United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/600/R-98/086
June 1998
www.epa.gov
&EPA Ecological Research
f Strategy
Ecosystem interrelationships are
critical considerations for managing
surface water quality
"Salmon Leaping"photo by:
Kennan Ward ©1998
-------
EPA/600/R-98/086
June 1998
Office of Research and Development
Ecological Research Strategy
June 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD i
PEER REVIEW ii
AUTHORS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-l
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
1.1 Rati onal e for the Program 1-1
1.1.1 A Changing Ecological Perspective 1-1
1.1.2 A Changing Regulatory Perspective 1 -2
1.1.3 Characteristics of Ecosystem Management 1 -3
1.2 ORD's Ecological Research Program 1-3
1.2.1 Ecological Risk Assessment 1-4
1.2.2 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 1-6
1.3 Document Purpose and Structure 1-7
SECTION 2: ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM STRATEGIC DIRECTION
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Scientific Questions 2-1
2.3 Program Sub objectives, "Core" Research, and Goals 2-2
2.4 Strategic Principles 2-2
2.5 Administrative/Organizational Structure 2-5
2.6 Research Structure 2-6
SECTION 3: CORE RESEARCH, OBJECTIVES, RATIONALE, AND FOCUS
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Ecosystem Monitoring Research 3-4
3.2.1 Indicator Development Research 3-4
3.2.1.1 Indicator Development Research 3-5
3.2.1.2 Landscape Indicators 3-6
3.2.1.3 Aquatic Indicators (Estuarine, Wetland, Rivers/Streams,
and Lakes) 3-8
3.2.2. Monitoring Design Research 3-9
3.2.2.1 Ecological Monitoring Research 3-10
3.2.2.2 Integration of Monitoring Approaches 3-11
3.2.3. Anticipated Products 3-13
3.3 Ecological Processes and Modeling Research 3-13
3.3.1 A Common Framework for Multimedia Exposure and Integrated Effects
Modeling 3-14
3.3.1.1 Framework Development 3-15
3.3.1.2 Integrating Exposure and Effects Modeling 3-17
3.3.1.3 Anticipated Products 3-19
3.3.2 Improving Atmospheric Exposure Modeling 3-19
3.3.2.1 Emissions Process Research 3-20
3.3.2.2 Wet/Dry Deposition Research 3-20
3.3.2.3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling 3-21
3.3.2.4 Anticipated Products 3-21
3.3.3 Improving Aquatic and Terrestrial Exposure Models 3-21
-------
3.3.3.1 Biogeochemical Processes 3-22
3.3.3.2 Transport Properties and Processes for Organic and Inorganic
Pollutants 3-22
3.3.3.3 Transformation Processes of Pollutants 3-23
3.3.3.4 Anticipated Products 3-23
3.3.4 Improving Effects Modeling 3-23
3.3.4.1 Understanding and Predicting the Effects of Watershed and
Regional Change 3-24
3.3.4.2 Ecosystem Modeling 3-26
3.3.4.3 Ecotoxicology 3-29
3.3.4.4 Anticipated Products 3-31
3.4 Assessment of Ecological Risk 3-32
3.4.1 Developing Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines 3-32
3.4.2 Assessments 3-33
3.4.2.1 Place-Based Ecological Risk Assessments 3-33
3.4.2.2 Chemical-Based Risk Assessments 3-34
3.4.2.3 Special Ecological Assessments 3-35
3.4.3 Risk Assessment Methods Research 3-36
3.4.4 Anticipated Products 3-38
3.5 Ecosystem Risk Management and Restoration 3-38
3.5.1 Ecosystem Ri sk Management 3-39
3.5.2 Adaptation and Restoration 3-41
3.5.3 Anticipated Products 3-44
SECTION 4: HIGH PRIORITY ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ISSUES
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Acid Deposition Research 4-3
4.2.1 Research Questions 4-3
4.2.2 Implementation 4-5
4.2.3 Anticipated Products 4-5
4.3 Ozone Research 4-5
4.3.1 Research Questions 4-5
4.3.1.1 Ozone Exposure Modeling and Remediation Research 4-5
4.3.1.2 Ozone Effects Research 4-6
4.3.2 Implementation 4-6
4.3.3 Anticipated Products 4-7
4.4 Mercury Research 4-8
4.4.1 Research Questions 4-8
4.4.2 Implementation 4-8
4.4.3 Anticipated Products 4-9
4.5 UV-B Research 4-9
4.5.1 Research Questions 4-9
4.5.2 Implementation 4-10
4.5.3 Anticipated Products 4-11
4.6 Nitrogen Research 4-11
4.6.1 Research Questions 4-12
4.6.2 Implementation 4-12
-------
4.6.3 Anticipated Products 4-13
4.7 Global Change Research 4-13
4.7.1 Research Questions 4-13
4.7.2 Implementation 4-14
4.7.3 Anticipated Products 4-14
4.8 Contaminated Sediments Research 4-14
4.8.1 Research Questions 4-15
4.8.1.1 Criteria 4-15
4.8.1.2 Fate and Transport 4-15
4.8.1.3 Remediation Technologies for In-Place and Dredged
