^Dsr%,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Off ICE OF
toe ADMINISTRATOR

July 30, 1991

EPA-SAB-EPEG-91-012

The Honorable William Reilly
Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Reilly,

The Marine Disease/Diagnostic Task Group of the
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the Science
Advisory Board has completed its review of a proposal for
establishing a National Center for Marine and Estuarine
Disease Research at EPA's Gulf Breeze Environmental Research
Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida. The center was proposed
out of scientific and public awareness that human
populations and actions in coastal areas are having
detrimental impacts on some aquatic resources in coastal
regions of the United States. Currently, there is no
centralized Federal program to assure that technical
knowledge and expertise is available to investigate and
address these impacts.

The Task Group was asked to review the concept of the
proposed center, its scope, objectives, and plans for
implementation for relevance to the overall needs and
feasibility. The Group received the draft proposal in
January and met at Gulf Breeze on February 19 and 20, 1991
for briefings and a tour of the existing facilities.

The task Group agrees that there is a need to establish
a center for research in marine and estuarine diseases.
However, because there are many organizations currently
involved in one or more aspect of such research, the Task
Group recommends that this facility be identified as an EPA
center, not a National Center. Overall, the Task Group
found that the proposal was very generic, lacking details on
how the goals would be accomplished. In addition, the scope
was overly broad and significant revisions were recommended.
The Task Group recommended that the priorities for the
center be revised and that research projects should be
developed within the context and operational framework of
EPA's Seducing Risk program. Expertise within EPA, other
Federal agencies, states, private institutions, and

Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
EPA's Reducing Risk program. Expertise within epa, other
Federal agencies, states, private institutions, and
universities should be integrated into this new gberl
program through extramural research, planning, and peer
review activities.

The development of an EPA Center for Marine and
Estuarine Disease should be an important step toward
understanding how the ecological integrity of coastal
aquatic ecosystems could be threatened by anthropogenic
induced stresses. We look forward to your consideration of
our recommendations and to the successful development of
such a center.

Sincerely

Chairman

Science Advisory Board

Ecological Processes and

Effects Committee

Dr. Richard A. Kimerle, PhD.
Chairman

Marine Disease/Diagnostic
Task Group

-------
A

' CO A

Protection Agency	EPA-SAS-EPEC-91-012

EPA	^S EnvIronmentaI	Washington, DC

1,

V\

Report of The
Marine Disease Diagnostic

Task Group of The
Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee

Evaluation of The
Proposed Center for Marine

t*v

and Estuarine Disease
Research

A SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REPORT

July, 19i1

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTICE

This report has been written as a part of the
activities of the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory
group providing extramural scientific information and advice
to the Administrator and other officials of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to
provide a balanced expert assessment of scientific matters
related to problems facing the Agency. This report has not
been reviewed for approval by the Agency; and, hence, the
contents of this report does not necessarily represent the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or
other Agencies in the Federal Government. Mention of trade
names or commercial products do not constitute a
recommendation for use.

-------
ABSTRACT

This report presents the conclusions and
recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Science Advisory Board following a review of an EPA
proposal for a national center for marine and estuarine
disease research- The Task Group agreed that there is a
need for a center related to diseases of marine and
estuarine organisms and that the Gulf Breeze Environmental
Research Laboratory was a logical site for an EPA center.
The Task Group was concerned that in order to achieve the
desired results the proposal needed to be revised. They
recommended that the scope of the proposal be reduced, more
details be added, and that the pathobiology group reach out
to other technical areas for support and ideas in the
planning and implementation stage. Strategies on how each
of the proposed programs will be chosen and implemented
should be added.

key WORDS; Marine Diseases? Pollution induced disease?
Research Center.

ii

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Ecological Processes And Effects Committee
Marine Disease Diagnostic Task Group

ROSTER

Chairperson

Dr. Richard Kimerle
Senior Science Fellow
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Blvd
St. Louis, Missouri 63167

Members/Consultants

Dr. Edwin L. Cooper

Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology

School of Medicine

UCLA

Los Angeles, California 90024

Dr. Kenneth L. Dickson
Director

University of North Texas
Institute of Applied Sciences
P. O. Box 13078
Denton, Texas 76203

Dr. Richard T. Di Giulio

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Duke University

Durham, North Carolina 27706

Dr. John C. Harshbarger

Director, Registry in Tumors for Lower Animals

Room W216A, MRC-163

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institute

10th Constitution Avenue, NW.

