EPA
. SAB-EPEC-92-
007
UniUdSutM Scfeno* Advfeory EPA-S4B-EPEC-92-007
Environmental towd (A-101) Novtmbw 1991
&EPA AN SAB REPORT:
EVALUATION OF
WETLANDS RESEARCH*
PROGRAM
PREPARED BY THE WETLANDS
RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND
EFFECTS COMMITTEE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
EPA-SAB-EPEC-92-007
November 12, 1991
The Honorable William Reffly
Administrator
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Science Advisory Board Review of EPA's Wetland Research Program
Dear Mr. Reilly:
The Wetlands Research Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee of the SAB has completed its review of the draft report "Wetlands Research:
An Integrated Risk-Based Research Strategy". The charge to the Subcommittee was to:
1) evaluate the research priorities in terms of Agency needs, 2) determine whether the
risk-based framework was suitable for managing ecosystems and wetlands in particular,
and 3) critique the objectives and conceptual approach of the strategy. The Subcommittee
met once on July 16-17, 1991 in Corvallis to conduct this review.
The Subcommittee's overall evaluation of the Wetlands Research Program is very
positive, because it is a relevant and innovative effort to meet many of EPA's needs for
information on wetlands protection, mitigation, and restoration. The findings of the
research program should also assist EPA program managers in dealing with such
important issues as wetlands classification for regulatory purposes and use of created
wetlands to mitigate wetland loss. As the research moves forward to document the
ecological functions supported by different wetlands types under varying hydrologic
regimes, it should ultimately provide a better scientific basis for decisions concerning
wetlands delineation for regulatory purposes. In this regard, we caution that the current
legislative and Agency debates over wetlands regulation and decisions stemming from
those debates should not constrain or detract from the necessity of maintaining a strong
commitment to scientific research that will have significant long-term benefits towards
protecting and increasing the nation's wetland resources.
The Subcommittee noted many strengths in the program, including the efforts to
develop a risk-based framework, a focus on landscape, and the proposal to characterize
populations of wetlands by function. At the same time, however, we believe that the
Strategy Document does not clearly explain these strengths, and it should be revised to
address the concerns that we have identified in our report. In addition, the research
strategy document should take special care to distinguish objective information about
PriMtd on Rtcycltd Paper
-------
wetlands functions from the societal values and subjective judgements that are added for
regulatory applications. We are confident that the Wetlands Research Program can
address these concerns because many of them were addressed hi the oral presentations
made to the Subcommittee at the tune of the review.
The Subcommittee concurs with the program's geographic priorities, and if
additional resources can be found, a project dealing with coastal seagrass should be added
to the program, provided that it would not be funded at the expense of other projects hi
the program.
Although we expect the Office of Research and Development will address all of
the recommendations presented in this report, we are especially interested in your
response to these:
o the need for a distinction between wetland functions and values;
o a clarification of the relationship between the Wetlands Research Program
and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program to assure that the
indicators for monitoring are compatible with the risk based approach hi each
program; and
o the need to refine the risk-based strategy using consistent terms and
concrete examples.
We are very pleased by the efforts of the EPA staff to apply the concepts of
reducing risk and landscape functions to manage critical wetland resources. We
appreciate the opportunity to conduct this scientific review and look forward to receiving
your response.
Sincerely,
Dr. Bfiaymond Loehr.TJEairman iJrTKenneth Dickson, Chairman
Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee
Dr. Allan Hirsch, Chairman
Wetlands Research Subcommittee
-------
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 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 EPA's
Wetlands Research Program. The Subcommittee supported the direction and the
priorities of the WRP and recommended that EPA implement the WRP consistent with
the strategy document and oral briefings they reviewed. The Subcommittee recommended
that the strategy document be revised to clarify and concisely define the program and
clarify other issues raised in the review. While the strategy was confusing and failed to
explain the strengths of the program, the oral briefings provided important details that
illustrate a risk based approach that is supported by the Subcommittee. Program
strengths included: 1) its emphasis on synthesis and integration of wetlands research for
the regulatory process; 2) the development of a risk-based framework; 3) the focus on a
landscape scale; 4) the characterization of populations of wetlands by function; 5) a
comparison of artificial and natural wetland functions; 6) a technology transfer; and 7)
the emphasis on wetlands types that are in significant danger of loss. The Subcommittee
further recommended that WRP further examine its coordination role with EMAP for the
development of indicators. The Subcommittee also recommended that EPA add a
research project dealing with coastal seagrass if additional resources can be found.