Sediments 4-15
4.8.2 Implementation 4-16
4.8.3 Anticipated Products 4-16
4.9 Wet Weather Flow 4-17
4.9.1 Research Questions 4-17
4.9.1.1 Watershed Management for WWF Impacts Abatement 4-18
4.9.1.2 Control Technology for Drainage Systems 4-18
4.9.1.3 Infrastructure Improvement 4-18
4.9.2 Implementation 4-19
4.9.3 Anticipated Products 4-19
4.10 Toxic Algal Blooms Research 4-19
4.10.1 Research Questions 4-20
4.10.2 Implementation 4-20
4.10.3 Anticipated Products 4-21
4.11 Eco-Criteria Research 4-21
4.11.1 Research Questions 4-22
4.11.2 Implementation 4-22
4.11.3 Anticipated Products 4-23
4.12 Total Maximum Daily Loading Research 4-23
4.12.1 Research Questions 4-24
4.12.2 Implementation 4-25
4.12.3 Anticipated Products 4-25
4.13 Endocrine Disrupters Research 4-25
4.13.1 Research Questions 4-26
4.13.2 Implementation 4-26
4.13.3 Anticipated Products 4-27
4.14 Pesticides and Toxics 4-27
4.14.1 Research Questions 4-27
4.14.1.1 Test Methods 4-27
4.14.1.2 Indirect Effects 4-28
4.14.1.3 Place-Based Methods 4-28
4.14.2 Implementation 4-28
4.14.3 Anticipated Products 4-29
4.15 Landcover Change Research 4-29
4.15.1 Research Questions 4-29
4.15.2 Implementation 4-30
-------
4.15.3 Anticipated Products (1999-2004) 4-30
SECTION 5: HIGH PRIORITY GEOGRAPHIC STUDIES
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Mid-Atlantic Research 5-3
5.2.1 Research Direction 5-3
5.2.2 Research Questions 5-4
5.2.3 Anticipated Products 5-4
5.3 Pacific Northwest Research 5-4
5.3.1 Research Direction 5-5
5.3.2 Research Questions 5-5
5.3.3 Anticipated Products 5-6
5.4 South Florida Research 5-6
5.4.1 Research Direction 5-6
5.4.2 Research Questions 5-6
5.4.3 Anticipated Products 5-7
5.5 Great Lakes Research 5-7
5.5.1 Research Direction 5-7
5.5.2 Research Questions 5-8
5.5.3 Anticipated Products 5-8
5.6 Gulf of Mexico Research 5-9
5.6.1 Research Direction 5-9
5.6.2 Research Questions 5-9
5.6.3 Anticipated Products 5-10
5.7 Near Laboratory Ecological Research Areas Research 5-11
5.7.1 Research Direction 5-11
5.7.2 Research Questions 5-12
5.7.3 Anticipated Products 5-13
5.8 Index Sites Research 5-13
5.8.1 Research Direction 5-13
5.8.2 Research Questions 5-14
5.8.3 Anticipated Products 5-15
5.9 National Studies 5-15
5.9.1 Research Direction 5-15
5.9.2 Research Questions 5-16
5.9.3 Anticipated Products 5-16
SECTION 6: PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Coordination and Management 6-2
6.3 The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment 6-3
6.4 Information Management 6-4
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A A-l
-------
Foreword
The 1996 Strategic Plan for the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) sets forth
ORD's vision, mission, and long-term
research goals. As part of this strategic process,
ORD used the risk paradigm to identify EPA's top
research priorities for the next several years. The
ORD Strategic Plan thus serves as the foundation for
the research strategies and research plans that ORD
has developed, or is in the process of developing, to
identify and describe individual high-priority
research topics. One of these high-priority research
topics is ecological risk assessment.
ORD prepared the Ecological Research Strategy in
early 1997 and subjected it to an internal review by
the ORD Science Council, the Program Offices
within EPA, and representatives of other agencies
through the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources. The outcome of this review is a strategy
that establishes EPA's long-term Program goals and
objectives for ecological research, and documents
the rationale for the chosen Program direction.
A research strategy is different from a research plan.
While a research plan defines the research program
that EPA is pursuing, a research strategy provides
the framework for making and explaining decisions
about program purpose and direction as well as
relative priorities and research distributions. The
research strategy, as an overarching view of research
needs and priorities, thus forms the basis for the
research plan and provides a link between the ORD
Strategic Plan and the individual research plan. In
turn, the research plan links the research strategy to
individual laboratory implementation plans (which
serve as the blueprints for work at ORD's national
laboratories and centers) by defining the research
topic at the project level.
