process. One way of increasing involvement (and "buy-in" to the assessment) is to hold planning
meetings very early in the process. Participants could include individuals from government
(Federal, state, local), industry (shrimp processing, wild fishery, and aquaculture), non-
. government organizations (e.g., environmental groups), and the public. The Shrimp Virus Work
Group suggests two or three meetings following publication of the Scoping Notice (section 7.2).
Note that while stakeholder meetings increase the time required to complete a risk assessment,
even greater time may be lost if such meetings do not take place, because stakeholders are much
more likely to disagree with management goals and the risk assessment process.
55
-------
7.4 Coordinate Expert Workshop
The Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends the development and implementation of an
"expert" workshop on the shrimp virus problem to: (1) obtain additional risk-relevant
information; (2) further develop the problem formulation for a shrimp virus risk assessment; and
(3) enhance integration and coordination of risk assessment efforts. Both the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Protection Service
have extensive experience in developing and conducting risk assessments, developing
management goals, and selecting assessment endpoints and their measures. Technical and
management staff from these agencies could serve as group facilitators and provide on-site
technical assistance. Using this mechanism, technical experts from a diverse field of interests
(e.g., crustacean virology and life history, shrimp industry, regulators (all levels), environmental
groups, etc) would have the opportunity to provide needed input to the shrimp virus risk
assessment during the initial planning phase. This report could serve as a resource document for
review and discussion at such a workshop. An expert workshop would not only make a
significant contribution to the planning of a shrimp virus risk assessment, but would also help to
ensure that the results of the risk assessment are useful to risk managers and decision makers.
This workshop, together with the recommended public "stakeholder" meetings, will provide
needed "buy in" and support from the stakeholder community, thus contributing to 'the timely
completion of a shrimp virus risk assessment.
7.5 Enhance Interagency Coordination
The Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends increased coordination among Federal
agencies having appropriate expertise and authority to protect U.S. marine resources from
pathogenic shrimp viruses. These agencies need to work collaboratively to better utilize the
resources currently available and to better define roles and responsibilities of individual agencies.
Existing Federal statutory authority may not be adequate to prevent further disease outbreaks*,
and new authorities may be necessary. However statutory authorities alone will not be sufficient
to control new diseases. There is a need to implement complementary programs across the
responsible Federal agencies as well as to enhance research and technology to effectively reduce
the risk of disease outbreaks. The Shrimp Virus Work Group recommends that representatives
of the responsible Federal agencies should work closely with the aquaculture, processing, and
harvesting industries to explore a variety of opportunities to reduce the risks posed by shrimp
viruses. ,
56
-------
REFERENCES
Allen, D. M., J. H. Hudson and T. J. Costello. 1980. Postlarval shrimp (Penaeus) in the Florida
keys: species, size and seasonal abundance. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30:21-34.
( ' -
Baxter, K. N. and W. C. Renrro. 1967. Seasonal occurrence and size distribution of postlarval
brown and white shrimp near Galveston, Texas, with notes-on species identification
Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 66:149-158. '
Baxter, K. N., C. H. Furr and E. Scott. 1988. The commercial bait shrimp fishery in Galveston
: Bay, Texas, 1959-87. Mar. Fish. Rev., 50:20-28.
Boesch, D. F., M. N. Josselyn, A. J. Mehta, J. T. Morris, W. K. Nuttle, C. A. Simenstad, and D.
J.P.Swift. 1994. Scientific Assessment of coastal wetland Ipss, restoration and
management in Louisiana. Jour. Coastal Res., Spec. Issue 20,103. p
Browdy, C.L. Personal communication.
Brock, J. A., D. V. Lightner, K. Hasson and R. Go'ss. 1996. An update on Taura syndrome of
farmed shrimp in the Americas. Abstract, in World Aquaculture '96 Book of Abstracts
* pg. 50.
Brusher/H. A., W. C. Renfro and R. A. Neal. 1972. Notes on distribution, size, and ovarian
development of some penaeid shrimps in the Gulf of Mexico, 1961-62. Contr. Mar Sci
16:75-87. , . '
CarltprijJ, Personal communication!
