**REVIEW OF THE NOS**

**CENTER FOR COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH**

**AND BIOMOLECULAR RESEARCH**

**CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA**

###### [Review Panel]{.underline}

**Jake Rice -- Chair**

**Terry Bidleman**

**Steve Brandt**

**Ed Espinosa**

**Ronald Fayer**

**Madilyn Fletcher**

**Michael Lewis**

**Karen Steidinger**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

NOS posed three key questions with regard to the review of the NOS
Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research at
Charleston (hereafter CCEHBR):

-   What is the quality of the science being done?

-   How well is CCEHBR connected to its clients?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How well does CCEHBR function as an integrated research laboratory,
    rather than as a series of separate research units?

The Panel drew positive conclusions regarding all three questions. The
science is relevant and good, much of it excellent. CCEHBR serves a
diverse community of local, regional, national, and even international
clients, who seem uniformly satisfied with the products they receive.
CCEHBR has six separate business and organization lines, and although
there are always opportunities for greater synergy, related research
teams generally complement each others' work well and there is strong
integration with the larger research community in the Charleston area.

The Mission Statement and five supporting Goals of CCEHBR are
appropriate for a NOAA laboratory. Together they address several of the
overarching themes that the NOAA Science Advisory Board has identified
as important parameters to consider relative to reviews of NOAA science
projects and programs. All parts of the Center are conducting molecular,
cellular and/or biochemical research, development, and application of
methods to address problems of system health and response to
anthropogenic perturbations all the way up to the community and
ecosystem scale. The work of CCEHBR spans the full continuum from basic
research for discovery of new knowledge to application of existing
techniques to diagnose and remedy immediate problems in coastal
environmental health. This characteristic of working at the molecular,
cellular and/or biochemical scales gives the Center an **overall
research identity** that is unique within NOAA. Were any current major
science services or research programs terminated or greatly curtailed
here, to the Panel's knowledge no other NOAA lab could fill the gap that
would result, without large investment in new people and facilities.

To the Review Panel, the single most serious challenge facing every
component of CCEHBR is **Recruitment and Retention** of talented young
science staff. Although good young scientists are attracted to work at
CCEHBR, due to budget problems almost all the younger staff are on
contractual or limited term positions. This inability to offer permanent
employment is costly in terms of lost investment in training new staff,
and also aggravates the **diversity** inequity in the current staff of
the Center. The Review Panel is satisfied that a solution to the
problems faced by CCEHBR in funding the staffing of FTEs cannot be found
by reshuffling its annual operating budget. The funding level for and
funding formula among the research centers with NOS has to augmented
significantly, if CCEHBR is to able to resolve its recruitment and
retention crisis.

Ranking close to the problem with recruitment and retention of personnel
is concern over **infrastructure and insufficient laboratory
facilities.** To an unknown extent opening of the Hollings Building may
alleviate some of the problems of simple crowding, although the Panel
had concerns over the complex protocols for obtaining access to space in
the Hollis Building. There is also a looming **crisis in major
equipment**. Some important specialized pieces of research equipment are
obsolete, others overused, and some both, and a very large infusion of
money for new and upgraded research instrumentation is needed.

CCEHBR has been very successful in forging partnerships and finding
external money. However, increasing dependence on external funding is
compromising the service role of CCEHBR as a group of experts able to
react quickly to coastal environmental crises as they occur. The Review
Panel encourages development of an **explicit policy on priority of
staff time.** The purpose of the policy would be to ensure that in times
when expertise in CCEHBR is needed to address NOAA priorities and
emergencies, there are no conflicts or misunderstandings. It has been
proposed that CCEHBR should provide its "science on demand" service on a
**pay-for-service** basis. The Review Panel encourages efforts to make
sure that cost recovery gets due consideration whenever CCEHBR expertise
and services are made available outside NOAA. However, it supports
continuation of the practice of making CCEHBR expertise available on the
basis of scientific need and the match between needs and CCEHBR
services, and not discriminate, in the first instance, on the basis of
ability to pay. The Review Panel also noted the need for a **clear
mechanism for deciding when and how the science knowledge and services
are provided** **to outside interests.**

With regard to **institutional setting**, both the Review Panel and the
CCEHBR administration felt that the service component of CCEHBR science
was crucial, and an argument for keeping CCEHBR in NOS rather than
moving it to OAR. However, for the Panel to endorse the present
organizational location of CCEHBR NOS must make a stronger commitment in
actions and funding to support science for discovering new knowledge as
well as applying knowledge to the problems of coastal ecosystems and
coastal communities.

The Review Panel concluded that CCEHBR staff have produced many
worthwhile scientific publications, but productivity was skewed
strongly, with relatively few researchers producing the bulk of the
major papers. The Review Panel also noted a number of effective
community, regional, and national committees, working groups, and other
for a dedicated to application of science results to environmental
problems. In these areas CCEHBR staff perform important services and
have clearly earned widespread respect from colleagues, community
leaders, and citizens.

A noteworthy shortcoming of the total research community at CCEHBR is
the weak representation of **social sciences**. The Review Panel
recommends that priority be given to forging greater collaborative links
to social scientists in academic and government centers in the region.
Researches also repeatedly stressed the need for stronger commitment to
**longer-term research**. While justifiably proud of their ability to
adjust to changing NOAA and NOS priorities, and respond quickly to new
crises, an important part of achieving the NOAA and NOS mandate requires
continuity of research and monitoring.

# SPECIFIC BRANCHES

The **Marine Ecotoxicology Branch** comprises four research programs in
contaminant chemistry, environmental microbiology, toxicology and
environmental modeling and assessment. The first three programs conduct
fundamental investigations into their respective areas, while the fourth
integrates the knowledge gained from these studies and also from the
larger research arena conducted outside of NOAA. The Panel concurs with
the Branch self-assessment that Branch studies and research products
have found high usage among the many agencies in the southeast that are
responsible for protection of the coastal zone. MEB's strong points
include:

-   High quality of science, very strong interdisciplinary research
    ranging from the molecular to ecosystem level.

-   Ability to integrate across programs and among branches.

-   Outstanding record of collaborations partners and success in
    obtaining extramural funding

-   Strong partnerships with universities through faculty appointments,
    educational outreach programs and mentoring of students.

-   Outstanding leadership in coastal pollution and land use issues and
    ability to turn basic and applied research into plans of action.

    The Panel concluded that weaker points of MEB included:

-   Lack of federal FTE positions for junior level staff; many are on
    contractual arrangements.

-   Lack of advancement to Senior Level Scientist (GS15) and lack of
    predictable career advancement.

-   Lack of training for junior staff that enter supervisory positions.

-   Reliance on extramural funding, requiring substantial time spent
    "chasing money" rather than conducting research.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The "rust-out phenomenon". Some of the analytical and field
    equipment is old and needs to be replaced in the near future.

-   Number of scientific publications, from staff other than the two or
    three "high-liners" in the Branch, and the need for targeting more
    prestigious journals.

-   The MEB research program lacks an atmospheric component, and should
    strengthen the chemical modeling component of its work.

-   The branch could do a better job of selling itself, nationally and
    internationally. MEB successes should be made more available.

The **Pathobiology Branch, at Oxford, Maryland,** emphasises fundamental
expertise in invertebrate pathobiology while improving their ability to
rapidly respond to emerging coastal health issues impacting valuable
resources. Pathobiology Branch staff are uniquely skilled to apply a
multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the causes and effects of
disease on marine invertebrate populations with their knowledge of
biology, ecology, oceanography, and marine biology. The Panel finds that
Pathobiology Branch science is of exceptional quality and is unique
within NOAA. However, it appears that the expertise and national
importance of the Branch has neither been recognized nor adequately
supported over the last five years. Funding and vital scientific staff
positions have been lost and there is a lack of long-term line office or
agency-wide research projects or lack of agency support for this group.
The review also identified unfilled critical research staff positions,
vacated through retirement and inadequate funding to hire replacements.
Funding losses have prevented the updating of old equipment which has
had negatively impacted Branch research.

The **Coastal Research Brand,** through the **Marine Biotoxins
Program,** and other related units, provides scientific guidance and
directed research to promote effective management of living marine
resources, ecosystem health and public health on issues involving marine
toxins and harmful algae. The group is able to assess fate and effect of
biotoxins or phycotoxins in the food web and environment, and to
research and identify new toxins and new resource threats. The main
strengths of the branch are its staff and their approach to sound
science in support of sound, science-based decision-making. In addition,
the Branch provides excellent training to students and provides
technology transfer to scientists and managers at the national and
international level. CRB staff are able to provide emergency response
for a HAB event and are sought for not only initial screening to
identify the problem but for final identification of the biotoxins
involved. Weaknesses in the program result from trying to serve several
masters, and from inadequate resources. Although CRB is highly
responsive to user needs, there has not been a survey of needs as
identified by the user or customer. Such a review might help to provide
clearer choices among competing priorities, as well as focus discussion
better on whether the CRB should be strictly service or whether it
should be technology development, verification, technology transfer and
development of long term databases.

The programs of the **Living Resources Branch** are focused on the
assessment of health of marine organisms and determination of the
effects of environmental stressors and impacts on those organisms and
their ecosystems. The research targets these processes at the
physiological and molecular levels, as well as incorporating
biotechnological techniques to elucidate ecosystem processes and
effects. There are three primary research areas: (1) functional genomics
and molecular genetics, including biodiversity, species identification,
characterization of gene expression to elucidate biochemical and genetic
control mechanisms; (2) biomarkers for assessing ecosystem health and
determining disease processes, which involves the search for new markers
to indicate the presence of stressors or various types; and (3) marine
mammal health assessment, which is focused primarily on the responses of
the bottlenose dolphin to various stressors. The panel was very
impressed with the quality of the research, and in particular with the
attempts to incorporate modern molecular tools and approaches into the
various aspects of the program. There are enormous opportunities in the
Branch, particularly in areas relating to biotechnological research. The
greatest obstacle to scientific progress appears to be researcher and
technical staff needs.