The key scientific questions this strategy sets out to
address are:
• What is the current condition of the
environment, and what stressors most
significantly affect its condition?
• What are the biological, chemical, and physical
processes affecting the exposure and response
of ecosystems to stressors?
• What is the relative risk posed to ecosystems by
these stressors, alone and in combination, now
and in the future?
• What options are available to manage
ecological risk or restore degraded ecosystems?
To answer these questions, this strategy groups its
research priorities into the following four areas: (1)
ecosystem monitoring, (2) ecological processes and
modeling, (3) ecological risk assessment, and
(4) ecological risk management and restoration.
This research strategy is an important tool for
measuring accountability because it makes clear the
rationale for, and the intended products of, EPA's
ecological research. By specifying up front how
EPA will manage its scientific data and information
products, EPA can effectively communicate the
results of its ecological research to its clients,
stakeholders, and the public. This research strategy
is also an important budget tool, enabling EPA to
clearly track progress toward achieving its research
goals as required by the 1993 Government
Performance and Results Act.
Lawrence W. Reiter, Ph.D.
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, ORD
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Peer Review
Peer review is an important component of all
research activities in ORD. In July 1997, the
Ecological Research Strategy was provided to
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee, an independent
panel of qualified experts. The results of that review
were submitted directly to the EPA Administrator in
December 1997, and the strategy was revised in a
manner consistent with the suggestions made by the
SAB panel. The SAB peer review committee
included:
CHAIR
Dr. Mark A. Harwell, Rosenstiel School of Marine
and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami,
Miami, Florida
VICE CHAIR
Dr. Alan W. Maki, Exxon Company, USA, Houston,
Texas
MEMBERS
Dr. William Adams
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp, Magna, Utah
Dr. Virginia Dale
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Dr. Carol Johnston
Natural Resources Research Institute, Duluth,
Minnesota
Dr. Frederick K. Pfaender
Director, Carolina Federation for Environmental
Programs, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
Dr. William H. Smith
Professor of Forest Biology, School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, Yale University, New
Haven, Connecticut
Dr. Terry F. Young
Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, California
CONSULTANTS
Alison G. Power
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Leslie A. Real
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Authors
This document has been authored through Dr. Michael E. Slimak, Associate Director for
contributions from many scientists within Ecology, National Center for Environmental
ORD, and their contributions are greatly Assessment
appreciated. The following persons, who were
responsible for the development of the strategy, Dr. Oilman D. Veith, Associate Director for
are the editors: Ecology, National Health & Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Dr. Rick A. Linthurst, Associate Director of
Ecology, National Exposure Research Laboratory Ms. Barbara M. Levinson, Assistant Center Director,
National Center for Environmental Research and
Mr. Lee A. Mulkey, Associate Director for Ecology, Quality Assurance
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Executive Summary
Executive
Summary
Background
In virtually every major environmental act,
Congress has required that the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not
only ensure that the air is safe to breathe, the water
safe to drink, and the food supply free of
contamination, but also that the environment is
protected. As a result, EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) has established research
to improve ecosystem risk assessment and risk
management as one of the seven highest priority
research areas for investment over the next 10
years.
To meet the combined requirements of the
legislation, it is increasingly clear that scientific
solutions to ecological issues can no longer be
isolated to one stress, one scale, one level of
biological organization, or one medium. It is also
obvious that because of the complexity of
environmental problems and the ecosystems on
which they act, environmental problems are not as
likely to be solved as they are to be managed.
Because not all ecological changes are "bad,"
ecosystem management becomes more a matter of
social tradeoffs among alternative uses rather than
simply a matter of protection.
The goal, therefore, of the Ecological Research
Program is to: "[p]rovide the scientific
understanding required to measure, model,
maintain, and/or restore, at multiple scales, the
integrity and sustainability of ecosystems now, and
in the future."
In the context of this Program, ecological integrity
is defined in relative terms as " [maintenance of
ecosystem structure and function characteristic of a
reference condition deemed appropriate for its use
by society." Sustainability is defined as "[t]he
ability of an ecosystem to maintain relative
ecological integrity into the future."
It is ORD's vision that by 2008, EPA researchers
will have developed the next generation of
measurements and models and technologies
necessary to protect the present and probable future
sustainability of ecosystems at local, watershed,
and regional scales. Obviously, this is not a vision
or goal that can be accomplished by ORD alone,
but it is one that will be dependent on contributions
from in-house and extramural programs, other
agencies, the academic community, states, and
others. Research within ORD must then be
prioritized, capitalizing on the strengths of the
organization and the needs of customers it most
closely supports.