WORDS: Wetlands Ecosystems, Functions, and Values; Landscape; Environmental
Monitoring; Ecological Risk.
11
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
WETLANDS RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN
Dr. Allan Hirsch, Director, Washington Office, Midwest Research Institute
VICE-CHAIR
Dr. Betty Haak Olson, Program in Social Ecology, University of California at Irvine
MEMBERS
Dr. Donald F. Boesch, Director, Center for Environmental and
Estuarine Studies System, University of Maryland System
Dr. George F. Carpenter, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Dr. C. Herb Ward, Professor and Chairman, Department of Environmental Science and
Engineering, Rice University
CONSULTANTS
Dr. Barbara Bedford, Cornell University
Dr. James Gosselink, Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University
Dr. Michael Josselyn, Professor, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San
Francisco State University
Dr. Joseph Larson, Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts
Dr. Curtis Richardson, Director, Duke University Wetlands Center, School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies
FEDERAL AGENCY LIAISON
Dr. Anne Bartuska, Forest Service, USDA
Mr. David E. Chalk, USDA Soil Conservation Service
Dr. Robert Stewart, Director, National Wetlands Research Center,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Russell Theriot, Manager Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
• • •
ui
-------
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Edward S. Bender, Designated Federal Official, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Science Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W. (A-101F), Washington, D.C. 20460
Mrs. Marcia K. Jolly (Marcy), Staff Secretary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Science Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W. (A-101F), Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. Robert Flaak, Assistant Staff Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Science Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W. (A-101F), Washington, D.C. 20460
Dr. Donald G. Barnes, Staff Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science
Advisory Board, 401 M Street, S.W. (A-101F), Washington, D.C. 20460
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 3
2.1 Statement of the Charge 3
2.2 Subcommittee Review Procedures 4
3. EVALUATION OF THE WETLANDS RESEARCH PROGRAM 6
3.1 General Evaluation 6
3.2 Adequacy of the Research Strategy Document 8
3.3 Goals and Objectives 9
3.4 Geographic Priorities 9
3.5 Risk-Based Framework <. 11
3.6 Wetlands Functions 11
3.7 Value Judgements 12
3.8 Consistent Terminology 14
3.9 Coordination 14
4. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 15
5. LITERATURE CITED 16
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Wetlands Research Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the draft report, "Wetlands
Research: An Integrated Risk-Based Research Strategy" at a meeting hi Corvallis, Oregon
on July 16-17, 1991. The report sets forth a five-year research program, building on the
previous five-year wetlands research effort.
The Subcommittee's overall evaluation of the directions the Wetlands Research
Program (WRP) is taking was positive, and we strongly support implementation of the
program. WRP is a relevant and innovative effort to support EPA's needs for
information on wetlands protection, mitigation, and restoration. The findings should
assist hi dealing with such important issues as wetlands delineation, wetlands
classification for regulatory purposes, and use of constructed wetlands to mitigate
wetlands loss. Further, the research program should assist EPA through providing a
source of scientific expertise to the regulatory program, and we were pleased to note that
there is a good, supportive relationship from the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. We would caution, however, that the demand for short-term regulatory
support should not detract from the need to maintain a continuing and longer term
research effort, as is proposed hi the Research Strategy, nor should current policy
decisions on such issues as wetlands delineation and classification constrain the research
program in its efforts to provide a better scientific basis for such decisions in the future.
The Subcommittee recommends that the WRP and Wetlands Program Office develop a
supportive and cooperative type of agreement that explains how resources can be focused
on long-term research and how priorities will be developed to accommodate short-term
needs.
The Subcommittee felt that the strengths of the program included:
(1) its emphasis on synthesis and integration of wetlands research to provide
information useful in the regulatory process;
(2) its efforts to develop a risk-based framework;
(3) the focus on the landscape scale;
(4) the proposal to characterize populations of wetlands of similar type by
function;
(5) comparison of restored, constructed, and natural wetlands functions;
(6) provisions for active information transfer to maintain an effective interface
between research and regulation;
(7) selection of wetlands types that are in significant danger of degradation and
loss (bottomland hardwood, prairie potholes, western riparian habitats) as the
-------
focus for proposed studies.