Washington, D. C. 20560

Dr. Robert Huggett
Professor

Virginia Institute of Marine Science
School of Marine Sciences
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

Dr. John Stegeman

iii

-------
Biology Department

Woods Hole Oceanograph ic Institute

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02453

Dr. Lee R. Shugart
Environmental Sciences Division
Oalc Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

Federal Liaison

Dr. Usha Varanasi
Director

Environmental Conservation Division
Northwest Fisheries Centers
2725 Montlake Boulevard
Seattle, Washington 98112-2097

Science Advisory Staff

Dr. Edward S. Bender

Biologist and Executive Secretary

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Science Advisory Board

401 M Street, SW.

Washington, D. C. 20460

Mrs. Frances A. Dolby

Secretary to the Executive Secretary

iv

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

l.o Executive Suratary	.....			.	2

2.0 Introduction.				..,			3

2.1	The Proposal		..			4

2.2	charge To Reviewers				4

2.3 Task Group Review Procedures			.. 5

3.0 General Comments On Proposal to Establish Center....5
4.0 Specific Comments On The Questions.						 6

4.1	Need for a National Center.			6

4.2	Center Location,		.....' — 1

4.3	Federal Agency Participants..... — 		.7

4.4	Coordination with National Plans and Policy...?

4.5	Relationship to State, University, and Other

Non-Federal Organisations.		.8

4.6	Identification of Priority Disease Problems—8

4.7	Balancing Research With Other

Center Activities						 9

4.8	Intramural and Extradural Research............9

4.9	Staffing Mix and Hiring Schedule....	...10

4.10	Budget and Resource Allocation..	.10

S.O SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS. 				10

V

-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Marine Disease/Diagnostic Task Group of the
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the Science
Advisory Board net with personnel at the Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory (GBERL) on February 19 and
20, 1991 to review a proposal for establishing a National
Center for Marine and Estuarine Disease Research. Ten
specific questions were presented to the Task Group which
dealt with technical program content, interactions with
other agencies and scientists, facilities, budget, and
personnel. Justification for the proposed center was based
on scientific and public concerns that some human activities
and byproducts are having detrimental impacts on aquatic
resources in coastal regions of the United States. Valued
populations of plants, invertebrates, fishes, turtles,
seals, and dolphins have quantitatively and qualitatively
declined from mass mortalities associated with infectious
diseases. Except for the related efforts of the NOAA Status
and Trends program, no specific centralized federal program
provides the technical expertise to understand and
appropriately address this environmental issue or to
organize the myriad of federal and state programs that are
addressing some aspects of these issues.

The intent of the proposal was to address several key
issues: (l) To achieve a better understanding of diseases in
coastal plants and animals; (2) Understand the influence of
pollutants on disease and host-parasites? (3) Stimulate
research on etiology, mechanisms of action, immunology, and
cause-effects relationships; (4) Stabilize long term funding
for research and provide a mechanism for exchange of
technical information; and (5) Provide a central group to
investigate and resolve marine disease issues. These goals
were to be met in an intramural and extramural programs that
together would grow from five persons and less than $500 K
in 1992 to 38 persons (including visiting scientists and
postdoctoral students) and a budget of $3600 K by 1997,

The Task Group was in unanimous agreement that there is
a need for the EPA to fund a center related to diseases of
marine and

estuarine organisms. The general program goals were judged
by the Task Group as appropriate for eventual inclusion in a
comprehensive national program of the type being proposed.
It was also concluded by the Task Group that the EPA GBERL
was a logical site for such an IPA center as an extension of
the existing pathobiology program and its associated
expertise and facilities.