Consistent with the recommendations from a recent
report from the National Research Council entitled,
"Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental
Decisions," the Ecological Research Program
proposes to maintain a "core" research program
and applies those same capabilities to the Program
Office's high-priority needs. The core research
ensures that ORD maintains the capability EPA
needs now and in the future, whereas the program
priorities ensure that the core program is applied to
the most critical needs. Because of the demands on
ORD from multiple customers, including Congress,
the public, the scientific community, and the
Program Offices (to mention but a few), organizing
ORD's research can be approached from multiple
directions driven by these different customers. The
structure is not unlike a Rubik's cube, in that once
one face is structured to take full advantage of all
the expertise within ORD, the other sides are
unlikely to be as consistent in pattern. The research
presented in this strategy begins with the core
research as the primary face of the strategy, and
then the high-priority needs, as determined by the
risk posed, as the secondary axis for organizing the
research areas.
Ecological Research Strategy
E-1
-------
Executive Summary
Program Objectives
The Program is developed around the following
four fundamental research areas and objectives:
Monitoring Research. Developing indicators,
monitoring systems, and designs for measuring the
exposures of ecosystems to multiple stressors and
the resultant response of ecosystems at local,
regional, and national scales.
Processes and Modeling Research. Developing
the models to understand, predict, and assess the
current and probable future exposure and response
of ecosystems to multiple stressors at multiple
scales.
Risk Assessment Research. Developing and
applying assessment methods, indices, and
guidelines for quantifying risk to the sustainability
and vulnerability of ecosystems from multiple
stressors at multiple scales.
Risk Management and Restoration Research.
Developing prevention, management, adaptation,
and remediation technologies to manage, restore, or
rehabilitate ecosystems to achieve local, regional,
and national goals.
These four objective areas are consistent with the
strengths of ORD's research (i.e., the core research
of ORD). The specific research issues to which
these capabilities are applied are, however, always
changing.
More emphasis on the relative risk is at the
forefront of improving the ability to make future
ecosystem management decisions, considering
EPA's move to more flexible regulations and
decentralized decision making. Therefore, a better
understanding of the impact of multiple stressors, at
multiple scales, and at multiple levels of biological
organization are underlying factors that run
throughout the strategy. Although these are not
new areas of research in ORD, the core, in-house
program will emphasize research considering these
factors over the next five to ten years. Further, the
in-house program will primarily concentrate on
aquatic endpoints. These will assist the Agency
both on the short- and long-term to work toward
water quality improvements (both biological and
chemical) from a multimedia perspective.
Terrestrial research will proceed, but again,
primarily as it influences water quality. The ORD
grants program complements the in-house research
by expanding both the capability and the scope of
the research.
Monitoring Research
What is the current condition of the environment,
and what stressors are most closely associated with
that condition?
With rare exceptions, ecosystem monitoring has
been conducted to meet short-term or program-
specific objectives. It is seldom harmonized or
coordinated across large geographic areas.
Comparable measurements are taken for only a
short time (e.g., less than the length of many natural
ecological cycles) across a large area, or, when they
are made over a long period, they are usually
restricted to one or a few study sites. Recently,
however, there is revived interest in creating a
multiagency ecological monitoring network that
would monitor the condition of ecosystems and
provide periodic "report cards" to the public.
Early experience with EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program revealed that
there remains a great deal of scientific controversy
over what to measure, how to measure it, and with
what network design. The emerging consensus,
based in large part on the ecological risk
assessment paradigm, is that indicators of exposure
(i.e., the juxtaposition of a stressor and an
ecological receptor in time and space at a
comparable and appropriate scale and effect)
should be monitored simultaneously. Additionally,
environmental characteristics that modify the
exposure-effect relationship, as well as exposure
indicators that signify that an exposure has
occurred in the past (perhaps in episodes or
cumulatively over long periods of time) also need
to be monitored.
Therefore, the core research in this area will
include:
• Developing suites of new, field-applicable,
biological indicators and criteria for
measuring, understanding, and diagnosing
lake, stream, and river exposures, effects, and
recovery.
• Developing new chemical methods for
collection and distribution environmental
monitoring and measurement information to
communities.
• Developing multiscale monitoring designs
and statistical techniques for monitoring
current conditions and trends in the condition
and exposure of the nation's ecological
resources.
E-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Executive Summary
Process and Modeling Research
What are the biological, chemical, and physical
processes affecting the condition of ecosystems and
their response to stressors?