The **Risk Analysis and Information Management Branch** incorporates two
important functions: the management of information and the use of that
information for risk analysis. The risk analysis effort is focused on
four areas: (1) shellfish pathogens risk reduction (focused on vibrios);
(2) national shellfish information system (SIMS); (3) ecological
characterization (presently focused on Cape Romain National Wildlife
Refuge):, and (4) spatial data analysis service and support (e.g. GIS).
This Branch covers essential needs of CCEHBR in the areas of computer
and database support, information management, and the use of information
to develop approaches for risk analysis. It is necessary that the
infrastructure and expertise of the Branch keeps pace with the rapid
development of information technologies and increase in environmental
information.

The **Forensic Branch** is an applied multidisciplinary branch that is
staffed with assigned personnel as well as other CCEHBR staff when
needed for specific cases. The Branch provides analytical examination of
evidentiary material submitted by State and Federal Law Enforcement
agencies in cases involving endangered, protected, or regulated marine
species. The major significance of the Forensic Branch is that it
enables State and Federal Law Enforcement officers to prosecute
violators of wildlife laws and thus protect dwindling marine resources.
There is no other Laboratory in the USA that can assist Federal Law
Enforcement officers with marine violations. The main strengths of the
Branch include:

-   Sole source analytical support for Federal Law Enforcement officers
    enforcing marine violations.

-   An understanding of the Legal system.

-   Court accepted science

-   Very strong interdisciplinary research.

The Branch weaker points include:

-   Despite some achievements, the Forensic Branch should increase the
    number of peer-reviewed publications.

-   The Forensic Branch research program lacks a Proteomics component.

-   Lack of an on-staff Veterinary Pathologist.

-   Lack of scientists (FTE or contractual).

OVERVIEW

NOS posed three key questions with regard to the review of the NOS
Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research at
Charleston (hereafter CCEHBR):

-   What is the quality of the science being done?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How well is CCEHBR connected to its clients?

-   How well does CCEHBR function as an integrated research laboratory,
    rather than as a series of separate research units?

The first point to be made is that CCEHBR accounts well for itself on
all three questions. The science is relevant and good, much of it
excellent. CCEHBR serves a diverse community of local, regional,
national, and even international clients, who seem uniformly satisfied
with the products they receive. CCEHBR has six separate business and
organization lines, and although there are always opportunities for
greater synergy, related research teams generally complement each
others' work well and there is strong integration with the larger
research community in the Charleston area. Notwithstanding the positive
response to all three of the basic NOS questions, all research
institutions have room -- and desire -- to improve. The Review Panel
report appropriately will give much attention to opportunities for
improvement at CCEHBR, but this selective attention should not distort
the key message above.

Strong performance of a government-based science center is more than
individuals conducting good research. A review of CCEHBR should include
an assessment of the overall mission and goals set for the Center, and
performance relative to them, as well as the performance of researchers
relative to the standards of their disciplines. In the case of CCEHBR,
the Mission statement is clear and appropriate for a government research
center addressing coastal environmental health and biomolecular
research:

**Mission Statement:** Conduct research to characterize the health of
the coastal environment and provide science-based strategies to sustain
and restore coastal ecosystems.

The Mission Statement is supported by five **Goals**:

1.  Conduct research to develop and apply tools related to coastal
    ecosystem health and living marine resource problems.

2.  Use research findings to assess impacts of multiple natural and
    anthropogenic stressors on coastal ecosystem health.

3.  Develop predictive capabilities to enhance forecasting of coastal
    habitat and living marine resource alterations affecting coastal
    ecosystem health and develop risk-reduction / environmental
    management strategies to sustain healthy coasts.

4.  Use strong partnerships for research planning, conduct and
    communication.

5.  Communicate information by a wide variety of outlets.

These five goals are appropriate. They support the Mission Statement,
and represent several of the overarching themes that the NOAA Science
Advisory Board has identified as important parameters to consider
relative to reviews of NOAA science projects and programs. The Review
Panel notes that the goals emphasize the creation of new knowledge
(particularly Goals 1, and 3), the application of knowledge to specific
problems (particularly Goals 2 and 3), and the building of capacities
both within CCEHBR and among clients (particularly Goals 4 and 5). The
NOAA SAB themes of Quality, Creativity, and Credibility, may be
addressed most directly by Goal 1, whereas Timeliness, Scale and Scope
are addressed primarily by Goals 2 and 3. Science Connectedness to
Policy is addressed in various ways by Goals 1, 2, and 3. Capacity
Building and Education are both addressed directly by Goals 4 and 5, and
Efficiency is addressed primarily through Goal 4. Hence, evaluating the
degree to which CCEHBR is achieving its 5 goals is evaluating the extent
to which six of the eight NOAA SAB themes are taken into account in the
work of CCEHRB. (The final two, on Social Science Integration and
Diversity will be addressed separately)

The material prepared by CCEBHR for the Review Panel was organized and
presented separately for each of the six Branches of CCEHBR:

-   Marine Forensics

-   Risk Analysis and Information Management Research

-   Pathology Research

-   Coastal Research

-   Living Marine Resources Research

-   Marine Ecotoxicology

    Correspondingly, the Panel's comments are also organized by the six
    research Branches. However, a number of crosscutting observations
    can be made. These should be considered along with the more detailed
    comments provided on the individual program lines.

    GENERAL THEMES

    When considering the corpus of material presented to the Review
    Panel by the six Branches at CCEBHR, the Panel saw a common thread
    that united all the work at CCEBHR. **All Branches of the Center are
    conducting molecular, cellular and/or biochemical research,
    development, and application of methods in support of NOAA's
    mission**. Working at this sub-organism level, researchers may
    address problems of system health and response to anthropogenic
    perturbations all the way up to the community and ecosystem scale.
    With this sub-organism emphasis and within NOAA's mandate, the work
    of CCEHBR spans the full continuum from basic research for discovery
    of new knowledge to application of existing techniques for diagnosis
    and remediation of immediate problems in coastal environmental
    health.

    This characteristic of working at the molecular, cellular and/or
    biochemical scales gives the Center an **overall research identity**
    that is unique within NOAA. The common identity is a strength in
    itself, because individuals can see that their work really belongs
    within the research community at CCEHBR. The common identity to
    CCEHBR has an additional important implication. Were any current
    major science services or research programs terminated or greatly
    curtailed here, to the Panel's knowledge no other NOAA lab could
    fill the gap that would result, without large investment in new
    people and facilities.

    Although the molecular, cellular and/or biochemical research is
    often applied at the community and ecosystem scales, a large part of
    the research on population and community dynamics itself is done
    elsewhere. There is some community and ecosystem level research of
    high quality within parts of CCEBHR, particularly in the Coastal
    Research and the Risk Analysis and Information Management sections.
    However most of the work on such scales is done by or with external
    partners, including other parts of NOAA. The Review Panel strongly
    supports continuation of these linkage and collaborative
    arrangements, rather than building larger programs in marine
    population and community ecology, where NOAA already has several
    strong Centers. The Review Panel encourages that linkages with
    theoretical community and systems ecologists also be strengthened,
    to complement the strong linkages to field community ecologists.
    Supportive linkages with both theoretical and field community
    ecologists give greater credibility to the excellent work being done
    in areas like indicators of ecosystem health.

    To the Review Panel, the single most serious challenge facing every
    component of CCEHBR is **Recruitment and Retention** of talented
    young science staff. CCEHBR has an excellent record of attracting
    talented young scientists, both as graduate students and into
    entry-level science positions. Unfortunately, due to budget
    limitations almost all the younger staff are on contractual or
    limited term positions. They all know or learn quickly that in the
    current funding situation there is little prospect of moving from
    the contractual or term positions to permanent ones, so they are on
    career tracks with little or no medium-term security. Although the
    Review Panel members were favorably impressed with the enthusiasm
    and clarity with which all the younger scientists discussed their
    work, the lack of prospects for permanent employment did affect
    their morale negatively. Many impressive younger staff said they
    would prefer to stay at CCEHBR but were continually watching for
    other, more permanent, posts, because they required greater career
    stability in order to allow personal and family objectives to be
    pursued. The uncertain staffing situation also reduces the
    productivity and efficiency of the Center, because as contract or
    term staff receive more training and acquire more skills on the job
    at CCEHBR, their ability to attract offers of permanent positions
    from other employers increases. Their departure costs CCEHBR the
    investment in training (even though it increases capacity
    elsewhere), and some projects depends so heavily on key contractual
    staff that loss of these individuals would make timely and
    successful completion of the projects unlikely.

    This inability to offer permanent employment also aggravates the
    **diversity** inequity in the current staff of the Center. CCEHBR
    has addressed gender equity effectively in both research teams and
    administration, but minorities are under-represented on staff and in
    management. Senior CCEHBR administrators are clearly aware of this
    imbalance, and the Review Panel concluded that they are sincere in
    efforts to address it. They have a good record of attracting
    minorities to graduate science positions, and providing good
    mentoring. However, competition for skilled scientists from
    minorities is intense, and with only contractual or term positions
    to offer, most of graduate students from under-represented groups
    accept jobs elsewhere that offer greater security and potential for
    advancement.