At the same time, however, we believe the Strategy Document itself requires
substantial improvement and refinement; we felt that the oral presentations at the
Review provided far greater clarity and justification for the research approach than did
the Strategy document. We recommend, therefore, that the document be revised to:
(1) clarify WRP's goals and objectives;
(2) ensure that key terms, such as risk assessment, stress, stressors,
dysfunctional, and others are used consistently;
(3) provide concrete examples to make the strategy less abstract and difficult
to follow;
(4) clarify the relationship between wetlands functions and wetlands values;
(5) more sharply define the risk-based approach; and
(6) better define the relationship between WRP and EMAP.
We concur with the program's geographic priorities, and recommend that, if
additional resources can be found, the project dealing with coastal seagrass should be
expanded to a landscape scale. However, we do not recommend substituting work on this
topic for the other areas already selected to receive priority.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
The Wetlands Research Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on July 16-17, 1991, to review the
draft FY 1992-1996 Research Plan entitled "Wetlands Research: An Integrated Risk-
Based Research Strategy" and to receive a briefing on ORD's Research Plan and the
needs of the wetlands protection program of the Office of Water. This review was
conducted in tandem with another review of research on Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment by a Subcommittee of the Environmental Engineering Committee
of SAB. Both reviews were conducted at the request of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
2.1 Statement of the Charge
The charge for the review of the Wetlands Research Program was provided to the
SAB by Dr. Courtney Riordan, Director, Office of Environmental Processes and Effects
Research within ORD. In his charge, he noted that the primary goal of this review is
to critique EPA's wetlands research strategy. It is particularly important that the panel
address the following general questions:
1. Are the Agency's highest research priorities addressed?
Will the information generated support the Agency's needs in development
of sound wetlands protection policy?
Is the proposed research responsive to the regulatory needs of the Office
of Water? What alternatives would you suggest?
2. Is the proposed risk-based framework suitable for assessment and
management of risks to ecosystems in general and wetland systems in
particular?
Does the proposed combination of studies best meet program objectives
within resource constraints or should alternatives be considered?
In addition, he asked that the Subcommittee also consider the following set of
secondary questions:
1. Does the research plan have a clear and explicit statement of objectives?
a) How can the scientific objectives be more focused or improved?
b) Is there a specific research strategy for each objective? Is the overall
conceptual approach clearly defined? Is it scientifically sound? Are
there better approaches? Is the strategy realistically achievable?
c) Will the specific research tasks, when completed, fulfill the research
strategy? What are the weak links? Are there missing tasks?
-------
d) Are the contributions of each research task important to achieving
program objectives?
Are there nonessential tasks in a project? Are there essential project
components that are missing?
Are there fall-back options in case a task is not accomplished?
e) Are the major deliverables defined hi terms of content and delivery
date? Is the responsibility for producing each major deliverable
clearly identified?
Do the outputs clearly lead to meeting the overall project objectives.
Can the deliverable be completed hi the allotted tune and within the
proposed budget?
2. Are each of the tasks focused in the most efficient way to answer the
scientific questions?
a) Has the highest priority been given to addressing the most critical
research components and tasks?
b) For each critical task, is the proposed approach to completing the
task the most efficient and scientifically defensible within the budget
and timeframe?
Are there alternative approaches that should be considered?
3. Is each project linked to other projects to the extent required or desired?
Are there linkages that should be developed?
4. What is the likelihood of success of each proposed research project? Which
ones are least likely to reach then* objectives?
5. Does the Wetlands Research Program build appropriately on research
programs in other agencies? Are there opportunities for collaboration that
have not been explored?
6. What other changes would you suggest to improve the Wetlands Research
Program and its component projects to address the stated objectives?