Process and modeling research develops the basic
understanding and modeling technology to predict
future landscapes, stressor patterns, ambient
conditions, exposure profiles, habitat suitability,
and probable receptor responses as a function of
risk management alternatives. Future models will
consider multimedia, multipath sources, intermedia
pollutant transfers, transport and transformations,
micro-environments, and receptor activity patterns
in the context of anticipated regional changes
resulting from both natural and anthropogenic
causes. In order to estimate the distribution of
exposure to multiple stressors across vulnerable
ecosystems, there is the need to understand and
quantify the governing processes and develop
models linking sources, transport, and
transformations of pollutant stressors, along with
physical stressor predictive models, to estimate
exposures at appropriate temporal and spatial
scales. These models must also be linked to
landscape models to characterize future
environments and habitats. In addition, ties to
appropriate suites of biological response models
are essential to the risk manager, as often the goal
is to forecast the response of receptors to
management actions.
For convenience and simplicity, current models
used to predict the outcome of any individual
management option are generally single-media
models, involving only a single pollutant or
stressor. Modeling must move past this piecemeal
approach and represent the interactions that occur
across scales, media, stressors, and multiple levels
of biological organization. The complexity of the
problems that EPA will face in the future will
require models to predict beyond today's physical
and chemical conditions to new, never-before
measured conditions. Therefore, future models
need to be based as closely as possible on first
principles, and they need to be sufficiently complex
in their description of underlying processes to
become virtual realities. By doing so, scientists can
best advance the understanding of the whole of the
environment and develop anticipatory and more
flexible management strategies that avoid unwanted
futures. It is the vision for this area of research that
future models will be interrogated as virtual
realities in the same way that engineering tables
and interactive CD-ROM encyclopedias are used
today.
High-priority research will include:
• Developing a prototype modeling framework
for EPA covering a full range of computing
architectures from personal computers to
scalable, parallel machines.
• Developing an air modeling system capable
of handling multipollutant issues and
multifunction interaction.
• Understanding, quantifying, and modeling
key transport and transformation processes
for nutrients, industrial chemicals, pesticides,
metals, and radiatively important trace gases
and incorporating these processes into
terrestrial and aquatic exposure assessment
models.
• Developing stressor/response analyses and
techniques to establish cause-and-effect
relationships and to improve effects models.
Risk Assessment Research
What is the relative risk posed to ecosystems by
these stressors, alone and in combination, now and
in the future?
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) report,
"Future Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990's,"
emphasized the need for a fundamental shift in
EPA's approach to environmental protection and
challenged ORD to provide leadership in the area
of ecosystem science. This report provided the
impetus to shift the approach previously used in
ecological assessments by concentrating on the
resources at risk and their composition within
landscape, multiple stressor, and multiple
assessment endpoints. In 1992, EPA published the
Ecological Risk Assessment Framework as the first
statement of principles for ecological risk assessment
and, in 1996, published the first draft of the Ecological
Risk Assessment Guideline. The final was published
in 1998. The "Guidelines" describe methods for
conducting the more conventional single-species,
chemical-based risk assessments, discussing
techniques for assessing risk to ecosystems from
multiple stressors and from multiple endpoints.
The goal in this core research area will be to
continue development of better ecosystem risk
assessment methods. Specifically, high-priority
areas will include:
• Developing risk assessment guidelines to
improve and standardize ecological risk
Ecological Research Strategy
E-3
-------
Executive Summary
assessments within and outside EPA.
• Conducting ecological risk assessments at
real places, on special problems, and for
important chemicals.
• Developing new methods to conduct place-
based, multiple-stressor assessments.
Risk Management and Restoration
Research
What options are available to manage the risk to
or restore degraded ecosystems?
Recently, ecosystem management and sustainability
have moved to the forefront of both scientific and
policy debates. Many of the issues raised remain
unresolved (including a consensus on the meaning
of sustainable ecosystems), but one thing seems
clear—that increasing attention to ecosystem
management, in tandem with the issue of
sustainability, represents a significant
reexamination of U.S. land and natural resources
management practice and policy. Risk
management actions are an important part of
ecosystem management and typically occur at
multiple scales. For example, transboundary
issues, such as acid deposition and atmospheric
levels of greenhouse gases, require risk reduction
via widespread actions that are usually applied at
every source. In most cases, active management
and technology-based risk management (which
often follow as an implementation requirement
from policies and regulations) are typically applied
to watersheds or ecosystems that can be defined by
watersheds. Accordingly, the strategic choices for
the scales of risk management research are (1)
national, for regulatory-based transboundary
consideration, and (2) the watershed, for most
regulatory and local management effects.
Given the rate of development of the man-made
environment, present regulatory approaches may
not always limit risks to vulnerable ecosystems to
tolerable levels. There is a need to develop new,
cost-effective prevention and control, remediation
approaches for sources of stressors, and adaptation
approaches for ecosystems. Ecosystem stressors
from both natural and anthropogenic sources are
inevitable. Cost-effective stressor reduction may
not always be feasible or practical as a means to
reduce risks. Therefore, it is also important to
invest in restoration technologies, including
protocols and indicators, to diagnose ecosystem
restoration needs, evaluate progress toward
restoration, and establish ecologically relevant
goals and decision support systems for state and
community planners. This will facilitate consistent,
cost-effective decisions on ecosystem restoration
within watersheds.