    The inability to staff permanent positions with young scientists
    characterizes all of CCEHBR, although the situation is most serious
    at the Oxford Laboratory. The Review Panel was informed that at the
    Oxford Laboratory, site of pathobiology research programs that are
    internationally prestigious and unique within the US, there is not a
    scientist under forty years of age. As the Review Panel understands
    the situation, the problem is not a lack of allocated FTE's to
    staff, but a lack of salary dollars for supporting these vacant
    FTE's. The salary short-fall, in turn, is a consequence of some
    complex funding algorithms within NOS, to deal with multi-million
    dollar short-falls in funds transferred to the science unit within
    NOS at the time that several laboratories and their accompanying
    mandates were transferred into the NOS National Centers for Coastal
    Ocean Science. The Review Panel considered the intricacies of these
    funding formulae to be outside its mandate. However, it is satisfied
    that a solution to the problems faced by CCEHBR in funding the
    staffing of FTEs cannot be found by reshuffling its annual operating
    budget. The funding level for and funding formula among the research
    centers with NOS has to be augmented significantly, if CCEHBR is to
    able to resolve its recruitment and retention crisis. If this
    problem cannot be addressed promptly and effectively, the viability
    of CCEHBR as a dynamic center for discovery, innovation and
    application of science to near-coastal environmental quality
    concerns will be in jeopardy.

    Ranking close to the problem with recruitment and retention of
    personnel is concern over **infrastructure and insufficient
    laboratory facilities.** To an unknown extent opening of the
    Hollings Marine Laboratory may alleviate some of the problems of
    simple crowding, although several Review Panel members felt the
    complex rules and procedures for access to space and facilities and
    complex system for administration and management of the facility had
    a high risk of creating a nightmare of bureaucracy. However, no one
    can be sure how it will work until the building is in operation, and
    the fact that several groups from academia and government are to
    share the facility give some reason for the administrative
    complexities. The Review Panel does feel that the administration of
    the facility should be reviewed after a few years of operation to
    ensure that the best science is being done with reasonable
    efficiency.

    Regardless of the contribution that the Hollings Marine Laboratory
    may make to reducing overcrowding, there is a looming **crisis in
    major equipment**. Some important specialized pieces of research
    equipment are obsolete, others overused, and some both. Specific
    needs are discussed in the reviews of the individual programs, but
    as a major concern, a very large infusion of money for new and
    upgraded research instrumentation is needed. If it is the case that
    much of the initial allocation of money for equipment for the
    Hollings Marine Laboratory was reallocated (whether to complete the
    physical plant itself or elsewhere), then this need is even greater.
    It is a reality that a science center with a focus on molecular,
    cellular and biochemical research and development needs
    state-of-the-art equipment to achieve its potential and to keep the
    best scientists. Equipment a decade old, running nearly around the
    clock, seven days a week, is simply not adequate for the Center to
    stay viable in the medium term. There is no question that NOAA needs
    the unique expertise in CCEHBR, and should attach very high priority
    to finding funds for renewing equipment as well as augmenting staff.

    The severe constraints on staffing positions in CCEHBR, and overall
    restrictive funding environment have given increased incentive for
    CEHBR to make external partnerships and obtain **external funding**.
    CCEHBR has been very successful in forging partnerships and finding
    external money, which is a testimony to the quality of the science
    and service provided by CCEHBR. However, increasing dependence on
    external funding is a path with many dangers, in addition to the
    opportunities it presents. The role of CCEHBR as a "science on
    demand" facility; that is, a group of experts able to react quickly
    to coastal environmental crises as they occur, can be compromised if
    a significant portion of the scientific expertise is committed to
    completing contractual obligations with external sources of funding.
    Commonly the best researchers can attract the most external funding,
    so exactly the expertise most valuable to the Center's
    administration and to NOAA may become least accountable and
    available to them. External funding gives the holder greater
    independence from management direction, and creates a set of
    accountabilities and deadlines that may not have the flexibility
    needed to accommodate quickly arising needs of NOAA.

    The Review Panel does not discourage the seeking of external funding
    by CCEHBR; indeed, some programs would not be viable without it.
    However, it does encourage development of an **explicit policy on
    priority of staff time.** The purpose of the policy would be to
    ensure that in times when expertise in CCEHBR is needed to address
    NOAA priorities and emergencies, there are no conflicts or
    misunderstandings. The policy should clarify that staff whose
    salaries are paid by NOAA are accountable to the Director of CCEHBR
    ahead of all other professional commitments, and priority for access
    to limited equipment can also be set by the Center Director and
    management team. Such an explicit policy would not just protect the
    interests of NOAA and the authority of the Center's Director, but
    would protect the individual scientist when entering into agreements
    for external funding. The Review Panel was assured that to this
    point, there had been no problems with externally funded scientists
    using external commitments as justification to fail to cooperate
    with requests to take on time-sensitive priority research problems.
    However, that has to have been due to good personal relationships
    between staff and administration, sympathetic funding sources, and
    good luck. The existence of an explicit policy in advance of the
    first problem with a funding source unsympathetic to a government
    need for the same talent or equipment, allows the grant holder to
    address the public's need without fear of pressure or retaliation
    from the funding source.

    An ancillary issue came up in discussions with regard to external
    funding. The suggestion has been made a number of times that as a
    matter policy CCEHBR should provide its "science on demand" service
    on a **pay-for-service** basis. Several staff expressed opposition
    to this suggestion, and the Review Panel sees merit in their view.
    One of the strengths of CCEHBR is that it is perceived by diverse
    (and sometimes mutually antagonistic) clients as non-partisan; the
    neutral "fair broker" of fact and interpretation on sciences issues,
    particularly science applied to societal choices. A fee-for-service
    policy would harm at least the perception of such neutrality, when
    those paying fees were on one side of a debated issue. The Review
    Panel encourages continued and even escalated efforts to make sure
    that cost recovery gets due consideration whenever CCEHBR expertise
    and services are made available outside NOAA. However, it supports
    continuation of the practice of making CCEHBR expertise available on
    the basis of scientific need and the match between needs and CCEHBR
    services, and to not discriminate, in the first instance, on the
    basis of ability to pay.

    Another aspect of the external partnerships that pervaded all lines
    of CCEHBR to some degree was the absence of a **clear mechanism for
    deciding when** **and how the science knowledge and services are
    provided** **to outside interests**, whether in other parts of NOAA,
    other federal agencies, other levels of government, academia, and
    even the private sector. In other words, there are no clear criteria
    on which to evaluate whether or not a request for support in
    addressing a research problem or an environmental crisis will be
    granted. Some of these external partnerships have been very
    successful, such as the harmful algae research group's collaboration
    with a diverse science team on a California marine mammal die-off,
    and the collaborative work on new parasites in Great Lakes
    invertebrates. These collaborations, although of high scientific
    merit and value to improved understanding of and protection from
    environmental threats. Although some collaborations are direct
    results of formal NOAA arrangements among programs, others seem to
    have occurred semi-opportunistically, based on informal networks
    among professional colleagues. Without trying to weaken such
    professional networks, there should be some process to ensure that
    when there is a need for the types of expertise located in CCEHBR,
    those needing science support know about the Center.
    Correspondingly, when requests for science services from CCEHBR are
    needed, the criteria on which the decision to help out or not is
    made should be widely available. Thus, if the requests for CCEHBR
    services increase, either due to greater publicity of CCEHBR's
    services or more coastal and oceans crises, the criteria for
    screening and ranking them are explicit and the process becomes more
    transparent. Such a process might also contribute to reducing the
    perception -- and possibly the reality -- that some groups within
    CCEHBR are overly focused on local or near-regional issues. CCEHBR
    is a national center with strengths, as noted above, that are unique
    within NOAA. Although geographic proximity will always be a factor
    in where CCEHBR knowledge and services are provided most quickly and
    often, it should be only one of several factors.

    CCEHBR was transferred from NMFS to NOS three years ago. CCEHBR
    staff and administrators feel that NOS is a more appropriate
    **organizational location** for their expertise, and the new
    situation has prompted some consolidation and sharpening of foci.
    The fit is better in NOS than NMFS, but it is not yet perfect. In
    particular, there were questions within both the Review Panel and
    among some staff in CCEHBR regarding the extent to which NOS
    actually has a commitment to fundamental research, intended to
    discover new knowledge, in addition to providing coastal ocean
    services to clients. NOS has endorsed a research presence in its
    strategic documents, but at an operation level it is sometimes hard
    to see the commitment in practice. There was some discussion of the
    possible merits of moving CCEHBR to OAR, where the commitment to
    basic and applied research is clearly visible in text and actions.
    On the other hand, the OAR commitment to providing services of the
    nature provided by CCEHBR in its "science on demand" identity, is
    comparably questionable. Both the Review Panel and the CCEHBR
    administration felt that the service component of CCEHBR science was
    crucial, and an argument for keeping CCEHBR in NOS. However, for the
    Panel to endorse the present organizational location of CCEHBR NOS
    must make a stronger commitment in actions and funding to support
    science for discovering new knowledge as well as applying that
    knowledge to the problems of coastal ecosystems and coastal
    communities.

    **Publications** are always one informative index of scientific
    productivity. The Review Panel concluded that CCEHBR staff have
    produced many worthwhile papers. Some are fundamental contributions
    in their field. Because of the nature of the research in some
    groups, many papers are benchmarks on methods for field or
    laboratory assays, and as such are very widely cited. However,
    production of publications is strongly skewed among researchers, and
    a portion of the permanent staff need to be given more incentive to
    publish their results. This may be particularly the case for
    researchers in Branches now strongly focused on developing new
    techniques, biomolecular and genetics markers, etc, where there is
    strong competition with other research institutions and a physical
    product is to be produced from the research. In such cases concern
    to generate the physical product may be coming to dominate over
    producing the scientific publications, and staff in these areas need
    to be encouraged to keep publications more centered in their
    priorities.

    Publications are not the only measure of scientific productivity.
    The Review Panel took note of the many other ways that the
    scientific staff disseminate their results. This includes many
    prominent involvements in professional societies, symposia, and
    meetings of scientists. It also includes a number of effective
    community, regional, and national committees, working groups, and
    other for a dedicated to application of science results to
    environmental problems. In these areas CCEHBR staff perform
    important services and have clearly earned widespread respect from
    colleagues, community leaders, and citizens.