SL2 Subcommittee Review Procedures
Following the request for the SAB review of the Wetlands Research Program, the
Executive Committee assigned the review to the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee (EPEC). A Subcommittee was formed to conduct the review consisting of
members and consultants to EPEC and liaisons from the federal agencies that had
significant research interests in wetlands. The Subcommittee received a copy of the
charge, the draft research plan, and administrative instructions prior to the review. The
Subcommittee met once on July 16-17, 1991 at the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory. They received briefings on the first day of the review and discussed their
-------
concerns and recommendations and drafted preliminary statements on the second day of
the review. At the conclusion of the review, the chairman presented a summary of the
preliminary findings of the Subcommittee to the matrix manager of the Wetlands
Research Program. Following the meeting, a draft report was prepared by the chairman
and reviewed by the Subcommittee via the mail.
The Subcommittee addressed the primary questions in the charge directly, however,
there was insufficient information provided to respond to all of the secondary questions.
The Federal Agency Liaisons on the Subcommittee provided information on how WRP
=was coordinated and linked with wetlands research in other agencies. Information on
budgets and delivery schedules was considered to be tentative, so the Subcommittee did
not attempt to evaluate their adequacy or feasibility.
-------
3. EVALUATION OF THE WETLANDS RESEARCH PROGRAM
3.1 General Evaluation
Our overall evaluation of the directions the Wetlands Research Program (WRP) is
taking is positive, and we wish to express our strong support for implementation of the
program. WRP is a relevant and innovative effort to support EPA's needs for
information on wetlands protection, mitigation and restoration.
The program is undergoing a logical transition from its original focus on water
quality, cumulative impacts, and mitigation to a broader conceptual scope incorporating
a landscape perspective and modeling effort derived from previous work. There is
evidence that the results of the original projects will be applied to the new directions.
The needs of the Office of Water and the EPA Regions have played an important role
in shaping the direction of the proposed research. The findings of the research should
assist in dealing with such important issues as delineation of boundaries, categorization
or classification of wetland types, and use of constructed wetlands to mitigate wetlands
loss. The program provides for investment in an active technical information transfer
activity which should continue to maintain an effective interface between research and
the regulatory role.
We are aware that the Agency faces urgent political needs to address these issues
now, and that some important decisions will have to be based on existing information.
We would stress, however, the importance of allowing this core research program tune
to pursue longer term objectives which can provide information of fundamental
importance to wetlands protection in the long run. The demand for short-term responses
to problems hi the regulatory arena, while very real and pressing, should not detract
from the need for a continuing and longer term research effort, as outlined in the
Research Strategy document. The research strategy is a very ambitious one in relation
to the overall level of funding allocated to WRP. This emphasizes the need for highly
focused effort if the objectives are to be accomplished. With some exceptions which we
will note, the program generally has done a good job in this regard. At the same tune,
however, this leaves little flexibility for undertaking short-term responses to address
immediate needs such as those posed by the wetlands delineation manual and the
proposals for classifying wetland habitats, or others which may arise in the future.
We have no specific recommendations concerning solutions to this dilemma, but we
urge the Office of Research and Development to address it and to take care that an
appropriate balance be maintained. One possible approach would be to consider providing
and sequestering additional resources specifically for support of short-term responses.
In any case, while the program must continue to be responsive, this should not be done
in a way that jeopardizes achievement of its fundamental, longer term goals.
EPA is the only federal agency with the responsibility to manage all environmental
media and the landscape function approach provides a mechanism to place wetland
condition in a broader environmental context - both the influence of other environments
-------
(the landscape) on wetlands and the influence of wetlands on other environments (for
example, water quality). But it is unrealistic to assume that the EPA Wetlands Research
Program, especially with the present and foreseeable resource limitations, could effectively
address all Agency information needs related to wetlands. Rather, the WRP should
strategically focus on those needs which are particularly appropriate to the EPA's
regulatory responsibilities, which fill critical needs not well addressed by the research
programs of other agencies, and which build on EPA technical strengths. In this context,
the focus of the program on landscape function and on risk reduction is particularly
appropriate and is encouraged. In addition, the research programs of other agencies are
not effectively addressing landscape function and the EPA program appears to be
applying cutting-edge scientific advances in landscape ecology in the WRP. Furthermore
the landscape approach builds on work previously carried out by this program on
cumulative impacts.