Carlton, J.T. arid Geller, J.B. 1993.. Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of,
Nonindigenous Marine Organisms. Science, Vol 261,2 July 1993 78-82.
Chang, P. S., C. F. Lo. Y. C. Wang, G. H. Kou. 'In Press', Detection of white shrimp syndrome
associated virus (WSSV) in experimentally infected wild shrimp, crabs and, lobsters by in
§rtu hybridization. Aquaculture. (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
the Culture of Penaeid Prawns and Shrimp. 14-17 May, 1996, SEAFDC, Iloilo,
Philippines).
Chang, P. S., C. F. Lo. Y. C. Wang, G. H. Kou. 'InPress'. Detection of white shrimp syndrome
associated virus (WSSV) in experimentally infected wild shrimp, crabs and lobsters by in
sifiJ hybridization. Aquaculture. (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
the Culture of Penaeid Prawns and Shrimp. 14-17 May, 1996, SEAFDC, Iloiloj
Philippines).
57
-------
Chen, H-Y. Personal communication.
Cohen, A.N. 1996. Biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and delta. (Proceedings of the
National Forum on Non-Indigenous Species Invasions in U.S. and Marine Fresh Waters.
22 March, 1996, Washington, DC).
Cohen, A.N. and Carlton, J.T. 1995. Biological Study. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a
United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco
Bay and Delta. A Report for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.
C., and the National Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut Sea Grant NTIS Report
Number PB96-166525. 246 pages + Appendices.
Cook, H. L., and M. J. Lindner. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the brown shrimp Penaeus
aztecus aztecus Ives. 1891. FAO Fish. Rep. 57,4:1471-1497.
Costello, T. J. and D. M. Allen. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp Penaeus
duorarum duorarum Burkenroad. 1939. FAO Fish. Rept. 57-4:1499-1537.
DeLancey, L. B., J. E. Jenkins and J. D. Whitaker. 1994. Results of long-term, seasonal
sampling for Penaeus postlarvae at Breach Inlet, South Carolina. Fish. Bull. (U.S.)
92:633-640
Dill, J., T. Mcllwain, W. C. Rowland, and G. Pruder. 1994. The Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Consortium's U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program. U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming
Program 10th Anniversary Review. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Special Publication
No. 1. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, MS.
Duronsolet, M. J., J. M. Lyon and F. Marullo. 1972. Vertical distribution of postlarval brown,
Penaeus aztecus. and white, P_. setiferus. shrimp during immigration through a tidal pass.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101:748-752.
European Commission. 1993. Introduced Species in European Coastal Waters. European
Commission (EC), Ecosystems Research Report 8,112 pages.
Fast,A.W. 1992. Penaeid growout systems: an overview. In Marine Shrimp Culture: Principles
and Practices., A. W. Fast and L. J. Lester, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.,
p. 345-353.
Flegel, T. W., S. Sriurairtana, C. Wongteerasupaya, V. Boonsaeng, S. Panyim, and B.
Withyachumnamkul. 1995. Progress in characterization and control of yellow-head
virus of Penaeus monodon. Pp. 76-83. In: E. L. Browdy and J. S. Hopkins (eds.),
Swimming Through Troubled Water, Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp
Farming, Aquaculture '95. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
58 .
-------
Hegel, T. W., S, Boonyaratapalin and B. Wimyachumnamkul. 1996. Current status of research
on yellow-head virus and white-spot virus in Thailand. World Aquaculture '96 Book of
Abstracts, 126-127.