The research in this core research area will focus
on:
• Developing and verifying improved tools,
methodologies, and technologies to improve
or maintain ecosystem condition at watershed
scales.
• Developing best management technologies to
reduce the impact of watershed development
on the biological and chemical condition of
stream quality.
• Developing techniques to improve
decontamination of stream sediments.
• Developing techniques to decrease the risk of
degradation through adaptation of the
landscape, ecosystems, and species.
• Developing the techniques to restore and
rehabilitate ecosystems to achieve local,
regional, and national goals.
High-Priority Environmental Research Issues
In addition to the core research, some capabilities
(in no particular order) are used to address high-
priority environmental research issues identified by
the Agency:
• Acid Deposition
• Ozone
• Mercury
• UV-B
• Nitrogen
• Global Change
• Contaminated Sediments
• Wet Weather Flow
• Toxic Algal Blooms
• Eco Criteria
• Total Maximum Daily Loading
• Endocrine Disrupters
• Pesticides and Toxics
• Landcover Change
High-Priority Geographic Studies
Some locations offer particularly good
opportunities to further integrate ORD research and
assist the Regions with real problems. ORD has
E-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Executive Summary
selected eight such locations which include, in
priority order:
• Mid-Atlantic Research
• Pacific Northwest Research
• South Florida Research
• Great Lakes Research
• Gulf of Mexico Research
• Near Laboratory Ecological Research Areas
• Index Sites research
• National Studies
Research Planning and Coordination
The challenges for the ecological research planning
process are to maintain core capability and
competencies, apply them to the greatest
environmental threats, meet the needs of the
multiple customers, and continue to maintain a
perspective on future environmental issues that
have yet to become immediate threats or customer
concerns (i.e., the Rubik's cube problem addressed
earlier). In light of these often-competing interests,
ORD ideally will undertake those projects that meet
all of the following criteria:
• The project is related to improving the ability
to measure, model and/or maintain/restore
ecosystem sustainability.
• The project allows ORD to maintain a
concentrated core competency and to
anticipate future needs.
• The project reduces uncertainty in a
high-priority environmental problem area.
• The project will benefit a short- or long-term
need of the customer's office.
Research Coordination
There are several opportunities for coordination
across laboratories and centers in the Ecological
Research Program. These opportunities include a
common core research theme, common (limited)
high priority research topics and common
locations. Through both active planning and these
three natural integrative elements, the interaction
among laboratories and centers has been
significantly improved. In addition, the common
research issues and locational research also
facilitates interactions between ORD, the Program
Offices, the Regions, and many local stakeholders.
The Mid-Atlantic Region has been chosen as the
primary research location for ORD's ecologically
related research and is viewed as the best
opportunity to maximize coordination and meet the
goal of the Ecological Research Program. The
decision was based on the extensive monitoring
data available in the area, the selection of this area
as a multiagency monitoring and assessment pilot,
and the interest and participation of the Region and
states.
Data Management
To be successful, this Ecological Research Strategy
will require significant investment in information
technology resources. ORD scientists will require
advanced data visualization, modeling, and
communication approaches, as well as the
computer tools to meet the challenge of integrating
data from various sources, disciplines, and scales.
Recognizing that the management of scientific data
presents unique challenges, ORD has formed the
Science Information Management Coordination
Board (SIMCorB) to coordinate science
information management activities within ORD.
The board will insure that the information
management resources of ORD will be able to
support the assessment activities of its scientists.
The board will operate through principal standing
subgroups representing principal information
management functions: Requirements Definition
and Planning; Data Administration and Quality
Assurance; Systems Engineering and Operations;
Advanced Technology Evaluation and Modeling;
Science Direction; and Outreach and Liaison.
Recognizing that ecological data are an important
corporate resource, SIMCorB will initially
concentrate on preserving and facilitating access to
environmental data by Agency scientists, federal
partners, regional stakeholders, and the public.
Additionally, the board will sponsor projects to
increase the interoperability of ORD's evolving
data systems.
Ecological Research Strategy
E-5
-------
Introduction and Rationale
SECTION 1
Introduction
and Rationale
Although there remains a need for
single stressor/single
receptor/single scale research—and
that research must continue—the
long-term priority for the
foundation, 'or core,' of the program
will be on the most complex of
relative risk evaluations—multiple
s tressors/m ultiple
receptors/multiple scales—with
aquatic resources as the endpoint of
initial concern.
1.1 Rationale for the Program
Ecosystems provide valuable renewable
resources and services such as food, fiber,
water storage and flood control, wood for
construction, biodegradation and removal of
contaminants from air and water, pest and disease
control, and amelioration of climatic extremes. To
the extent that these goods and services are threatened
by environmental pollution, they must be replaced at
great expense by civil works, man-made chemicals,
and increased use of nonrenewable energy supplies.