The proposal to characterize populations of wetlands by functions is also an
innovative and potentially very important approach to developing performance standards
and design criteria for restoration and creation of wetlands and, indeed for the entire
approach to wetlands regulation and protection. However, there are several problems
which could occur complicate such an effort and need to be considered in the strategy
document (see discussion in section 3.7).
The Subcommittee commends the WRP for its emphasis on synthesis and
integration of information relevant to wetland regulation and management. This
emphasis is appropriate for EPA's research program because it meets a critical need to
base regulation on sound science that is not typically met through university basic
research programs. While basic research is essential in providing the fundamental
understanding that permits prediction and extrapolation of results from one system to
the next, a pressing need exists to bring together the results and implications of such
basic research and translate them into terms and guidelines that are useful in the
regulatory arena. The Subcommittee does encourage the WRP to employ the talents of
leading wetland scientists from the academic community and elsewhere through research
grants and cooperative agreements to provide additional expertise and vitality.
The emphasis of the WRP on synthesis and integration is evident in the state-of-
the-science reviews proposed within each sub-program, in the attempt to scale analysis
up to the level of landscapes and regions, and in the use of a modeling framework to
integrate and plan research. In most cases, the proposed reviews are timely from the
perspective of the status of the science and regulatory needs. The selected areas reflect
emerging areas of basic research where sufficient information exists on which to base a
synthesis. Syntheses at this time should be instrumental in bringing current research
results to regulators and in identifying key gaps in information pertinent to regulation.
The Subcommittee recommends caution, however, that the demand for short-term
regulatory research should not detract from the long-term need to maintain a continuing
research effort, as is proposed in the research strategy.
While the Subcommittee's overall view, therefore, is a favorable one, we do have
a number of concerns and comments about needs for clarification or refinement of the
-------
Research Strategy document which are set forth below.
3.2 Adequacy of the Research Strategy Document
The Subcommittee felt that the oral presentations at the review provided far
greater clarity and justification for the research approach than did the document,
"Wetlands Research: An Integrated Risk-Based Research Strategy." The draft document
is very abstract, redundant, and difficult to follow. In fact, the document, as presently
constructed, leaves the impression that the research is too broad and unfocused.
The Subcommittee recommends that the Research Strategy document be drastically
reduced in length to eliminate repetition and to provide an incisive report that more
clearly and concisely defines the research program. Specific case examples (e.g., Big Bear)
or empirical data should be included to explain and justify .better the conceptual
framework of the document, thereby making it less abstract and difficult to follow. In
recommending that the document be rewritten, we would emphasize two points:
1. From an editorial standpoint, the document needs to be shorter, clearer, and
more concise if it is to explain the program to such audiences as Agency decision makers
and program staff.
2. The revision must address the issues outlined below. Otherwise the
streamlined document will not be useful in guiding the program. Again, based on the
oral presentations we received, we think that WRP staff are in a position to readily
clarify the following issues. The rewritten strategy should:
a. More clearly define the research goals and objectives.
b. Clarify the rationale for selection of priority wetlands types and geographic
locations.
c. Assure that component projects actually contribute to a risk-based
framework.
d. Clarify how the functions of wetland populations (wetlands of similar type)
will be determined; and assure that it reflects current scientific knowledge
on wetlands processes.
e. Clarify concepts and language that blur the distinction between wetlands
functions and value judgements, and assure that the research is conducted
in a way that maintains the distinction between scientific and policy
judgments.
f. Provide for precise and consistent use of key terminology, such as risk
assessment, management, and reduction; effects and impacts; and stress,
stressor, and response.
8
-------
g. Clarify the relationship between WRP and EMAP.
Each of these points is discussed briefly below.
5 3.3 Goals and Objectives
WRP's goals and objectives are not clearly stated in the Strategy document. For
example, page 1 of the document describes what the research will accomplish. Page 11
sets forth the research objectives in somewhat different, more abstract terms. Page 16
outlines key deliverables in still another way. While all these statements are related,
they are not entirely consistent and we are concerned that they may be too diffuse.
The Research Strategy is very ambitious in relation to the level of resources
budgeted for the WRP. Unless the overall budget level can be increased, WRP will have
to sharpen its agenda and avoid issues that are secondary or tangential to the primary
objectives.