Fulks,W. and K. Main, editors. 1992. Diseases of cultured penaeid shrimp in Asia and the
United States. Oceanic Institute, Honolulu, HA. USA. 392 pp. ,
Fujinaga, (Hudinaga), M. 1969. Kuruma shrimp (PenaeusjaEonicus cultivation in Japan FAO
. Fish. Rept. 57:(3)811-833 ,
Geller, J. D. 1996. Species invasions in the southeastern Atlantic coast. (Proceedings of the
National Forum on Non-Indigenous Species Invasions in U.S. and Marine Fresh Waters
22 March, 1996, Washington, DC).,
, Gleasdn, D. F. and G. M. Wellington. 1988. Food resources of postlarval brown shrimp
(Penaeus aztecus) in a Texas salt marsh. Mar. Biol., 97:329-337;
Gleason, D. F. and R. J. Zimmerman. 1984. Herbivory potential of postlarval brown shrimp
associated with salt marshes. J. Exper. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 84:235-246.
Herke, W. H., B. D. Rogers, V. L. Wright and W. H. Bradshaw. 1996. Postlarval Penaeus
aztecus and P. setifems transport into, and distribution within, adjacent weired and
unweired ponds. Wetlands 16 (2): 197-207.
Higgins, Elmer H. 1938. Progress in Biological Inquiries, 1936. Appendix III. Administrative
Report No. 29,61 p. In Rept, of the U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for Fiscal 1937
with Appendices.
Hasson, K. W., D. V. Lightner, B. T. Polos, R. M. Redman, B. L. White, J. A. Brock and J R.
Benami. 1995. Taura syndrome m Pejjaera yjnnamei: Demonstration of a viral etiology.
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 23:115-126.
» . .
-Hudinaga, M, 1942. Reproduction, development and rearing of £enaeusjanonicus Bate Jap J
Zool.lO:305-393. "~ ' '
King, B. D. 1971. Study of migratory patterns of fish and shellfish through a natural pass
Texas Parks Wildl. Dep. Tech. Ser. 9,54 p.
Lan, J., P. Pratanpipat, G. Nash, S. Wongwisansri, C. Wongteerasupaya, B. Withyachumnamkul,
S. Thammasart and C. Lohawattanakul. 1996. Carrier and susceptible host of the
systemic ectodennal and mesodermal baculovirus, the causative a!gent of white spot
disease in penaeid shrimp. World Aquaculture '96, Book of Abstracts, 213-214.
59
-------
Lighmer, D.V. Personal communication
Lighmer, D.V. In Press. Introduction of pathogens and diagnostic protocols. In: T. D. Mcllwain,
M. Broussard, and G. Pruder, eds. Highlight Summary Report: National Workshop:
Integrated Assessment of Shrimp Pathogens. June 18-19,1996, New Orleans, LA.
Lightner, D.V. Unpublished data. Aquaculture pathology, Arizona Verterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Lighmer, D. V. 1996a. The penaeid shrimp viruses IHHNV and TSV: epizootiology, *
production impacts and role of international trade in their distribution in the Americas.
'Revues Scientifique et Technique Office International des Epizootics' 15(2):579-601.
Lighmer, D. V., ed. 1996b. A handbook of shrimp pathology and diagnostic procedures for
diseases of cultured penaeid shrimp. Section 3: Viruses. World Aquaculture Soc., Baton
Rouge, LA.
Lighmer, D. V., R. M. Redman and T. A. Bell. 1983a. Infectious hypodermal and
hematopoietic necrosis a newly recognized virus disease of penaeid shrimp. J. Invert.
Pathol. 42:62-70.
Lighmer, D. V., R. M. Red man, T. A. Bell, and J. A. Brock. 1983b. Detection of IHHN virus in
Penaeus stylirostris and P. vannamei imported into Hawaii. J. World Maricult Soe.
14:212-225.
Lightner, D. V., R. M. Red man, R. R. Williams, L. L. Mohney, J. P. M. Clerx, T. A. Bell and J.
A. Brock. 1985. Recent advance hi penaeid virus disease investigations. J. World
Maricult. Soc. 16:267-274.
Lighmer, D. V., R. R. Williams, T. A. Bell, R. M. Red man and L. A. Perez. 1992. A collection
of case histories documenting the introduction and spread of the virus disease IHHN in
penaeid shrimp culture facilities in northwestern Mexico. ICES Marine Science
Symposia 194:97-105.