    A noteworthy shortcoming of the total research community at CCEHBR
    is the weak representation of **social sciences**. The social
    sciences are not an equally good complement to every component of
    CCEHBR, but they are unquestionably germane to protecting coastal
    environmental health and to at least the application of some results
    of biomolecular research. The Review Panel recommends that priority
    be given to forging greater collaborative links to social scientists
    in academic and government centers in the region. These partnerships
    with social scientists should be planned and structured, just as
    many of the existing partnerships with natural and physical
    scientists outside of CCEHBR are. The Review Panel would like to
    stress that this recommendation is not meant as a criticism of the
    commitment to community outreach that is going on now. Many
    researchers show both a talent and commitment to working with
    communities. However, social sciences are more than community
    outreach. Partnerships with social scientists can make new classes
    of problems of coastal environmental health tractable as research
    questions with answers that can be generalized and applied. This can
    be a great value added to the time currently invested in
    transmitting research results from CCEHBR to communities.

    **A structured and formal peer review and advisory process** is
    nearly universally utilized for the application of science to
    management of exploited living marine resources. A similar culture
    of provision of scientific advice through a formal review and
    advisory process has not developed in marine habitat and
    environmental health research, but in many parts of the world the
    need for such a process is becoming recognized. As visibility and
    accountability of management decisions to sustain healthy coasts
    increase, greater attention is being given to the diversity of
    scientific opinion on risks, alternatives and their consequences,
    and associated uncertainties about scientific information. Given
    CCEHBR's mandate and stature, it would have a natural leadership
    role in developing appropriate processes for open and transparent
    conduct of objective peer review and provision of reliable,
    integrated scientific advice on coastal environmental health. Such
    peer review and provision of advice would not be intended for small,
    case-specific habitat decisions or emergency responses to sudden
    crises. However, the processes could come to have as important role
    in environmental health topics like identification of stressors and
    their interactions, selection of indicators of ecosystem status,
    risk analysis of vulnerable coastal sites and processes, and
    criteria for selecting mitigation measures.

    Researchers from CCEHBR brought a number of suggestions of their own
    to the Review Panel, with regard to directions in which they felt
    the Center should move, and opportunities they felt should be
    pursued. Researchers repeatedly stressed the need for stronger
    commitment to **longer-term research**. While justifiably proud of
    their ability to adjust to changing NOAA and NOS priorities, and
    respond quickly to new crises, an important part of achieving the
    NOAA and NOS mandate requires continuity of research and monitoring.
    The Review Panel agrees that only with long-term monitoring and
    continuity of experimental regimens can the complex consequences of
    stressors and the interactions among them be quantified and
    understood. Likewise the sensitivity and robustness of indicators of
    ecosystem health can only be tested on long and comprehensive data
    sets, arising from long-term research and monitoring. It is an
    established principle that government laboratories are better
    positioned and more suitably organized to conduct long-term
    monitoring than are universities or private laboratories, and that
    is particularly true for marine and coastal ecosystems. Such
    programs would fit very well within CCEHBR.

    Another opportunity that was mentioned several times was the
    possibility of building a strong program in **marine and coastal
    eco-criminology**. As legal protection of coastal environments is
    strengthened, and court-imposed settlements become more costly, the
    need to demonstrate culpability for environmental damage increases.
    Existing CCEHBR strengths in marine forensics, molecular and
    biochemical markers, eco-toxicology, and indicators of environmental
    health could be combined into a leading program in support of legal
    actions to protect coastal environmental health and punish violators
    of environmental protection measures.

    **Marine Ecotoxicology Branch**

    The Marine Ecotoxicology Branch comprises four research programs in
    contaminant chemistry, environmental microbiology, toxicology and
    environmental modeling and assessment. The first three programs
    conduct fundamental investigations into their respective areas,
    while the fourth integrates the knowledge gained from these studies
    and also from the larger research arena conducted outside of NOAA.
    The mission statement of MEB is:

    "The MEB's mission is to conduct interdisciplinary, ecological and
    toxicological research focused on identifying chemical, physical and
    biological contaminants associated with urban development,
    agriculture, dredging operations and industrial discharges, and
    their resulting impacts, from a molecular to an ecosystem level, on
    marine, coastal and estuarine ecosystems of the United States"

    Current personnel of MEB are 37 employees (15 FTEs, 8 contractors
    and 14 funded university collaborators and graduate students). A
    position is currently open for a Ph.D. chemist position to be held
    jointly between NOAA and South Carolina Department of Natural
    Resources (SC-DNR).

    **Summary of Research Programs**

    [Contaminant Chemistry (CHEM)]{.underline}

    CHEM provides analytical chemistry capabilities and services for all
    of MEB's research programs as well as the other research branches at
    CCEHBR, other parts of NOAA, other federal agencies and research
    partners at state agencies and universities within the region.
    Capabilities include capillary gas chromatography with a number of
    detection systems (electron capture, nitrogen-phosphorus, mass
    spectrometry: GC-ECD, GC-NPD, GC-MS), inductively coupled plasma
    mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS)
    for metals, and mono/polyclonal antibody detection systems.
    Activities of the program include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Routine analysis of trace metals, PAHs, organochlorine and modern
    pesticides, and PCBs in a variety of matrices: air, water, sediment,
    biological tissues.

-   Development of new analytical methods for new compounds of interest,
    including pharmaceutical drugs in the environment.

-   Sampling air and water, including use of semipermeable membrane
    devices (SPMDs) for water.

-   Participation in NIST interlaboratory calibration exercises.

    [Environmental Microbiology (EMB)]{.underline}

    EMB examines microbial pollution of coastal waters and organisms,
    particularly in connection with shellfish harvesting and seafood
    safety. Activities of the group involve:

-   Identifying sources of fecal coliform pollution such as septic
    tanks, sewage treatment plants and chicken/hog farms in estuaries.
    This research is part of the Urbanization in Southeast Estuarine
    (Eco)Systems (USES) and Land Use Coastal Ecosystem Study (LUCES)
    projects and projects with South Carolina Department of Health and
    Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and the state of North Carolina.
    Findings are integrated with CCEHBR Land Use Coastal Ecosystem Study
    (RAIM) researchers addressing seafood risk analysis issues.

-   Investigation of the introduction of invasive Vibrio
    parahaemolyticus and other Vibrio bacteria species from ballast
    water into Charleston Harbor and other coastal regions of South
    Carolina. Studies include determining levels of these bacteria in
    shellfish and in ballast water from ships entering ports of commerce
    in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions. Vibrio antibiotic resistance
    patterns are compared to antibiotic usage patterns for the country
    of origin. As above, research is integrated with the RAIM group.

    [Toxicology (TOX)]{.underline}

    TOX is directed toward understanding the effects of environmental
    contamination and perturbation on estuarine and marine ecosystems.

-   Bioassays are conducted on whole organisms ranging from bacteria to
    fish at single animal, population and community levels.

-   A wide variety of sophisticated sublethal endpoints are examined:
    respiration rate, growth and reproduction, biomarkers (e.g., EROD),
    community alterations, and lipids composition.

-   Research is focused on contaminants associated with urban
    development, golf courses, vector control, agriculture, polyaromatic
    hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their UV activation associated with
    Superfund sites and dredging operations.

    [Environmental Modeling and Assessment (EMA)]{.underline}

    The EMA group models toxicological and microbiological effects and
    contaminant chemistry associated with urban development of
    watersheds. A long-term goal is to develop predictive contaminant
    loadings, biological effects and water/sediment quality models.
    Specific focus is placed on those areas of the environment specified
    above in the EMB and TOX sections. Modeling development includes the
    use of:

-   Geographic information systems (GIS)

-   Hydrological modeling

-   Ecotoxicological water/sediment quality modeling

    **Program Evaluation**

    [Quality of the Science]{.underline}

    Contributions and Uniqueness of the Branch

    MEB conducts research oriented to urban and agricultural impacts on
    coastal estuaries. The work is done collaboratively and cuts across
    other Branch programs. Some numerous specific studies are:

-   USES and LUCES (see above)

-   Agricultural Runoff in Estuarine Ecosystems (ARIES)

-   Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (ECD) Effects on Crustaceans

-   EPSCOR study in which estuarine mesocosm toxicity testing units were
    developed and applied

-   Contaminant Chemistry in Marine Mammals

-   Pharmaceutical Drugs in the Environment

-   Florida Bay -- South Florida Research

-   Superfund Site Research

-   Sustainable Seas Expedition to investigate transport of atrazine to
    coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.

    A unique feature of the branch is their ability to carry out
    integrated toxicity studies from the molecular to ecosystem level.
    In the course of these studies, the branch has developed many
    innovative approaches:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Development of integrated coliform source identification tools such
    as Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR), Ribotyping (RT) and
    Coliphage analysis.

-   Deployment of antibody test kits to measure pesticide levels in
    surface water throughout South Carolina and the Gulf of Mexico,
    including verification of results using traditional analytical
    methods.

-   Development of a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)
    within CHEM.

-   Designing and applying in situ bioassays, using fish and grass
    shrimp, to determine toxic effects of pesticides from agricultural
    runoff and physical disturbance due to dredging operations.

-   Designing and constructing mesocosms to study effects of chemicals
    and their interaction with physical changes (e.g., temperature,
    salinity) at a community level.

-   Developing methods to integrate basic toxicological, chemical
    contaminant and microbiological data with GIS land use data into
    predictive models of impacts on land use in the southeastern U.S.

-   Development of bioaccumulation models for pharmaceuticals to shrimp,
    the first study to document substantial uptake of oxytetracycline.