We recommend a more consistent statement of WRP goals and concrete objectives
that clearly states what the WRP is going to set out to do in the next five years. This
should assist in maintaining the program's focus and avoiding pursuit of too many
directions.
3.4 Geographic Priorities
We agree with the general wetland types selected for the research program.
Prairie pothole wetlands, bottomland hardwood forested wetlands and western riparian
areas are all experiencing very serious losses, and are appropriate research topics for
WRP. We do have several caveats, however:
1. The Strategy document does not provide clear justification for selection of
wetland types. This relates to the lack of linkage between the risk-based
strategy and the priority setting process, as discussed in Section 3.5 of our
comments, below. There is insufficient description of the rationale for
selection of these three types, from among the numerous critical wetland
habitats. If, for example, the selection was based on such issues as level of
information available, budgetary considerations, logistics and relationships
with cooperating parties, as well as on broader based considerations of
relative risk reduction, the document should clearly say so. Our concerns
could best be answered by addressing the issues of how the study locations
were chosen and their relationship to the risk based strategy.
2. We are concerned that WRP is only studying wetland systems dominated by
permanent surface water and/or high groundwater and by obligate wetland
plants. This certainly appears to be true for the characterization and
restoration program. However, "drier" wetland types, for example, systems
with near-surface saturation of 14-30 days, are among the most difficult to
characterize and restore.
-------
Scientific literature is extremely limited on ecology and restoration of these
drier wetland types. For example, there is no discussion of these wetlands
in EPA's "Wetlands Restoration and Creation" handbook. Yet, EPA has
frequently required extensive mitigation for seasonal emergent and forested
wetlands. We recommend that WRP consider broadening its perspectives
and approaches to monitoring wetland sites to include systems that have
shorter hydro-periods and greater dominance of facultative vegetation.
Given the current political controversy over defining jurisdictional wetlands,
and the fact that wetlands delineation requires drawing a line across a
continuum from wet to dry environments, scientific information that can
enable us to understand ecological processes and interactions along this
gradient could assist in clarifying policy judgments over the long run
concerning which areas should be included within "jurisdictional" definitions.
3. The document is unclear as to whether coastal wetlands are in the program
or not. On page 11, coastal wetlands are listed as a priority. However, the
text of the document and oral briefings indicate they are not included. This
point should be clarified and justified.
With respect to the presentation made to the Subcommittee on the
importance of coastal wetlands, we believe that an ongoing research program
directed towards seagrass systems should be expanded to the landscape
level. This would fill an important niche not now well addressed in other
wetlands research programs. If additional resources can be found, we would
recommend expanding such work within the WRP. However, we do not
recommend substituting work on this topic for the other three areas already
selected to receive priority.
4. There is inconsistent and fragmentary discussion of the inclusion of urban
wetlands within the WRP. They are not included within the discussion of
Priority Wetland types on pages 9-10, but an urban wetlands project is
included in the text. As we understand it, a limited amount of work on
urban wetlands has been included to address certain specific regional
priorities. Urban wetlands have suffered extensive losses in many areas
such as San Francisco Bay, New York, and Los Angeles areas, and these are
areas the public wants to save and restore. A case can be made for
including a stronger emphasis in WRP on how wetlands can be maintained
and restored in developed areas, in conjunction with the constructed
wetlands and water quality projects.
We recognize that this would be at a cost to the priorities that WRP
has identified, and the Subcommittee is not recommending that resources
be diverted from those efforts. We would recommend, however, that the
rationale for including limited work on urban wetlands be clarified, as well
as the rationale for not making a more significant effort there. This
recommendation is also related to the following comments concerning the
10
-------
need to describe the relationship between the program priorities and
comparative risk.
3.5 Risk-Based Framework
The concept of developing and applying a risk-based strategy is a good one.
Although the approach may not be related to "risk" in a strict sense, i.e., involving
chance, probability, or uncertainty, the approach articulated is consistent with the SAB
"Reducing Risk" report and the Agency-wide direction articulated by Administrator Reilly.