Lindner, M. J. and W. W. Anderson. 1956. Growth, migrations, spawning and size distribution
of shrimp. Penaeus setiferus. .U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull.-56(106):555-645.
Lindner, M. J. and H. L. Cook. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the white shrimp, Penaeus
setiferus (Linnaeus) 1767. FAO Fish. Rep. 57,4:1439-1469.
60
-------
Lo, C. F., J. H. Leu, C. H. Chen, S. E. Peng, Y. T. Chen. C. M. Chou, P. Y. Yeh, C. J. Huang, H.
Y. Chou, C. H. Wang, and G. H. Kou. 1996, Detection of baculqvirus associated with
white spot syndrome (WSBV) hi penaeid shrimps using polymerase chain reaction.
- Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 25:133-141. , ,
Lotz, J. M. In Press. In; T. D. Mcllwain, M. Broussard, and G. Pruder, eds. Highlight Summary
Report: National Workshop: Integrated Assessment of Shrimp Pathogens. June 18-19,
1996, New Orleans, LA,
Lotz, J. M. Personal communication.
Lotz, J. M., C. L. Browdy, W. H. Carr, P. F. Frelier, and D. V. Lightner. 1995, USMSFP
suggested procedures and guidelines for assuring the specific pathogen status of shrimp
broodstock and seed. Pages. 66-75 in C. L. Browdy and J. S. Hopkins, eds. Swimming
Through Troubled Water, Proc. Spec.Sess. on Shrimp Farming, Aquaculture '95. World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Matthews, G. Personal communication.
Matthews, T. R., W. W. Schroeder, and D. E. Stearns. 1991. Endogenous rhythm, light, and
salinity effects on post-larval brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus Ives recruitment to estuaries.
J. Expl Mar. Ecol. Biol. 154:177-189.
McTigue, T. A. and R. J. Zimmerman. 1991. Carnivory vs. herbivory in juvenile Penaeus
setiferus (Linnaeus) and Penaeus aztecus (Ives). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 151:1-16.
e -'
Muiello, T. J., R. J. Zunmerman and E. X. Martinez. 1989. Mortality of young brown shrimp
Penaeus aztecus in estuarine miseries. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 118:693-70^.
Minello, T. J. and R. J. Zunmerman. 1991. The role of estuarine habitats in regulating growth
and survival of juvenile penaeid shrimp. In. Frontiers in Shrimp Research, P.De Loach,
w. J. Dougherty and M. A. Davidson (Eds.). Elsevier Science PubLB. V., Amsterdam.
Minello, T. J., R. J. Zimmerman and-R. Meduia. 1994. The importance of edge for natant
maerofauna in a created saltmarsh. Wetlands, 14:184-198.
Nance, J. and S. Nichols. 1988. Stock assessments for brown, white and pink shrimp in the U.
S. Gulf of Mexico,1960-1986. NOAA Tech.Memo., NMFS-SEFC-203.
National Advisory Committee on Microbial Criteria for Foods. 1992. Hazard analysis critical
control point system. Inter. J. Food Micro. 16(1992):l-23.
National Fisheries Institute. 1995. U.S. Seafood Trade Report U.S. Bureau of Census, DOC.
, - ' 61 ' '" . ' • '
-------
Nonindigenous Estuarine & Marine Organisms. 1994. Proceedings of the Conference and
Workshop. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 125 pages
National Marine Fisheries Service. Unpublished data. Supplied by J. Vondruska, Economics and
Trade Analysis Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Fisheries of the United States, 1995 No.9500 U.S.
Dept Of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1994. Molluscan Introductions and
Transfers: Risk Considerations and Implications. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Edited by James T. Carlton and
Aaron Rosenfield. 69 pages.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 391 pages.
Overstreet, R. M., D. V. Lighmer, K. W. Hasson, S. Mcllwain, and J. Lotz,. 1997.
Susceptibility to Taura Syndrome Virus of some penaeid shrimp species native to the
Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern United States. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology
#69,165-176.