-   First spatial statistical model to predict natural resource impacts
    from docks and bulkheads.

-   Development of a four-point cumulative risk reduction strategy for
    agricultural non-point source runoff: a) formation of a coastal
    pesticide advisory, b) integrated pest management, c) selection of
    less toxic and persistent chemicals and d) use of retention ponds.

    Publications

    The tabulation of publications provided to the Panel was incomplete
    and difficult to break out by research group or type of journal, but
    it was apparent that publication rate is highly skewed. Although a
    couple of team leaders have published extensively, a number of
    researchers appear to have published infrequently. Even when the
    objective of a research project is development of a method for field
    (sometimes commercial) application, publication of results in
    scientific journals, monographs, and other referees series must be
    made a priority for all staff. In addition to a number of book
    chapters, publications are scattered among over a dozen journals,
    with most articles in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (9),
    Aquatic Toxicology (4), Archives of Environmental Contamination and
    Toxicology (3), Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
    Toxicology (3). Several book chapters are among the contributions,
    including one in a 1999 volume from the SETAC Pellston Workshop on
    Ecological Risk Assessment for Wetlands and three in the Belle W.
    Baruch Library of Marine Science volumes. Several publications stand
    out as highly significant contributions to the field, and are widely
    cited.

    Graduate Student Work Within MEB and Collaboration with Universities

    MEB has forged partnerships with several universities in South
    Carolina. The Branch also emphasizes involvement of graduate
    students in research projects. Between 1996-2000, 20 M. Sc. Theses
    and 20 Ph. D. dissertations were produced by students working with
    scientists at MEB. Numerous awards were given to these students for
    excellence in presentations and research on a regional and national
    level. Examples are given in the MEB Self Evaluation section.

    Several staff hold appointments at Regional universities, including,
    in various combinations University of South Carolina, Medical
    University of South Carolina and/or University of Charleston (Scott,
    Fulton, DeLorenzo, Siewicki, Bearden, Key, Wirth), and Clemson
    University (Wirth). Extensive courses in aquatic and environmental
    toxicology have been taught at these institutions by branch staff. A
    large number of coastal studies have been done in collaboration with
    scientists at universities. Collaborative efforts on public health
    with NOAA were cited as a strength in the 2001 accreditation review
    of USC's School of Public Health.

    Other Indicators of Scientific Merit

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Research on coliform identification was one of 20 presentations
    selected by the American Society of Microbiology to be highlighted
    at a press release from the 1999 annual meeting.

-   Many research grants, totalling \$4.0M from 1996-2000, have been
    awarded to MEB from external sources from 1996-2000. Total grants to
    MEB and its research partners totalled \$11.2 M.

-   A highly competitive EPSCOR award was made to MEB, with MUSC
    partners, to develop mesocosm toxicity testing units for
    environmental scientists within the region.

-   Awards have been made to staff: the Dialog III award from American
    Society of Limnology and Oceanography (DeLorenzo), selection of
    Fulton as the Federal Employee of the Year in the Scientific
    Technical Category for the Charleston Area, and Bearden as a
    finalist in this competition.

-   Selection of branch staff to serve on EPA's Science Advisory Boards
    for EDCs and the Advanced Environmental Technology Verification
    Program, as the NOAA representative on the interagency panel for
    EDCs, and as an editorial board member for the journal Aquatic
    Toxicology.

-   Strong relationship with NIST ensures a high degree of quality
    assurance. CHEM is the only NOS/NOAA laboratory involved with
    interlaboratory calibration exercises for all three study matrices
    (sediment, tissue, blubber).

    [Significance and Impacts]{.underline}

    The MEB Self-Assessment states that **"The major significance of
    branch research is that it enables managers to define impacts from
    coastal development and to develop risk reduction strategies to
    minimize or eliminate environmental hazards. This process translates
    into Sustainable Coastal Development"**. The Panel concurs that
    Branch studies and research products have found high usage among the
    many agencies in the southeast that are responsible for protection
    of the coastal zone. A very significant accomplishment has been
    application of the branch's Cumulative Risk Reduction Strategy for
    mitigation of pollution due to agricultural non-point source runoff.
    This approach has resulted in an 89-90% reduction in pesticide
    loadings to estuarine tidal creeks in South Carolina, and fish kills
    have been substantially reduced. These approaches have been applied
    to similar agricultural problems in Virginia and Florida.

    Research done within EMB has resulted in zoning changes or
    environmental management decisions regarding water quality issues.
    Advances due to EMB research include identification of septic tank
    leakages, identification of specific types and sources of microbial
    pollution in impaired watersheds, finding the sources of bacterial
    pollution sources near Hilton Head, development chemical contaminant
    databases for sediments and oysters that serve as benchmarks for
    assessment of contamination due to coastal development and define
    levels for a "Healthy Coast", detecting pesticides in agricultural
    runoff to the Everglades, and development of multivariate tools for
    including coastal environmental quality with Regional planning. Many
    of these projects have resulted in more cost effective monitoring,
    improved zoning and planning on watershed and coasts, and better
    regulatory regimes and community ordinances, taking the benefits of
    projects well beyond the site(s) at which the work was conducted

    [Branch Strengths]{.underline}

    MEB's strong points include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High quality of science, very strong interdisciplinary research
    ranging from the molecular to ecosystem level.

-   Ability to integrate across programs and among branches.

-   Outstanding record of collaborations partners and success in
    obtaining extramural funding

-   Strong partnerships with universities through faculty appointments,
    educational outreach programs and mentoring of students.

-   Outstanding leadership in coastal pollution and land use issues and
    ability to turn basic and applied research into plans of action.

    Other points mentioned in MEB's self-evaluation are a high "esprit
    de corps" among staff, high level of education of staff members, and
    diversity of research experience.

    [Branch Weaknesses]{.underline}

    The Panel concurs with several points raised in the MEB
    self-evaluation document, including:

-   Lack of federal FTE positions for junior level staff; many are on
    contractual arrangements.

-   Lack of advancement to Senior Level Scientist (GS15) and lack of
    predictable career advancement.

-   Lack of training for junior staff that enter supervisory positions.

-   Reliance on extramural funding, requiring substantial time spent
    "chasing money" rather than conducting research.

-   The "rust-out phenomenon". Some of the analytical and field
    equipment is old and needs to be replaced in the near future. Lack
    of a formal program to replace equipment on a regular basis is a
    weakness within MEB and indeed the whole of CCEHBR.

The Panel notes improvements could be made in some other areas,
including :

-   Number of scientific publications, from staff other than the two or
    three "high-liners" in the Branch.

-   Targetting of publications in more mainstream environmental or
    agricultural journals such as Environmental Science and
    Technology, J. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, J. Environmental
    Quality and Environmental Pollution, in addition to the three or
    four quality journals now favored by the Branch scientists.

-   The MEB research program lacks an atmospheric component. The coastal
    region receives atmospheric loadings of pollutants that should be
    taken into account in field and modeling studies.

-   Additional efforts could be made in the area of chemical modeling,
    using the "fugacity" type models that have been successful for
    describing bioaccumulation and sediment-water-air interactions.
    Other models that could be useful in the ARIES program are those
    used to estimate soil-to-air exchange of pesticides.

-   The branch could do a better job of selling itself, nationally and
    internationally. MEB successes should be made more available. For
    example:

a)  Many of the issues related to pesticides in the southeast are also
    issues in California (e.g., pesticide runoff into the San Joaquin
    River) and the Cumulative Risk Reduction Strategy may be very useful
    there.

b)  There is a lack of involvement with similar programs in the
    mid-Atlantic region, such as; USDA in Beltsville studies of
    pesticide runoff in the Wye River and other estuaries, Stroud Water
    Research Center (Philadelphia) use of molecular markers to trace
    fecal and other pollution, and contaminant programs are at Virginia
    Institute of Marine Science and Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
    (Univ. of Maryland).

c)  The levels of international involvement also seems to be low, yet
    here is a "flagship" program that should be touted at every
    opportunity!

[Concluding Remarks]{.underline}

At the present time, CCEHBR (including MEB) has a very strong tradition
of linking basic and applied science and communication to stakeholders,
which has resulted in a number of tangible benefits to environmental
quality throughout the southeast. These benefits have derived from
applying "sound science" and predictive modeling to environmental policy
and management decisions.

Pathobiology Branch

1**.** **Mission Statement**:

*To provide science based answers and tools needed to address problems
impacting the health of coastal ecosystems and resources*

2\. **Serving the scientific needs of NOS**:

The Pathobiology Branch has long been and is currently renown both
nationally and internationally for its expertise in research on
invertebrate pathology. Their goal is to maintain this fundamental
expertise in invertebrate pathobiology while improving their ability to
rapidly respond to emerging coastal health issues impacting valuable
resources. Oysters, clams, crabs, and shrimp are among the most heavily
exploited coastal species. Their health and the health of other flora
and fauna are vital to supporting the integrity of the marine ecosystem.
Knowledge of invertebrate biology and pathology is critical to
understanding the processes that sustain healthy coasts. Diseases and
other stressors cause major losses of ecologically and economically
important species and contribute to decreased species diversity. For
example, blue crab populations along the Atlantic coasts have been
greatly reduced by diseases caused by parasites and other pathogens.
Water quality declines with the loss of important filter-feeders
including bivalve mollusks and other shellfish. Critical habitats for
hundreds of plant and animal species along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
no longer exist with the loss of oyster reefs and other biogenic marine
habitat structures. Pathobiology Branch scientists possess specialized
expertise and training (e.g. histology, microbiology, electron
microscopy, and parasitology) needed to diagnose disease, identify and
culture pathogens, and assess important host/pathogen interactions
needed to improve diagnostics. They are uniquely skilled to apply a
multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the causes and effects of
disease on marine invertebrate populations with their knowledge of
biology, ecology, oceanography, and marine biology.