However, it is not clear at all that a risk-based approach was rigorously applied in the
development of the WRP, either in the selection of wetland types or in the identification
of wetland functions on which research will be focused. A manifestation of the problem
of having the risk-based framework drive the research rather than the existing research
efforts, regional concerns, or individual scientific interests is found in the conceptual
diagram of the risk-based strategy itself (Figure 1.1). The flows are unidirectional from
the three component projects to the risk reduction project. However, as was stated in
the oral presentation on risk reduction, risk assessment should guide as well as integrate
research. Although the understanding of this need was clearer in the presentations than
in the Research Strategy, the Subcommittee recommends that there be a strong and
concerted effort to assure that revisit and redesign component
projects actually better fit into the risk-based framework and demonstrate its
applicability.
The formal development of a risk-based framework under the WRP also should be
related to and integrated with the ongoing efforts within the Agency to develop
environmental risk assessment methods (ecorisk guideline development).
3.6 Wetlands Functions
As previously stated, we commend the program's emphasis on synthesis and
integration. It is important, however, that this work be based on sound scientific
research on wetlands processes. We are concerned that the various hypothetical curves
for stress/response and time/response may be over-generalized and may prove misleading
in terms of actual or empirical experience. It is important to recognize that specific
wetlands functions will generate different response curves under different environmental
situations, and that aggregation may yield misleading results.
The Subcommittee felt that many of the "wetland functions" were not clearly
described so as to be able to determine which processes were going to be selected and,
more importantly, how they are going to be measured. The concept of function versus
process (rates) needs to be cleared up also. The importance of hydrology, geology, and
soil science does not appear to be adequately reflected in the discussion of wetlands
functions; hydrology is the dominant and controlling factor for wetlands and the local
geology is a key factor determining hydrologic regimes and features such as perched
water tables which can be mapped and predicted. In addition, the WRP does not appear
to include sufficient expertise in these disciplines among its staff.
11
-------
The presentations helped greatly in answering some of these questions, but the
document itself requires clarification.
3.7 Value Judgements
The Subcommittee is concerned with the use of language in the document hi ways
that confuse science and value judgments. While it is the role of research to address
topics that have been identified as being of public concern, the ways in which the
research is conceived and potential results should be phrased hi scientific language, not
hi terms of normative judgments. Doing so gives the false impression of lending the
"objectivity" of science to what should be political/social decisions. It also runs the risk
of misinterpretation by decision-makers anxious for simple answers to what are complex
issues. Scientists should utilize terms that are precise and amenable to evaluation
against data that could be collected by others and interpreted against scientific standards
of evidence.
For example, the Subcommittee is uncomfortable with the use of terms such as
"high value" and "low value" wetlands, "promoters" and "demoters". Rather, scientists
should aim to provide information in terms of measurable characteristics, which then
can be used by decision-makers to form value judgments. In order to allow this
translation to take place, it may be useful to think in terms of characterizing those
wetlands functions that are "valued ecosystem components" (from Beanlands and Duinker,
1983) to which societal values can be assigned as a separate step. Clarification of the
relationship between function and value is essential to the success of the Research
Strategy.
The present discussion of "wetland function" versus "wetland value" (pp. 23-24) is
confused. For example, the document includes fish and wildlife as "users" who derive
value from wetlands functions. This confuses ecological functions and societal values.
A more appropriate distinction would be to indicate that provision of fish and wetland
habitat is a "function", whereas recreational fishing and hunting uses reflect societal
'Values".
To elaborate on this point, we offer the following examples:
1. Wetland delineation requires drawing a line across a continuum from wet to
dry environments. Good technical information is necessary to understand ecological
processes and interactions across the gradient, but the location of the line is, in the final
analysis, a judgment call based in part on non-technical considerations.
2. Administrator Reilly has asked for studies "to identify and develop
environmentally sound ways to classify wetlands according to then* values and to set
priorities for wetlands protection". This statement shows clearly both the need for good
technical information about 'Valued ecosystem components" and the use of this
information to assign "values" to different wetlands based on percei ed utility to society.
3. Landscape level analysis and management requires (a) characterization or
12
-------
assessment of the landscape of interest (technical), (b) goal setting and planning
(judgmental, with technical advice), and (c) plan implementation (engineering/technical,
with economic/social/political input).