There was concern expressed by the Task Group, however,
that in order for this marine and estuarine disease program

2

-------
to achieve the desired results the proposal required
extensive revisions. Consideration should be given to: 1)
reducing the overly ambitious scope of the proposal, which
was referred to by the Group, as "long on goals and short on
substance" and "trying to be all things to all people"? and
2) presenting more informative details and plans on how each
of the proposed programs will be chosen, implemented, and
safeguarded from conflicts of interest.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The u. s. Environmental Protection Agency has the"'
responsibility and authority under several legislative acts
(Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, Federal
Insecticide , Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Toxic
Substances Control Act, and Clean Water Act) to conduct the
research necessary for support of regulations to assure the
health status of flora and fauna in marine and estuarine
ecosystems. Specific program responsibilities lie within
the Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Office of
Environmental Processes and Effects Research (OEPER).
The Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory (GBERL)
has had an on-going research program in marine pathobiology
for many years. Personnel of the GBERL conducted a mail
survey of experts in the field to determine what level of
support existed for the establishment of a Center on marine
organism diseases. These same experts were asKed if a
special conference on the subject would be useful. The
results of the mail survey were generally positive on both
questions and a conference was held in November of 1990,
called the Gulf Breeze Symposium on Marine and Estuarine
Diseases Research. Interest was also expressed by the
conference participants for a establishing a center of
expertise to address this critical environmental issue.

The need for such a Center also arises out of a general
scientific concern and public awareness that some human
activities and byproducts are having detrimental impacts on
aquatic resources in coastal regions of the United states.
Valued populations of plants, invertebrates, birds, fishes,
turtles, seals, and dolphins have quantitatively and
qualitatively declined from mass mortalities, reproductive
impairment, and deformities due to toxic substances,
indigenous or introduced infectious diseases, immune
suppression, and cancer. While the basic ecological
integrity of coastal aquatic ecosystems could be threatened
by pollutant induced stresses. Only one specific
centralized federal program, noaa*s status and Trends
Program, has the technical knowledge and expertise
available to understand and appropriately address the full
range of thes environmental issues and it is inadequately

3

-------
funded for the magnitude of the job. To rectify these
shortcomings, a proposal was prepared and submitted by the
GBERL for establishing "The National Center for Marine and
Estuarine Diseases Research (CMED).

2«1 The Proposal

The stated goals of the proposed center were to: (1)
Achieve a better understanding of diseases in coastal plants
and animals; (2) Understand the influence of pollutants on
disease, pathobiology, and host-parasite relationships; (3)
Stimulate research on etiology, mechanisms of action,
immunology, and cause-effects relationships,* (4) Stabilize
long term funding for research in EPA; (5) Provide a
mechanism for exchange of technical information; and (6)
Provide a central group to investigate and resolve marine
disease problems. These goals were to be met by an
intramural and extramural program that would grow from five
persons and less than $500 K in 1992 to 38 persons
(including visiting scientists and postdoctoral) and a
budget of $3600 K by 1997.

2.2 Charge To The Science Advisory Board Task Group

The Task Group of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee of the Science Advisory Board met with personnel
at the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory on
February 19 and 20, 1991 to review the proposal for
,establishing a National Center for Marine and Estuarine
Diseases Research. The charge to the Task Group consisted
of ten specific questions. The questions were;

1.	Is there a need for a National Center for Research on
Diseases of Marine and Estuarine Organisms?

2.	Is the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency*s Gulf
Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory an appropriate site
for such a Center?

3.	What other federal agencies should participate in the
Centers's activities?

4.	Do the GBERL plans fit appropriately into the larger
framework of the National Ocean Pollution Plan and the EPA's
National Coastal and Marine Policy?

5.	How should state, university, and other non-federal
agencies and institutions be related to the Center?

6.	What should be the specific disease problems that
require initial attention of the Center, from two

4

-------
perspectives: 1) political or public policy,* and 2)
scientific?