Ecosystems also supply less critical — but
nonetheless valuable — opportunities for recreation,
scientific discovery, or even a simple walk in the
woods or along the shore.
Considerable progress has been made in reducing the
most egregious harm to the environment from air and
water pollution (e.g., areas of devastation around
industrial plants and burning rivers devoid offish).
Much remains to be learned, however, to understand
and avoid potential disasters on a tragic scale, such as
forest decline, widespread epidemics of toxic
microorganisms in estuaries, reproductive failure of
wildlife, redistribution of persistent organic
pollutants, destruction of critical habitat, vector-borne
epidemic disease, and global climate change.
In virtually every major environmental act, Congress
has required that the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) not only ensure that the air
is safe to breathe, the water safe to drink, and the
food supply free of contamination, but also that it
protect the environment. As a result, EPA's Office of
Research and Development (OPJ)) has established
research to improve ecosystem risk assessment as one
of the highest priority research areas for investment
over the next ten years (EPA, 1997a).
1.1.1 A Changing Ecological Perspective
As more is learned from EPA's pollution control
efforts, the more it is realized that past approaches are
necessary but not sufficient to protect ecological
resources. Although pollutant-specific and
site-specific programs have resulted in a substantially
cleaner environment, societal expectations for
ecological and natural resource systems have not been
achieved. The water may in fact be cleaner, but the
fishery has not improved because of the continuing
loss of stream-side habitat or diversion of water flow.
More wetlands may be preserved, but duck
populations may continue to decline because
surrounding agricultural practices increase the
number of duck predators. Toxic waste discharges
into the Great Lakes have been reduced, but concerns
still remain about fish contamination from toxic air
pollutants transported from afar.
Comparable issues face other agencies. Under the
Endangered Species Act, heroic and often socially
disruptive efforts are made to save species that are
approaching the brink of extinction, while awaiting
the development of a broader approach to prevent
rather than merely respond to such catastrophic
events.
Problems such as these have led to great interest in
the concept of ecosystem management— dealing with
ecological systems as they are organized by nature
Ecological Research Strategy
1-1
-------
Introduction and Rationale
rather than in piecemeal fashion or along political or
program boundaries. Although there is widespread
support for such a concept, it is not clear how best to
put it into practice.
One of the major issues involved in the application of
ecosystem management is the issue of ecological
boundaries. Many ecological systems function over
large areas that do not coincide with political and
program boundaries. These large systems have
internal linkages that can transmit or accumulate
impacts in ways that are often not evident from site-
specific observations. This occurs for systems that
have extensive hydrologic interconnections, such as
the South Florida (Everglades) Ecosystem, the Great
Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Columbia River, and
the Ogalala Aquifer. Oyster populations in
Chesapeake Bay may be influenced as much by land
use practices miles away in the Susquehanna River
watershed as by local actions. Other ecological
systems include important species that require large
areas to maintain their populations, such as spotted
owls and grizzly bears, or species that move great
distances as the seasons change, such as salmon,
migratory birds, and sea lions. Adequate upstream
spawning habitat for salmon is insufficient to
maintain productive population levels if river
impoundments block their passage to and from the
ocean.
Even those ecological systems without tight internal
linkages or wide-ranging species present boundary
difficulties. It may be necessary, for example, for
larger ecological systems to have a widely distributed
pool of biological diversity that provides a genetic
reservoir on which local ecosystems can draw to
adapt to constantly changing environmental
conditions and disturbances. Key elements of this
pool of regional biodiversity are at risk from
cumulative demographic and resource use pressures
in large terrestrial ecoregions such as the Great Plains
and the Appalachian Highlands. For example,
maintaining the pools at a regional scale is currently a
most uncertain exercise.
Another issue facing application of ecosystem
management is the perception of the relationship
between humans and nature. Until recently, a
plentiful supply of unallocated open space provided a
buffer for increased resource use and changing public
values. This helped foster a "protectionist" approach
to natural ecological systems, viewing these systems
as something apart from human affairs that was to be
set aside and kept pristine. This view of nature is
rapidly changing as it becomes clearer that nature
does not operate in small, separate pieces and that
human activities now pervade the entire earth. There
are no pristine ecosystems left. At a minimum, all
natural systems are exposed to the changing
composition of the atmosphere and solar radiation,
and only a few are spared from the profound land use
changes sweeping across the globe.
1.1.2 A Changing Regulatory Perspective
It is increasingly clear that solutions to ecological
issues no longer can be isolated to one stress, one
scale, or one medium. It is also obvious that,
increasingly, environmental problems cannot be
solved but rather must be managed interactively.