3\. **Organization setting inside NOS**:

The Pathobiology Branch of the Coastal Center for Environmental Health
and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR), in Oxford, MD, employs 4 scientists,
2 technicians, and 4 administrative staff. It is a NOAA laboratory (the
only CCEHBR branch not located in Charleston, SC) operated by
cooperative agreement with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MD DNR). For nearly 40 years the pathobiology program had been
associated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). During the
last 5 years the program at Oxford has been reassigned several times to
various administrative units within NOAA from NMFS Northeast Fisheries
Science Center to the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and most
recently to CCEHBR. Administrative mandates through this time focused
research projects on service oriented research to meet client needs.

4\. **Local, regional, national, and international activities**.

Local activities support the needs of NOAA, the Chesapeake Bay Program,
and a Cooperative Agreement with the MD DNR (e.g., study of the health
of clams, oysters, and crabs within the Chesapeake Bay). Studies
involving non-indigenous species support the transfer of information
from the national program to the local program.

Regional activities address needs of researchers and managers in the
Maryland DNR and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Experts in
crab diseases support many state management programs along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts through diagnostic training and disease verification.
Experts in other invertebrate diseases support other state laboratories
in the development of diagnostic methodologies and technology transfer.

Nationally, information on disease and animal health is used to develop
management programs to prevent the introduction of potentially
destructive non-indigenous species. Many states are assisted in training
and diagnosis of disease problems. Expertise is provided to federal
agencies including the USDA, FDA, and EPA to address problems affecting
animal and human health issues (e.g., *Cryptosporidium* in shellfish
from agricultural sources with USDA, disease introductions under the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program of the FDA).

International activities include joint investigations with scientists at
the Spanish National Reference Laboratory to control a pathogenic
parasite found in clams of Europe and the Chesapeake Bay. Expertise on
clam parasites is provided to laboratories in Portugal, and as requested
by Canada and Japan

5\. **Setting priorities**

The highest priorities are problems that are clearly national in scope
or multi-jurisdictional, or issues of concern to other NOAA or NOS
programs. Research takes three distinct approaches: study of the disease
in the field (epizootiology), development of diagnostic techniques, and
clinical (experimental) study of disease in the laboratory. The goal of
each approach is to provide managers with the science-based
understanding and tools to mitigate the impact of disease on coastal
resources.

6\. **Major clients, connectors, scientific community.**

Clients of the Pathobiology Branch extend from watermen, who suffer poor
yields of shellfish resulting from a variety of diseases, to managers
with large scale disease issues involving invertebrate species. The
Branch interacts with universities, and mutually supports a variety of
state and federal agencies. The Science Review identified over 200
cooperators.

Staff members are often requested to serve on NOAA, Saltonstall-Kennedy,
and USDA research panels and as reviewers for scientific journals and
books. They have served as officers in national scientific
organizations, have been requested to organize and chair sessions for
national and regional scientific meetings including the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, Society of Invertebrate Pathology, Eastern Fish
Health Workshop, National Shellfisheries Assoc., and the International
Symposium on Pollution Responses in Marine Organisms. They serve as NOS
and NOAA representatives on science work groups such as the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force, Marine Biotechnology Working Group, the
Microbe Project Interagency Working Group, and the working group to
assess the Long Island Sound Lobster mortalities.

Members of the branch serve on the National Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force (ANS), the ANS Risk Assessment and Management Committee, and
the Chesapeake Bay Exotic Species Work group. They also serve as chair
of five associated ANS committees. In these capacities they have been
strongly involved with the ANS risk analysis review process for newly
introduced species and the publication of reports that assess the impact
of shrimp viruses, Black carp, Asian swamp eels, Florida sturgeon and
soon the Asian snakehead as well as the intentional introduction of two
exotic oyster species into Chesapeake Bay. This work is of national and
international importance that serves federal, state, university, tribal,
and public interests.

Examples of recent major collaborative initiatives and associated
accomplishments include:

Branch scientists worked closely with USDA, Johns Hopkins University,
and the Center for Disease Control partners to design and implement
research on waterborne human pathogens *Cryptosporidium* and *Giardia*
in estuarine water, shellfish, and sediments. Accomplishments include:

Twelve (12) peer reviewed publications.

> Keynote speaker for the American Society of Tropical Medicine and
> Hygiene

Keynote speaker at the Interstate Seafood Seminar.

New England states and aquaculture industry clients requested Branch
scientists to investigate the cause of a new disease (JOD) affecting
shellfish and provide management recommendations to the northeastern
U.S. shellfish industry. Accomplishments include:

Demonstration that the agent was transmissible.

> Identification of parameters that affected disease onset, interrupted
> the disease process, and led to successful management applications
> that control the disease.
>
> Invitation of two scientists to present their findings to two
> international groups: the International Workshop on Shell Diseases in
> Marine Invertebrates in France and the US-Japan Cooperative Program in
> Natural Resources in Japan
>
> Six peer reviewed publications and funding agency reports were
> generated by this work.

Results of Branch cooperation with Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory (GLERL) and Canadian scientists on tumor-like anomalies on
copepods from Lake Michigan include the following:

> Branch scientists found anomalies were a combination of herniated host
> tissue and parasites.

EPA awarded a grant for \$17.5K

Several disease-causing organisms were found in amphipods.

> Findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
> Aquatic Sciences.

Staff research on the crustacean disease *Hematodinium sp.* has led to
close cooperation with MD, DE, and VA resource managers, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, and Skidaway Instituteof Oceanography to
address blue crab diseases in Atlantic coastal bays. Accomplishments
include:

Five (5) peer reviewed publications resulted from these studies.

> Improved diagnostic techniques developed in collaboration with
> Skidaway Institute

Serving as an advisor to the Maryland Coastal Bays Management Council

> Design of a sampling program and provision of technical support to MD
> DNR Coastal Blue Crab Studies

A new *Perkinsus* parasite found in clams was associated with the
decline of clam populations in Chesapeake Bay. A series of collaborative
investigations by Dr. McLaughlin with VIMS, USDA, FDA, Cairo University,
and CSIC/Spain scientists led to major accomplishments:

In vitro propagation of two clam *Perkinsus* spp.

Description of a new species: *P. chesapeaki*

Development of an improved diagnostic assay

First report of multiple *Perkinsus* species infections in one host
species

Four new gene sequences deposited in GenBank

Publication of eight (8) peer-reviewed papers

Presidential Early Career Award (\$50K)

Histological, biochemical and immunological investigations on clam
sarcomas were conducted in collaboration with VIMS, Cairo University,
and NMFS. Accomplishments include:

Discovery of novel defensive molecules in clams

First report of sarcomas in New Jersey clams

Publication of 2 peer-reviewed papers

A new research project is being developed on coral diseases with Mote
Marine Lab, Living Oceans Foundation, and NOAA partners. The
Pathobiology Branch is developing a new international registry and
repository for coral pathology for the Coral Disease Health Consortium.
Forty years of invertebrate pathology expertise makes Pathobiology
Branch scientists uniquely qualified to investigate the unknown
etiologies of diseases devastating coral reefs worldwide.

[Overall Evaluation]{.underline}

**The board finds that Pathobiology Branch science is of exceptional
quality and is unique within NOAA.** However, it appears that the
expertise and national importance of the Branch has neither been
recognized nor adequately supported over the last five years. Funding
and vital scientific staff positions have been lost through
administrative actions within NOAA. The science review identified a lack
of long-term line office or agency-wide research projects or lack of
agency support for this group. The review also identified unfilled
critical research staff positions, vacated through retirement and
inadequate funding to hire replacements. Funding losses have prevented
the updating of old equipment which has had negatively impacted Branch
research. To obtain funds to support research priorities scientists have
had to "piggy back" research onto other projects or funding sources. As
a result they do not become senior authors in research publications and
they, the Branch, and NOAA lose recognition and stature**. The need to
increase in-house funding and fill vacant positions is of critical
importance to maintaining a viable aquatic disease program. Because our
nation is experiencing a dramatic rise in aquatic diseases of
environmental and commercially important species the importance of the
Branch program to NOAA has increased greatly**. **These deficiencies
need to be addressed by NOS and NOAA or this unique NOAA program will be
lost**.

# **COASTAL RESEARCH BRANCH**

## OVERVIEW

The NOS Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular
Research at Charleston, South Carolina has over the last 10 to 15 years
developed an internationally and nationally recognized expertise in the
field of harmful algal blooms, their toxins, and associated natural
resource and public health impacts. The Coastal Research Branch (CRB)
and Center administration have set this lead. The success of CRB in part
is due to its personnel and their ability to form collaborative
partnerships. This is a unique and effective program within the federal
government that does not exist elsewhere.

The quality of the science in this Branch exemplifies the highest
standards of science; specifically "credible, reliable, and respected
science". The direction and responsiveness of the science supports
decision-making in regards to natural marine resource and public health
issues. Such issues include detection of diverse perturbations of marine
systems and identification of appropriate responses, in areas of public
and health safety with seafood, potential environmental threats to
public health, and threats to the health of living marine resources.
Obviously, the science that supports decision making also supports
policy development, e.g., policies on seafood safety, policies on
endangered marine animals, and policies on aquaculture and fisheries
management.

## MISSION

The mission statement for this Branch arose from a workshop of
scientists and managers in 1992 organized by the Center. The workshop
results became the "National Plan on Marine Toxins and Harmful Algae"
and NOAA initiated the Marine Biotoxins Program. Statement: "**The
Marine Biotoxins Program provides scientific guidance and directed
research to promote effective management of living marine resources,
ecosystem health and public health on issues involving marine toxins and
harmful algae".** This mission is in agreement with the NOS and NOAA
mission statements.