7.	What should the proper balance be between research
activities and other activities of the Center?

8.	Is the suggested balance between the current in-house
activities and the extramural activities appropriate?

9.	Is the plan for staff appropriate with respect to the
mix of anticipated scientific disciplines and the time scale
of hiring?

10.	Is the budget appropriate in terms of its division
between research and other activities and the mix of
government and non-government research?

2.3 Task Group Review Procedures

The Task Group was provided with copies of the Gulf
Breeze proposal prior to our meeting, A list of
publications from the pathobiology program, and budget
information was provided upon request at the meeting.

During the meeting, the Task Group received oral briefings,
toured the existing laboratory facility, and developed
preliminary comments. Dr. Menzer, Director, Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory, requested that the Task
Group provide him with a written response to the first two
questions of the charge within a few weeks, so that the
opinions of the Task Group could affect considerations for
the next year's budget allocations. A copy of that response
is included in Appendix A.

3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH CENTER

The Task Group was unanimous in its support for the
establishment of a Center for Diseases in Marine and
Istuarine Organisms. As increases in human populations
occur in our coastal regions, concomitant increases in
domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollutant stresses
can be expected to adversely impact valued marine and
estuarine species and their ecosystems. A Center of
expertise that conducts research and coordinates information
which is relevant to solving the anticipated or predicted
diseases in marine organisms is a required adjunct to
existing federal programs charged with protecting the
environment. Because of the many agencies, institutions,
and universities currently involved in several aspects of
diseases in marine organisms, the Task Group recommended
that EPA not to refer to it as a National Center. Instead,

5

-------
they recommended that the proposed center be an EPA Center
For Marine and Estuarine Diseases.

The Task Group raised several problems with respect to
the content of the proposal. They found it to be very
ambitious in scope and verbose in its listing of goals and
attributes, but vague in language, and very terse on details
of HOW goals were to be accomplished. In summary, the Task
Group urged that the proposal be extensively revised before
the full potential and benefits of a Center could be
realized.

The Task Group deemed several programs in the proposal
to be essential and of high priority. Specific
recommendations included;

1)	Research on anthropogenic caused diseases?

2)	Crisis response, assessment, and correction?

3)	Extension of the research through inter/intra-agency
cooperation ?

4)	Inclusion of GBEML's expertise in ecotoxicology,

microbiology, and analytical chemistry?

5)	Training of young scientists through fellowships and

graduate assistance.

Programs in the proposal that should be given a lower
priority included;

l) Monitoring?

2} Standardization;

3) Certification.

Other important aspects of the program that the Task Group
identified as important included:

1) Publication of results?

2} Programs should fit into EPA goals of reducing

risks;

3)	A balance in intramural and extramural programs?

4)	A balance in research, crises assessment, and

extension;

5f Training workshops at the center?

6)	Teamwork among the staff within GBERL and with other

EPA laboratories?

7)	Establishment of a Scientific Advisory Group to

guide program development?

8)	Budgeting for personnel and facilities after

identification of programs? and

9)	A phased approach to implementing programs.

4.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON QUESTIONS TO TASK GROUP
4.1 Need for a National Center

As discussed earlier, the Task Group agreed that there
is a need for a Center related to diseases of marine and

6

-------
estuarine organisms. However, it should cafe be titled a
National Center. Instead a more appropriate title would be
"EPA Center For Diseases Of Marine and Estuarine organisms".

4.2	Center Location

The GBERL is a logical site for establishment of a
Center for Diseases of Marine and Estuarine Organisms,
because there is a productive history of pathobiology
research at GBERL and this new proposal is a logical
extension of that program. However, for such a Center to be
established there is a substantial need for considerable
enhancement of staff, facilities, and resources* The new
program would be further enhanced by including other
sections of the laboratory's expertise (ecotoxicology,
microbiology, and analytical chemistry) in planning and
implementing the disease programs. The Task Group
recognized an obvious omission of these important
disciplines. In light of the growth of GBERL program
activities that would take place if the center were
established, the Task Group also urges that other EPA
laboratories (notably Narragansett and Duluth) to be
involved in discussions concerning the implementation and
planning of this center (See Recommendations).