Scientists can make statements about structure, process, pattern etc. in the
environment, with emphasis on controlling processes and functions, magnitudes of
processes, interactions of structure with function and with controlling factors. This
information provides the scientific basis for judgmental decisions. In contrast, judgmental
decisions are the purview of policy makers, regulators and a broad segment of the public,
who must consider other issues in addition to technical ones.
The EPA Wetlands Research document must carefully and explicitly separate
technical from non-technical steps in developing an approach to environmental risk
reduction. For example, the designation of high, medium, and low classes of functions
hi the Synoptic approach described in Chapter 5, blurs the distinction between objectively
determined functions and value" judgments about the magnitudes of these functions.
Great care must be taken to distinguish evaluation of the magnitude of ecological
processes or functions from subjective "valuation." (Graphics shown in the oral
presentation were much clearer in separating objective from judgmental steps than the
written document).
We stress the importance of assuring that the WRP characterize the magnitude of
functions of wetlands populations as distinct from their values to society. The current
plan fails to maintain this distinction, which could result in misuse of the findings.
There is an implied, if not explicit relationship between function and societal value. In
most instances, the greater the magnitude of the function, the more valuable the wetland
is assumed to be. However, any wetland has a number of functions, each of which may
have a different magnitude at a specific site. To link overall value to function, therefore,
implies a weighing of different functions, or in other words, a non-technical evaluation
of the worth of different functions in a particular setting. We are immediately outside
the arena of science into policy, politics, and social choice. Second, even if a wetland has
overall functions that are minimal, this does not necessarily translate into low value. If,
for example, this is the last remnant of a particular kind of wetland in an area, or is the
only kind of wetland that can exist in the local environment, it may have societal value
far beyond the magnitude of its ecological functions. Again, the decision to classify the
wetland as high or low value is a social choice, not objective science.
We see no way around this kind of dilemma except the development of good
mechanisms for making social choices. Decision steps are indispensable in wetlands
management, but are, in general, poorly handled. As far as we are aware, no good
process has been developed to allow decisions about wetlands management to be made
in a rational manner, using the best scientific information available, and representing
fairly the societal values involved.
The Subcommittee recommends that ORD's research address such process because
advances there could make a significant contribution to wetland management, and is
particularly relevant considering the emphasis given in the ORD document to landscape-
13
-------
level analysis.
The Risk Reduction Project does involve making value judgments and setting goals.
We support this initiative, but only if the process and criteria through which values are
assigned to objectively determined wetlands function are made very explicit. Further,
WRP should take steps to assure that individuals with background in such disciplines as
economics, group dynamics, and conflict resolution participate in design of this work.
3.8 Consistent Terminology
The committee is also concerned that the WRP define its terms and use them in
precise and consistent ways. Examples include terms such as "stress", "stressor" , and
"fringe" wetland. Failure to define "stress", "stressor", and "dysfunctional" and to use the
terms unambiguously is not unique to this document but is common in the literature.
References made to "risk assessment," "risk, management" and "risk reduction" do not
uniformly follow terminology used in the Agency and create some confusion. For this
reason, it is imperative that the document be clear on its use of these terms.
In the case of "fringe" wetland, the WRP staff should note that its use is
inconsistent with an established use in the literature. The WRP uses "fringe" in referring
to "riverine" wetlands. Brinson (1990) distinguishes "fringe" from "riverine", and uses
"fringe" to refer to lake shore and tidal wetlands where the flow of water is two-
directional.
3.9 Coordination
We believe that the WRP has made very good efforts to coordinate its research
activities with those of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, and the
Forest Service. Any important wetlands studies in NOAA should be considered as well,
if this has not yet been done.
With respect to internal ORD coordination, we were concerned whether there was
adequate coordination between WRP and the EMAP wetlands component, particularly on
the topic of indicator development. The rationale for somewhat different approaches to
wetlands indicators in the two programs was presented to us, but we were not entirely
persuaded that the need for parallel approaches had been carefully examined or justified.
In view of the relatively limited resources for the WRP, we recommend that, if this has
not yet been accomplished, an in-depth review of relationships between the two programs
be done with the objective of maximizing coordination. The relationships between the
two programs and the information that each program will provide to the other should
be more clearly reflected in the final Wetlands Research Strategy.
14
------- |