**PROGRAM**

The core of the CRB is the Marine Biotoxins Program with 26 personnel
and 11 defined research activities from international and national
significance to local significance. This program exemplifies how the
most successful research spans a full continuum from basic to applied
research in an integrated manner. In the Marine Biotoxins Program the
basic research often involves Technological Development; in this case of
methods and protocols or refinement of techniques for detection of
specific substances or conditions. The applied surveillance and
assessment activities of MBP and the users of its products are built on
the results of the technological developments. The work of BRP along the
full continuum is needed to accomplish long-term goals as well as
long-term research, and both are needed to create the database for
assessment and making decisions and formulating policies on coastal
resources.

The Marine Biotoxins Program as the main emphasis of the CRB has an
integrated program of biotoxin detection, characterization and
quantification in different matrices including seawater and marine
animals, e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes. The Program has four
disciplines - taxonomy, molecular biology, chemistry, and toxicology.
With this capability, the group is able to assess fate and effect of
biotoxins or phycotoxins in the food web and environment. The above
capability also provides the ability to research and identify new toxins
and new resource threats. Other program aspects include researching the
termination or demise of harmful algal blooms to determine the mechanism
and investigate potential control measures. The MBP research has
national and international significance, and has resulted in
partnerships with private, state, academic, and other federal groups.
The program also partners at the local level within the state of South
Carolina, and has established a monitoring network using volunteers.

## PERSONNEL

The core team has five senior scientists, 10 scientific staff, and 11
students and postdoctoral fellows in training. In a profile of staff by
Branch, the CRB had a disproportionate percentage of contract staff
compared to the other branches. As discussed in the overview of the
Center itself, reliance on contract employees and students presents
challenges. One of these challenges is maintaining trained personnel as
career employees and thus maintaining the corporate knowledge and
expertise. However despite this difficulty, the program is exemplary in
providing opportunities for training in this field of science and at the
same time providing opportunity for diversity.

## QUALITY OF SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC MERIT, AND SIGNIFICANCE

As noted in the overview the science in this Branch exemplifies the
highest standards of science, with results that are "credible, reliable,
and respected", and effectively supports decision-making and
policy-setting in areas of natural marine resource and public health
issues. The quality and effectiveness of the science is apparent in a
number of indicators.

#### Publications

Between 1996 and 2001 publications by CRB staff represent about 30% of
all publications from CCEHBR. Although a Citation Index search was not,
the Review Panel was confident that such a search would reveal that
their published work is cited frequently by other scientists and by
managers. Many of their publications are industry benchmarks for field
and laboratory techniques, whereas others are examples of particularly
well-integrated research.

[Partnerships]{.underline}

Other supportive information for the significance and need of the
science is the type and number of collaborative partnerships
established.

-   12 South Carolina partners

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   56 national partners

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   22 international partners

Technology development and transfer is a cornerstone of several federal
initiatives and applies to the CRB. For example, personnel have trained
others in the US and foreign countries on how to detect and quantify
specific toxins so their surveillance programs provide greater
protection for public health. Training is only one type of partnering.
Another is being a significant partner in identifying the cause of major
marine resource catastrophes, such as the sea lion mortality in
California in 1998, where CRB staff pinpointed the trophic pathway of
the toxin involved. Still another is that CRB has the capability of mass
culture of toxic microalgae and the ability to purify toxins for
standards. These standards can be used for a variety of research and
monitoring programs such as the development of probes for detection of
toxins in different matrices.

The CRB is regularly requested to assist in responses to HAB events and
in doing so has helped identify the cause of specific mortalities. This
responsiveness is a service, but a service that is based on continued
basic and applied research where techniques were developed and are
continually refined based on new information. An example of the benefits
of such integrated basic and applied research is the increased ability
to assess the significance of metabolized toxins and their byproducts in
the fate and effects of toxins in the food web. CRB scientists are able
to take the technology for detecting toxins and their metabolites and
apply it to research programs that address the origin, fate, and effect
of biotoxins in the marine environment, in long-term research programs
with phase completion stages.

CRB scientists have worked in Maine on PSP and DSP issues, in the
mid-Atlantic and southeast on identifying *Pfiesteria*'s toxin, in the
Gulf of Mexico to understand the fate and effect of brevetoxins in the
food web, as well as several different areas on ASP and its fate. Such
collaborative science has required new techniques or modifications of
techniques. Staff of the CRB have also emphasized the need to identify
and know toxin congeners and toxin metabolites, particularly in animal
tissue.

##### Peer and Client Review

Peer review of the CRB programs and focus is a continuing activity that
occurs via published papers, conference presentations and workshops,
collaborations, and outside funding. Review of the program is also a
continuing effort of the CRB staff in its regular sit-down meetings and
evaluations. In addition, staff of the CRB are responsive to user or
customer needs. This is exemplified by the development of blood
collection cards for the simple collection of material for biotoxin
analysis that can be done anywhere under any conditions. The cards have
the advantage of making sample collection simple, allowing the storage
of toxins in dried blood on cards that can be shipped in regular mail,
and the cards can be processed back at the laboratory with rapid
extraction and a screening procedure. This was a new product for diverse
customers in state agencies, federal agencies, and private laboratories.
The end user was in real need of a rapid method of screening that was
simple.

## BRANCH STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

[Weaknesses]{.underline}

Weaknesses in the program result from trying to serve several masters,
not beng able to increase FTEs and maintain expertise, and problems
replacing old or obsolete equipment, and purchase new equipment. Lack of
FTEs is a particularly severe impediment, because contract workers and
trained professionals move on to other positions with more benefits. It
is not known how the new Hollings Marine Laboratory will help with the
availability of equipment and facilities, nor exactly what components of
the CRB would be located there.

The service function of CRB may be considered a weakness in the sense
that does not permit the achievement of long-term goals. First there is
technology development, then verification of the technology, and then
application. Through application over sufficient time, databases can be
developed that could be of use in assessment of coastal resources and
other resources to determine risk, predict impacts, and provide
contingency plans. However, new demands for the service function arise
before the long-term application by CRB staff can be established, so the
long-term work must be carried on by others.

Although CRB is highly responsive to user needs, there has not been a
survey of needs as identified by the user or customer. If this were
done, it would probably reinforce decisions that the CRB and Center have
already made regarding programs targetting particular needs, but such a
review might be of value nonetheless. It might help to provide clearer
choices among competing priorities, as well as focus discussion better
on whether the CRB should be strictly service or whether it should be
technology development, verification, technology transfer and
development of long term databases.

##### Strengths

It is clear that the CRB is a core part of CCEHBR, sharing its strengths
in sub-organismal research at the molecular and cellular levels in
support of NOAA's mandate. The main strengths are its staff and their
approach to sound science in support of sound, science-based
decision-making. In addition, the Branch provides excellent training to
students and provides technology transfer to scientists and managers at
the national and international level. The transfer is not the end of the
association because guidance is continually provided. The senior
scientists and research scientists are well known within the scientific
community and are sought after as co-investigators on harmful algal
bloom or phytotoxin projects, e.g., Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful
Algal Blooms (ECOHAB).

CRB staff are able to provide emergency response for a HAB event and are
sought for not only initial screening to identify the problem but for
final identification of the biotoxins involved. Their flexibility and
creativity are remarkable. Again, it should be emphasized that this is a
unique and effective program within the federal government that does not
exist elsewhere. The value of identifying species and their toxins is in
then being able to determine what the public health and living natural
resource threat are, and take the necessary actions.

## RECOMMENDATIONS

Provide financial support for replacement and new equipment needed.

Provide FTEs for positions that are now filled by contract workers and
allow vacancies to be filled when they occur.

Facilitate the understanding how the sub-organismal approach contributes
to science-based decision-making within NOAA.

Identify the Center's long-term research function and capabilities
within NOAA as its main function. Those core capabilities and functions
would include technology development, verification, transfer and the
development of long-term databases. Service would still be a component
of the program, but not at the expense of the long-term functions.

**Living Marine Resources Branch**

> The mission statement of the Living Marine Resources Branch is:

"*to provide a scientific basis for assessing the health status of
marine species and for identifying the integrated effects of
environmental stressors/impacts on organisms, populations, and coastal
ecosyste*ms"

The programs of this Branch are focused on the assessment of health of
marine organisms and determination of the effects of environmental
stressors and impacts on those organisms and their ecosystems. The
research targets these processes at the physiological and molecular
levels, as well as incorporating biotechnological techniques to
elucidate ecosystem processes and effects. There are three primary
research areas: (1) functional genomics and molecular genetics,
including biodiversity, species identification, characterization of gene
expression to elucidate biochemical and genetic control mechanisms; (2)
biomarkers for assessing ecosystem health and determining disease
processes, which involves the search for new markers to indicate the
presence of stressors or various types; and (3) marine mammal health
assessment, which is focused primarily on the responses of the
bottlenose dolphin to various stressors.

The ability to assess, monitor, and protect ecosystem health is an
important element of NOAA's mission, as the development and application
of sound management decisions is tightly linked with maintenance of
health of environmental resources. Hence, the activities of this Branch
are directly relevant to NOAA's mission. The marine mammal research is
also relevant to NMFS activities and reflects the history of CCERBR's
affiliation with NMFS, and yet the mammal research is clearly relevant
to the stewardship component of NOAA's mission. The sophisticated
molecular approaches incorporated into much of this Branch's research
represent an innovative strength for CCERBR, and their synergy with
other CCERBR Branch activities (e.g. forensics) probably represents a
unique capacity among NOAA laboratories.

The personnel in this Branch is limited, with seven FTEs and 4 contract
staff. As with other Branch's at CCERBR, a high turn-over rate of junior
staff is a problem, which interferes with research progress. Laboratory
personnel from other Branches contribute, but this draws them away from
their primary duties. Volunteers also contribute, but training of
volunteers takes staff time for training and oversight. There is a clear
need for additional primary researcher positions and technician support.