4.3	Federal Agency Participants

All agencies that have existing programs or
jurisdiction over others as well as those that support
extramural research in diseases in marine organisms should
be deemed as participants. The list of agencies is long but
those considered prominent would include NOAA, DOI, USFWS,
NIH, FDA, USDA, NSF, DOE, numerous state programs, and
Departments of Army and Navy. Before the disease program
becomes extensive in development, a serious attempt should
be made to include many agencies that could be involved in
the extramural programs. Such agencies should be consulted
for their advice and to establish meaningful interactions.
There is a great need for the EPA and all federal agencies
to perform more efficiently in coordinating programs. The
Task Group encourages the EPA personnel involved with
planning this effort to work closely with other agencies. A
total commitment should be made to cooperation between
agencies.

4.4	Coordination with National Plans and Policy

The Task Group was given copies of the framework of the
National Ocean Pollution Plan and the EPA's National Coastal
and Marine Policy Prior to the review. The Task Group

7

-------
believes that the proposed Center would fit into those
frameworks *

4.5	Relationship to state, University, and Other
Non-Federal Organizations

For the Center to fulfill its potential and to
accomplish its objectives, it will be necessary to develop
an effective network of collaborative activities with
scientists in state, university, and other institutions.
State agencies can, with proper guidance and training, play
a critical role in crisis assessment. Universities can
greatly assist in the basic research needs essential to
understanding the diseases of marine and estuarine
organisms. Universities have the infrastructure to assist
in delivering the extension component of the proposed
Center. Other institutions should be related to the
Center's program by being involved in; (1) planning where
appropriate, (2) sharing the extramural programs through
research projects funded by the center, (3) establishing
workshops and review meetings, and (4) publishing results.

Interdisciplinary activities can only be defined once
the intramural activities have been adequately defined. It
might be useful to utilize the advisory group approach to
assist in assuring this extension function is adequately
developed.

4.6	Identification of Priority Disease Problems

The proposal was quite weak in describing priority
disease problems thus the review group was not able to
identify precisely what was to be done at the center, except
that it would address "high priority" issues. The Center
requires an understanding of what the nation's needs are
with respect to priority disease problems, and perhaps the
advisory group could, once again, assist here. In addition,
thorough literature search would also be valuable. The
Center should not follow existing laboratory personnel's
expertise and let them to proceed without caution. If
retraining is necessary then this important component is
essential.

The Task Group felt that the Center should focus its
activities on defining interactions of anthropogenic
stressors and diseases in economic, political, and
ecologically important marine and estuarine organisms. The
Center is strongly urged to initially addressing certain
highly visible disease issues since it will improve the
EPA's public credibility. Of primary importance is the
selection of programs that must mesh with the mission of the
EPA, preferably those which reduce risk.

8

-------
4.7	Balancing Research With Other Center Activities

The proposed activities for the Center include
research, crises assessment, information management and
extension. These are all important components of an
integrated plan for attacking the dearth of knowledge
concerning diseases of marine and estuarine organisms.

Where to place the emphasis must consider resources
available and the strategy for implementation. Due to the
historical activities of the Gulf Breeze ERL in research^ it
is important to continue a strong research capability.
Extension activities which will seek to transfer the
capabilities developed via research programs is an essential
and an integral component of the Center. It is recommended
that a 33;33;33 ratio be maintained between research,
extension, and crises assessment. The Task Group found that
the plans in the proposal to coordinate and set priorities
among the manifold activities were weakly discussed at best,

4.8	Intramural and Extramural Research

The proposal needs to be revised to address in more
detail the lines of research that would be undertaken with
center funding by scientists inside and outside the EPA. It
is agreed that an extramural research program is an
extremely important part of the proposed Center. The
proportion of internal and external research should probably
be about 50:50. It will be necessary to define carefully an
adequate mechanism by which funds will be used to support
extramural research and especially how the allocation of
extramural funds will be completely separated from the
intramural program to eliminate any perception of a conflict
of interest. The NIH has dealt with this problem for many
years and their solution could be used as a model. It might
be advisable to physically separate these two functions by
having the extramural funds administered by the Narragansett
EPA laboratory.

