September 9, 1997
EPA-S AB-EC-LTR-97-013
Honorable Fred Hansen
Deputy Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Subject: Report from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Lookout Panel on
Freshwater Ecosystems
Dear Mr. Hansen:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of the July Lookout Panel on
Freshwater Ecosystems. Like the previous Lookout Panel with the Office of Pesticide Programs,
this one depended primarily on the expertise of Agency executives and staff. It differed from the
previous Panel in that participants came from many different parts of the Agency and in that it
included a representative from Environment Canada. This panel also experimented with the idea
of using a geographic focus for the discussion, in this case, the upper Mississippi River basin.
Representatives from EPA's Region 5 greatly enriched the conversation with their knowledge of
this area.
This discussion showed once again that the Agency executives and staff are an excellent
source of expertise on emerging issues. The discussion was rich in ideas and knowledge about the
problems of the past and those that are beginning to appear or may appear in the near future. It
also demonstrated once again the difficulty we all have in thinking several decades into the future.
As mentioned in our report of the previous lookout panel, we may need to introduce some new
approaches to getting "beyond the horizon". This issue can be taken up by the Executive
Committee subcommittee recently established to plan lookout panel meetings. One possible
approach is to use the information provided by the lookout panel to build various scenarios that
would help take us into the more distant future. Another, raised by one of the EPA participants,
is to extend the session into two or more days, allowing more time to develop group dynamics
and share background information before brainstorming ideas.
A summary of the Lookout Panel discussions is contained in Attachment A.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair
Executive Committee
-------
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS AT SAB LOOKOUT PANEL MEETING ON JULY 24, 1997
I. Introductory remarks
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair of the Executive Committee, briefly described the SAB's futures
work so far. She pointed out that this meeting includes people from many different parts of the
Agency and a representative from Environment Canada.
Ms. Anne Barton, SAB staff, introduced the exercise materials, including short summaries of
EPA's past focus on freshwater ecosystems, an introduction to ecosystems services and some
material on the upper Mississippi. The objective was to speculate about the services and stressors
of freshwater ecosystems that may become increasingly important in the future. The exercise
used the upper Mississippi as a model or laboratory for our discussion in the hope that this narrow
geographic focus would make it easier to carry our thoughts several decades into the future.
Mr. William Franz, Region 5, described some of the ways the Mississippi has changed as a result
of human intervention, especially connected with its use as a transportation corridor. The
northern portion was once a broad floodplain river composed of a meandering channel with large
expanses of wetlands. The river flooded the plain around it every spring. Now the levees and
dams interfere with this connection between the floodplain and the river. When flooding does
occur, it is damaging to the human development that has built up on the flood plain. Wetlands
and edge habitats have been greatly reduced, thus reducing biodiversity.
II. Issues
A. Drivers
1. Agriculture is currently the most important driver in the Upper Mississippi
River Basin and is expected to remain dominant for decades. It is
important both as the major land use in the area and because the
international market for agricultural products drives the demand for
maintaining and using the Mississippi as a transportation corridor.
2. Urban sprawl and population growth are also expected to impact the area,
creating some demand for other uses of the river, though not to the extent
of replacing agriculture as the dominant driver.
B. Sources and stressors
1. Physical
A-1
-------
a. The levees and dams required to maintain a transportation corridor
have been the major sources of change in the river in the past,
removing much of the vegetation, wetlands, and edge habitat.
Since the demand for transportation is expected to continue or
increase, this trend is likely to continue unless actions are taken to
restore and maintain some of the original habitat type.
b. Climate change may impact the area both from increase in
catastrophic weather events, making flooding more of a problem
and from temperature change, which will change both natural flora
and fauna and cropping patterns.
c. Drainage tiles are used in much of the cropland. This is expected to
continue to be the case in the future. These and the expected
increase in hard surfaces will continue the trend toward diverting
drainage flow from natural streams.
d. The ecosystem effects of propulsion from the barges are not well
understood.
2. Biological
a. Non-indigenous species have already been a problem in parts of the
Mississippi and its tributaries. The expected increase in
transportation will increase the opportunities for introducing new
non-indigenous species, even though some measures are now being
taken to reduce their introduction from ships ballast. Habitat
destruction encourages the establishment of these non-indigenous
species by disrupting the environment that has accommodated
native species. Another possible source of exotic species is the
introduction of bioengineered species used in agriculture.
b. An increase in disease carrying vectors, including those resistant to
pesticides, might result from a combination of climate change
(warming and flooding) and reduction in control species.
Restoration of wetlands could actually contribute to this problem by
providing habitat for vector species.
Chemical
a. At present, water quality in the Mississippi itself is fairly good
except for some hot spots. Nutrients are a problem in some
tributaries and in groundwater. There are also some toxic chemical
hot spots.
A-2
-------
b. Non-point sources are already more important than point sources in
contributing to chemical stressors. This trend is expected to
continue, though some point sources might increase as described in
c-e.
c. The frequency of chemical spills is likely to increase as
transportation increases.
d. Catastrophic weather events could release highly polluted sediments
behind dams.
e. Flooding not controlled by dams and levees could also release
chemicals stored in the former flood plain.
f Long distance atmospheric transport of chemicals is likely to
become an increasing problem in the future.
g. Changes in land use could introduce new sources of toxic
chemicals.
C. Effects
1. The major effect of the man-made changes in the ecosystem in the past
appears to be a decrease in biodiversity. Most trends indicate that this will
continue unless actions are taken to reverse it.