The Panel was very impressed with the quality of the research, and in
particular with the attempts to incorporate modern molecular tools and
approaches into the various aspects of the program. It was apparent that
progress was being made in the development of creative approaches to
environmental assessment. In particular, the innovative research on the
development of arrays of biomarkers illustrated an ability to utilize
sophisticated approaches "borrowed" from the medical arena for diagnosis
of organism responses to environmental stressors. The research on coral
bleaching also demonstrates the application of modern molecular
approaches to complex process problems. The work on bottlenose dolphins
appears to be founded on appreciable experience with these mammals and
makes an important contribution to understanding the their vulnerability
and responses to contaminants and stressors of various kinds.

Primary research accomplishments include the following:

-   Development of molecular methods for identification of marine animal
    species (tunas, sharks, sea turtle, sciaenids).

-   Participation in multi-institutional collaborative trials for a
    polymerase chain reaction-based technique for identification of the
    Norwalk virus in shellfish.

-   Ongoing development of field diagnostics based on laboratory
    molecular analyses.

-   Application of biomarkers that predicted coral bleaching 2-3 months
    in advance of visible bleaching.

-   Development of risk assessment models to examine effects of
    stressors on marine mammal health.

This Branch disseminates information in a variety of ways. With
assistance from RAIM, a Marine Mammal Information System has been
developed to attempt to identify conditions related to mammal health and
strandings. A video describing the issues relating to coral disease and
reef degradation was produced for distribution. The numbers of
scientific publications appear to be somewhat less than some other
Branches (6 in FY2000), possibly because of the staff limitations or
early developmental stages of some of the research. Because of the
apparent high quality and significance of this research, it is
particularly important that it is made accessible to the research and
user community. We encourage increased emphasis on the publication of
research findings and the timely dissemination of results. There
appeared to be appreciable sharing of research results through
collaborative relationships and participation in meetings, but increased
attention needs to be paid to publication in the research literature.
This not only ensures dissemination of the material, but also provides a
means to ensure high quality of product through peer review.

The greatest obstacle to scientific progress appears to be researcher
and technical staff needs. Some of these needs have been met through
strategic partnerships, but clearly that approach has its limitations.
There are enormous opportunities in the Branch, particularly in areas
relating to biotechnological research. This is a major area of creative
discoveries and problem solving, and with appropriate research
personnel, significant strides should be made addressing a range of
needs, ranging from species identification to pathogen and contaminant
diagnostics. The Branch appears to be sufficiently flexible, and
researchers have adapted to new technical opportunities (e.g.
biotechnological approaches) and changing priorities (adaptation of
mammal program following shift from NMFS). There are considerable
opportunities for advancing science and for addressing NOAA priorities,
if sufficient resources are made available and attention is paid to
dissemination of research results.

With the move into the new Hollings Marine Laboratory, there will be
increased opportunities for partnership and integrative collaborations.
Every effort should be made to take advantage of those opportunities, as
this type of research can benefit considerably by interfacing with the
molecular strengths of the HML partners. However, the full benefits of
the HML resource will not be realized without increased staff support
for the Living Resources Branch.

Specific Recommendations:

-   Continue with focus on biotechnological research and creative
    approaches to Branch research programs.

-   Address researcher and staff deficiencies.

-   Take advantage of collaborative opportunities provided by HML.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improve dissemination of results through increased publication of
    original research.

### Risk Analysis and Information Management Branch

The mission statement of RAIM is:

*"to develop risk management information and predictive capabilities for
use by natural resource manageres, public health agencies, commercial
interests, and other partners."*

This Branch incorporates two important functions: the management of
information and the use of that information for risk analysis. An
important objective is to ensure that the data are managed in a way that
they are available and useful for coastal management.

With data and information management, the Branch faces a common problem:
getting vast amounts of data in a form for maximum utility. Particularly
complex are the problems associated with databases, such as metadata
format, quality assurance, and quality control. Nevertheless, staff
appear to recognize these difficulties and the need to find solutions to
streamline data management and utility. Partnerships are particularly
important here, as these are common difficulties and common solutions
are necessary for effective information transfer and shared use.
Examples of such partnerships include:

-   State and federal linkages (EPA, FDA) for the SIMS database.

-   EPA, FDA, coastal states, and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
    Conference in formulating management actions related to risk
    assessment in coastal systems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Cape Romain Ecological Characterization utilizes protocols
    established by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System

This Branch also provides the expertise required for the CCEHBR's
computer services and infrastructure. This is clearly an essential
service, and it is important to maintain sufficient personnel and
resource support.

The risk analysis effort is focused on four areas: (1) shellfish
pathogens risk reduction; (2) national shellfish information system
(SIMS); (3) ecological characterization (presently focused on Cape
Romain National Wildlife Refuge):, and (4) spatial data analysis service
and support (e.g. GIS). These are all important efforts, which are not
only important in themselves but also provide valuable models for
extension to additional needs and uses. . Significant accomplishments in
these areas include the following:

-   Development of SIMS, a relational database of water quality and
    information on molluscan shellfish used in classification of U.S.
    coastal waters for shellfish harvest.

-   Assessment of risk associated with *Vibrio* spp. linked to raw
    shellfish and methyl mercury concentration in large predators.

-   Development of spatial data analysis capabilities for CCEHBR
    scientists.

-   Spatial analysis of southeast fisheries data to identify
    biologically significant areas in the South Atlantic Bight.

-   Provision of spatial data to support research and information on
    protected species, coral health, and ecotoxicology.

-   Provision of database management capabilities, software solutions,
    computer support, and connectivity for CCEHBR, NMFS, and NIST staff.

-   Progress in integration of HML network and communications systems
    with CCEHBR.

The risk analysis research is an important product of this group and it
directly addresses NOAA's mission. The information technology component
is absolutely essential to CCEHBR, and will need to be updated as
technology advances for CCEHBR's research program to remain competitive.

In summary, this Branch covers essential needs of CCEHBR in the areas of
computer and database support, information management, and the use of
information to develop approaches for risk analysis. It is necessary
that the infrastructure and expertise of the Branch keeps pace with the
rapid development of information technologies and increase in
environmental information. Care must be taken to make sure that
sufficient personnel and resources are maintained in this Branch. It was
not clear whether that was indeed the case, and we endorse the
importance of these activities and of maintaining appropriate strength
in information.

Specific recommendations:

-   Ensure that RAIM is sufficiently staffed to support computer and
    modeling needs of CCEHBR's complete research effort.

-   Continue to establish partnerships and collaborations with other
    institutions and programs focused on environmental data management,
    to optimize shared resources and capacity for data sharing and
    integration.

-   Maintain computing infrastructure and ensure that it keeps pace with
    hardware and software developments.

**Forensic Branch**

The Forensic Branch is an applied multidisciplinary branch that is
staffed with assigned personnel as well as other CCEHBR staff when
needed for specific cases. The mission statement of Forensic Branch is:

> "...to provide technical and scientific support to State and Federal
> Law Enforcement and regulatory agencies to facilitate the enforcement
> acts and regulations designed to protect marine resources"

**Capabilities**

As an applied science the Forensic Branch provides analytical
examination of evidentiary material submitted by State and Federal Law
Enforcement agencies in cases involving endangered, protected, or
regulated marine species. These cases usually involve violations of
Federal regulations such as those codified by the Endangered Species
Act, Magnuson Act, and Lacey Act, etc.

**Highlights**

Outstanding activities of the program include:

1\) The Lipid Chemistry program within the Forensic Branch is exemplary.
The lipid profiles provide the ability for species identification for
evidentiary items that do not contain proteins or DNA markers, such as
cosmetics and oils.

2\) The Forensic program has developed new protocols for the
determination of source of

> 1\) Marine turtles species
>
> 2\) Sciaenidae family
>
> 3\) Shark species
>
> 4\) Tuna species
>
> 5\) Cultured versus wild bass

3\) The Forensic program had validated species identification protocols
so that they will comply with the rigorous "Daubert Criteria" for the
admission of scientific data to the courts.

4\) The Forensics program is in the process of developing a Standards
Archive that currently holds over 9000 samples

5\) Branch staff are very active in organizing workshops and sessions
for regional and national meetings and workshops.

6) Strong relationship with leading Forensic Laboratories.

# **Significance and Impacts**

The major significance of the Forensic Branch is that it enables State
and Federal Law Enforcement officers to prosecute violators of wildlife
laws and thus protect dwindling marine resources. This process fulfills
a NOS objective, mainly, the preservation and restoration of US coastal
and ocean environments. **There is no other Laboratory in the USA that
can assist Federal Law Enforcement officers with marine violations.**

The number of legal cases in which the Forensic Branch personnel has
participated has exponentially increased since 1995. Additionally, the
number of taxa that can be analyzed has also increased impressively.

# **Branch Strengths**

Many of the Forensic Branch strong points have been mentioned above.
These include:

-   Sole source analytical support for Federal Law Enforcement officers
    enforcing marine violations.

-   An understanding of the Legal system.

-   Court accepted science

-   Very strong interdisciplinary research.

# **Branch Weaknesses** {#branch-weaknesses .unnumbered}

-   Despite some achievements, the Forensic Branch should increase the
    number of peer-reviewed publications.

-   The Forensic Branch research program lacks a Proteomics component.
    Since the completion of the human Genomic project the research trend
    is to investigate the products of gene expression. Proteomics fits
    this niche exceptionally well and will in the near future be of
    great assistance to Wildlife Forensic laboratories involved in
    determining species from evidentiary items of unknown source.

-   Lack of an on-staff Veterinary Pathologist.

-   Lack of scientists (FTE or contractual). This program currently
    operates with only 4 scientists and 4 technicians.