Pantoja,C. R. 1993. Prevalencia del \drus IHHNV en poblaciones silvestres de camaron azul
(Penaeus stylirostris) en la costa de Sonora, Mexico. M. S. Thesis, Institute Technologia
y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico. 47 p.
Pantoja-Morales, C. R. and D. V. Lightner. 1991. Status of the presence of IHHN virus in wild
penaeid shrimp from the coast of Sonora, Mexico. Abstracts: Society for Invertebrate
Pathology, 24th Annual Meeting, August 4-9,1991, Flagstaff; AZ, USA.
Pruder, G. D. 1996. Progress Report of the U. S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program for October
1995 to September 1996. pp. iii-viii.
Pruder, G. D., C. L. Brown, J. N. Sweeney, and W. H. Carr. 1995. High health shrimp systems:
Seed supply — theory and practice. Pages 40-52 in C. L. Browdy and J. S. Hopkins (eds),
Swimming through troubled water, Proceedings of the special session on shrimp farming,
Aquaculture '95. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Pruder, G., J. Sweeney, W. Carr, T. Gjedrem and J. Wyban. 1996. High health and genetically
improved Penaeus vannamei: fecundity, growth rate and disease resistance. World
Aquaculture'96 Book of Abstracts, p. 321.
62
-------
Rabalais, N. N., W, Wiseman, R. E. Turner, D. Justic, B. Sen Gupta and Q. Dortch. 1996.
Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River arid system responses on the adjacent
continental shelf. Estuaries, 19:386-407.
Reisinger, T. Personal communication.
Renfro, W. C. and H. A. Brasher. 1982. Seasonal abundance, size distribution, and spawning of
three shrimps (Penaeus aztecus. P. setiferus and P. duorarum) in.the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico, 1961-1962. U. S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-94,37 p.
Renaud, M. L. 1986a. Detection and avoidance of oxygen depleted seawater by Penaeus aztecus
and Penaeus setiferus. J.ExpI Mar. Biol. Ecol. 98:283-292.
1 ~. i "
Renaud, M. L. 1986b. Hypoxia in Louisiana coastal waters during 1983: implications for
fisheries. Fish. Bull.(U. S.) 84:19-26.
Richman, L. K. Unpublished data: Dept. of Pathology, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
Risk Assessment and Management Committee. (1996) Generic Nonlndigenous Aquatic
Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process. Draft Final Report. Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force.
Robinson, L., P. Cambell, and L. Butler. 1996. Trends in Texas Commercial Fishery, Landings,
1972-1995. Coastal Fisheries Management Data Series'. No. 127. Coastal Fisheries
Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Rogers, D. R., B* D. Rogers and W. H. Herke. 1994. Structural marsh management effects on
coastal fishes and crustaceans. Environmental Management 18:351-369.
Rosenberry, R. (Ed.) 1994. World Shrimp Farming 1994. Shrimp Farming News International.
ISSN No! 1047-5664.
Rozas, L. P. 1992. Comparison of nekton habitats associated with pipeline canals and natural
channels in Louisiana salt marshes. Wetlands, 12:136-146.
Rozas, L. P. and D. J. Reed. 1994. Comparing nekton assemblages of subtidal habitats in
pipeline canals traversing brackish and saline marshes in coastal Louisiana. Wetlands.
14:262-275, .
Saloman, C. H. 1965. Bait shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) in Tampa Bay. Florida - biology, fishery
economics, and changing habitat. U:S. Fish Wildl. Ser. Spec. Sci. Rept. Fish. 521:1-16.
63
-------
Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 1995. Status of fishery resources off the Southeastern
United States for 1993. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-368. 72 pp.
Suter n, G.W. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environmental
Management 14^:19-23.
Tabb, D. C., D. L. Dubrow and A. E. Jones. 1962. Studies on the biology of the pink shrimp,
Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad, in Everglades National Park, Florida. Fla. St. Bd. Cons.,
Mar. Lab. Tech. Ser.37:l-30.
Temple, R. F. and C. C. Fischer. 1965. Vertical distribution of the planktonic stages of penaeid
shrimp. Publ. Inst Mar. Sci. 10:59-67.