2. Increases in vector-borne diseases and new species of pathogenic
microorganisms could have important effects on human health.
3. Non-indigenous species can become a nuisance to various human activities,
in addition to reducing biodiversity.
4. Climate change, whether caused by local or global factors, could result in
severe economic costs from flooding and from the need to change crop
patterns.
D. Services
1. The dominant service demanded of the Mississippi is transportation. This
is expected to continue, but effects of climate change such as major floods
may make it an increasingly expensive service.
2. Other services demanded by non-farming residents and Native Americans
are increasingly important, though unlikely to rival the agricultural
demands in the foreseeable future. In this respect, the Mississippi differs
A-3
-------
from other major river basins such as the Columbia, where conflicts already
exist between equally strong sectors of the community.
3. Understanding of the relationship of stressors to services is incomplete. It
was difficult to list the services at risk from loss of biodiversity, although
recreational services involving fish and wildlife would clearly be included.
Aesthetics and ecotourism were also mentioned.
4. Because of the changes in the river flow and adjacent land use pattern,
flood control is a service that requires constant and increasingly expensive
human intervention.
E. Response
1. The Army Corps of Engineers (the major Federal player on the Mississippi
River) has begun to manage for multiple use rather than transportation
alone.
2. We need better technology for managing drainage and flooding.
3. Ways to manage non-point source pollution are already known and in many
cases would actually save money, but they are difficult to implement
because of the fragmented nature of the agricultural industry. A trend to
mega-farms would make the initial introduction easier, but would not
provide the enduring ethic possible with family farming
4. There are economic and political barriers to factoring the cost of
maintaining levees and dams into transportation costs.
5. To the extent that transportation costs increase or that pollution controls
are costly, the costs would be difficult for agriculture to absorb. The
nature of the international market does not allow farmers the same
flexibility to pass on their increased costs that other industries have.
6. It is becoming increasingly clear that many emerging issues require
management on an ecosystem basis, but there are structural, legislative, and
policy barriers to doing so.
7. Restoration of habitat to full functionality is hampered by our limited
knowledge of ecosystem processes and dynamics. Furthermore, natural
systems are extremely diverse across the landscape, and we have learned
that knowledge of or experience in one habitat type is not necessarily
transferable to others.
A-4
-------
F. Research and development needed to deal with emerging issues.
1. Methods to manage problems systemically
2. Better understanding of complex ecosystems and field demonstrations of
restoration in many different systems.
3. Understanding of long-range transport and its trends.
4. Understanding of the cumulative effects of air pollutants.
5. An answer to the question: "Will restoring wetlands help deal with the
nutrient problem?"
6. Understanding of propulsion system effects in rivers.
7. Continued development of GIS models and data bases to show effects of
stressors and responses.
III. Evaluation
The group evaluated the session with a view toward identifying what seemed to work and what
might improve the process.
There was a general consensus that the group dealt very well with current and emerging issues
and that the focus on a specific geographic area facilitated this. Emerging issues came forth very
readily and the problems of dealing holistically with an ecoregion were pointed out. The
importance of values and demand for multiple uses was brought out, as was the importance of
non-point sources of pollution.
Some participants pointed out that they do this kind of thinking in their programs already. This
and the previous meeting of the lookout panel show that Agency people are very good sources for
the identification of emerging issues. However, the ability to identify the emerging issues is not
enough. There are structural, legislative, and other barriers to dealing with the issues once they
are identified. Priority attention is frequently diverted from longer term issues to short term
imperatives. Agency members of the panel expressed some frustration with these barriers
The discussion rarely got "beyond the horizon" (several decades into the future). Some
participants thought that the geographic focus, although very gripping, may have actually helped
keep the discussion to the overwhelming current and emerging issues that demand attention now.
Some participants suggested it might be helpful to have futurists and experts on drivers as part of
the panel.
A-5
-------
PARTICIPANTS IN SAB LOOKOUT PANEL MEETING ON JULY 23, 1997
SAB Chair
SAB Participants
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
Professor of Epidemiology
Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Richard J. Bull, Senior Scientist
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Molecular Biosciences
EPA Participants
Dr. Kenneth Cummins
Florida Center for Environmental Studies
Florida Atlantic University
Dr. William Glaze, Interim Director
Carolina Environmental Program
University of North Carolina
Dr. Alan Maki
Environmental Advisor
EXXON Company, USA
Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Head
Department of Engineering & Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. William Randall Seeker
Senior Vice President
Energy and Environmental Research Corp.
Mr. David G. Davis, Deputy Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Mr. Barry DeGraff, Associate Director
Water Division
Region 5
Ms. Frances M. Eargle
Wetlands Division,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Mr. William Franz
Team Manager for Upper Mississippi River
Water Division, Region 5
-------
Mr. James Hanlon, Deputy Director
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
Dr. Carl Mazza, Science Advisor
Office of Air and Radiation
Dr. Albert McGartland, Director
Office of Economy and Environment
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Dr. Jay Messer
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Mr. Cliff Rader
Office of Federal Activities
Mr. Larry Reed, Deputy Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Dr. Mary Ellen Weber, Director
Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Environment Canada Dr. Rod Allan, Director
Participant Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Branch
National Water Research Institute
-------
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 balanced expert assessment of scientific matters related
to problems faced by the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by
the Agency; and hence, the contents of this report do 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 does not
constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
EPA Regional Administrators
EPA Laboratory Directors
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
EPA Laboratory Libraries
Library of Congress
National Technical Information Service
Office of Technology Assessment
Congressional Research Service
------- |