4.9	staffing Mix and Hiring Schedule

The proposal establishes a mechanism for setting
, research priorities through an advisory committee. However,
the proposed budget is very specific in identifying the
kinds of expertise that will be sought in adding new staff.
This implies that the priorities have already been decided.
To correct this apparent inconsistency, additional
information should be included in the proposal which outline
and justify the necessary scientific disciplines and numbers
of scientists required to staff the Center. The proposal
should relate how existing personnel's capabilities fill
part of this need. Plans for filling remaining voids in
skills at the GBERL should be explained in the proposal.

9

-------
Whether the deficiencies will be met by new hires, transfer
of personnel from other branches, or collaboration with
universities should be articulated. Evidence is needed to
show that staffing requirements have been thoroughly
evaluated.

There appears to be a discrepancy between the stated
mission of the Center, that is to identify the interactions
of anthropogenic stressors and diseases in marine and
estuarine organisms, and the kinds of expertise to be hired
based on the proposed budget. All the new positions
proposed are in the fields of pathobiology or closely
related disciplines. This reflects the historical research
interests of the proponents of the center. However, to
accomplish the mission of the Center there is a requirement
for an interdisciplinary team of pathobiologists,
environmental chemists, and ecologists. The proposed budget
needs to better justify the reasons for not including these
disciplines in the staffing plan or it should be modified.

4.10 Budget and Resource Allocation

This question was somewhat difficult to answer due to
lack of clear specificity that was presented for the
proposed activities, i.e., research and staffing mix.
However, the budget appears to be reasonable if the scope of
the proposed Center is focused in a manner consistent with
these recommendations of the Task Group. As the proposal is
^currently written, it outlines rather sweeping goals and
objectives. Neither the goals nor the objectives can be
accomplished using the proposed budget and time frame as
outlined* More thought and development is^ required.

5.0 SUMMARY OF BEC0MH8KDATI0NS

Specific issues and programs were identified by the
Task Group as important and worth emphasis:

(1)	Eliminate "national" from the title and refer to it as
the "EPA Center For Marine And Estuarine Diseases";'*

(2)	Identify and develop the Center's 'research projects
clearly within the context and operational framework of the
EPA's Reducing Risk Program as formulated by the Science
Advisory Board?

(3)	Focus on areas of research related to anthropogenic
stresses which cause diseases in both economically and
ecologically important species?

10

-------
(4)	Develop the vitally needed crisis response investigation
capability;

(5)	Integrate the environmental toxicity/disease programs
from the Narragansett and Duluth EPA laboratories, other
federal and state agencies, and universities, into this new
6BERL program?

(6)	Develop an extramural program, with strong safeguards
against conflicts of interest, that involves other
institutions and professionals in planning, conducting
research, participating in workshops, and publishing

results, in a manner that enhances the in-house program;

(7)	Include the ecotoxicology, microbiology, immunology, and
analytical chemistry capabilities and expertise now existing
at the Gulf Breeze Laboratory within the new marine disease
program; this recommendation appeared to be a major
omission;

(8J The proposal requires a more detailed description of the
relationship between existing GBERL staff and facilities and
the programs to be initiated over time as related to new
budget considerations for facilities, equipment, and
personnel. The Task Group did not recommend a high priority
be given to the proposed monitoring, standardization, and
certification programs because of high demands on available
resources.

Although the proposal addressed most of the above
subjects, the Task Group found it difficult to provide a
concise review of the proposal. The main problem was
related primarily to an insufficient amount of detail,
focus, and clarity in several portions of the document. The
Task Group felt it was the responsibility of the authors to
formulate sufficient details so that a comprehensive review
could be performed in the future. The Task Group believes
that implementation of a program that seriously considers
the concerns expressed in this review will increase the
probability of establishing the new Center that will realize
these important goals.

11

-------