Temple, R. F. and C. C. Fischer. 1967. Seasonal distribution and relative abundance of
planktonic stage shrimp Penaeus spp. in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1961. Fish.
Bull. (U.S.) 66:323-334.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Aquaculture Outlook. Washington, DC: Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment.
Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/630/R-92/001.
U.S. Envuronmental Protection Agency. 1995. Ecological risk: a primer for risk managers.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/734/R-95/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment Federal Register 61:47552-47631.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Hypoxia Conference Proceedings. Internet
address: http://peHran.gmpo.gov/gulfweb/hypoxia.. Gulf of Mexico Program Office,
Stennis Space Center, MS. \
Wang, C. H., C. F. Lo, J. H. Leu, C. M. Chou, P. Y. Yeh, H. Y. Chou, M. C. Tung, C. F. Chang,
M. S. Su, and G. H. Kou. 1995. Purification and-genomic analysis of baculovirus
associated with white spot syndrome (WSBV) of Penaeus monodon. Diseases of Aquatic
Organisms 23:239-242.778
Wang,Y. C., C.F.Lo, P. S. Chang, and G. H. Kou. 'In Press'. White spot syndrome
associated virus (WSSV) infection in cultured and wild decapods hi Taiwan.
Aquaculture. (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Culture of
Penaeid Prawns and Shrimp. 14-17 May 1996, SEAFDC, Iloilo, Philippines).
64
-------
Williams, A. B. 1959. Spotted and brown shrimp postlarvae (Penaeus) in North Carolina. Bull
Mar. Sci. Gulf and Caribb., 9:281-290.
Williams, A, B. 1960. The influence of temperature on osmotic regulation in two species of
estuarine shrimps (Penaeus). Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 119:560-571. ^
Williams, RJ. Griffiths, F;B., Van der Wai, EJ. and Kelly, J. 1988. Cargo Vessel Ballast Water
as a Vector for the Transport of Non-indigenous Marine Species. Estuarine^ Coastal and
Shelf Science 26,409-420.
Wyban, J. A., J. S. Swingle, J. N. Sweeney and G. D. Pruder. 1992. Development and
commercial performance of high health shrimp using specific pathogen free (SPF)
broodstock Penaeus vannamei. pp. 254-260. In: J. Wyban (ed). Proc. Special Session on s
Shrimp Farming. World Aquaculture Society. Baton Rouge, LA>
- • • ..(
Zein-Eldin, Z. P. and D. V. Aldrich. 1965. Growth and survival of postlarval Penaeus aztecus
under controlled conditions of temperature and salinity. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole)
129:199-216.
Zein-Eldin, Z. P. and G. W. Griffith. 1969. An appraisal of the effects of salinity and
temperature on growth and survival of postlarval penaeids. FAO Fish. Rep. 57,3; 1015-
1026. . ' ' ,
. v.. ._ ^ •,/-•
Zein-Eldin, Z. P. and M. L. Renaud. 1986. Inshore environmental effects on brown shrimp,
Penaeus aztecus. and white shrimp, P. setiferus. populations in coastal waters particularly
of Texas. Mar. Fish. Rev. 48:9-19. , .
Zimmerman, R. J, and T. J. Minello. 1984. Fishery habitat requirements: utilization of nursery
habitats by juvenile penaeid shrimp in a Gulf of Mexico salt marsh. In Research for
managing the nation's estuaries, B. J. Copeland (ed.). Univ. Nor. Car. Sea Grant Publ.
UNC-SG-84-08, pp. 371-383. , .
Zunmerman, R. J., T. J. Minello, and G. Zamora. 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat by brown
shrimp, Penaeus aztecus. in Galveston Bay saltmarsh. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 82:325-336.
Zunmerman, R: J., J. M. Nance, and J. A. Williams. 1996. Trends in shrimp catch in the
hypoxic area of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Proc. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
Management Conference held m Kenner, LA, Dec. 5-6,1995. EPA'Gulf of Mexico
Program.
65 ,
-------
-------
-------
------- |