Society, scientists, and regulators also now recognize
that not all ecological changes are "bad." In many
instances, ecological change has to be evaluated in
terms of what is wanted from ecosystems. Ecosystem
management becomes more a matter of social
trade-offs among alternative uses rather than simply a
matter of protection. People are part of ecosystems—
cultural, economic, and ecological well-being have
become inextricably linked.
The regulatory approach within EPA also is evolving
to meet the ecological protection challenges being
faced. In particular, the following two changes will
have a major impact on the future of environmental
protection:
1. Less centralized decision making. In the
past, there has been a "command and control"
approach to regulation. Although that
certainly will continue where it is the only
way to achieve results, it is clear that when it
comes to protecting ecosystems, the values of
the community must factor into the process.
As such, there will be increasing movement to
community-based decision making.
2. More flexible decision making. As with
centralized decision making, the regulations
have been made clear, unbending, and
applicable nationally. Recognizing that "one
size does not necessarily fit all" and that
alternatives do exist, the results are
increasingly the central concern rather than
the means to that end.
The combination of these two changes has significant
implications for the research community. Perhaps
most important scientifically, there must be a better
understanding of ecosystem sustainability, so that
within the boundaries chosen, the endpoints of
interest to society, and the alternative management
strategies chosen, EPA can ensure that the nation's
1-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Introduction and Rationale
ecological resources will be protected and the desired
environmental goals will continue to be met.
These changes in both the scientific understanding
and the regulatory approach to protecting ecosystems
provide the foundation of ORD's Ecological
Research Strategy. The goal of this research is to
determine how to sustain ecosystems and determine
the relative risk posed to ecosystems as a result of
exposure to multiple stressors and, possibly most
important, at multiple scales.
1.13 Characteristics of Ecosystem
Management
Although there is increasing agreement in principle
with the concept of ecosystem management, there is
no generally recognized model for its application. In
attempting to provide the scientific basis for EPA's
application of ecosystem management, this strategy
assumes the following four characteristics must be
met, all of which tend to represent the ideal rather
than the current capabilities to achieve their intent:
1. Ecosystem management is "place-based"
management. Ecosystems tend to be spatially
defined. Therefore, this strategy will
concentrate on geographical units that have
ecologically determined boundaries.
2. Ecosystem management must be holistic
rather than piecemeal. Ecosystems have
multiple components and functions that are
affected by multiple, interacting stressors.
Therefore, ecosystem management must
integrate all relevant ecological endpoints and
stressors.
3. Ecosystem management must occur at
multiple scales. Ecosystems function at
multiple, interacting scales, and different
management decisions are applicable at each
scale. This strategy will deal explicitly with
several ecological scales.
4. Ecosystem management is driven by public
values. People and nature are not separate, and
ecological systems provide multiple, often
competing, values to society. Therefore, there is
no single, scientifically derived endpoint for
ecosystem management. Ecosystem
management involves a balancing of competing
interests.
Ecological research must be able to provide the
scientific foundation to ensure that these
characteristics are met if changes in the regulatory
process are expected.
It is the intent of ORD's Ecological Research
Program to further the understanding of ecosystems
in order to improve the ability to conduct ecological
risk assessments. To accomplish this objective,
research is needed in the areas of monitoring, processes
and modeling, assessment methods, risk management,
and ecosystem restoration. These research areas will
be the broad areas of interest for the core of this
research strategy over the next five to ten years.
1.2 ORD's Ecological Research
Program
ORD has previously developed and published a
strategic plan to guide to how research will be
conducted within the organization (EPA, 1997a). It
presents the vision and mission of ORD, the strategic
principles that are to be followed, and the foundation
for selecting ecological research as one of the
high-priority areas of research. The strategic plan
also discusses the priority-setting process and how
decisions are made to identify who should conduct
the needed research within the priorities chosen.
Therefore, these issues will not be revisited in this
document. Rather, the reader is encouraged to review
ORD's strategic plan because it provides, to a great
degree, the "first order" boundaries on the Ecological
Research Strategy.
The following two issues, however, must be discussed
and considered in this document to provide additional
perspective and boundaries for ORD's Ecological
Research Program:
1. The ecological risk assessment process
2. The Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA)
Although the first item is discussed in the ORD
strategy, it is worth additional attention here. GPRA
is having a significant influence on the work to be
done by ORD and it is evolving. As such, its
discussion provides important background
information for understanding the presentation of the
ecological research to follow, but it is also likely to
change following publication of this document.
Ecological Research Strategy
1-3
-------
Introduction and Rationale
1.2.1 Ecological Risk Assessment
The risk assessment paradigm shown in Figure 1-1
has been chosen as the organizational structure for,
and the guiding approach to, all research within ORD.
It also provides two key focal points of interest to the
research efforts: (1) the characterization of risk (also
discussed in this document in terms of vulnerability
and sustainability), and (2) the provision of
appropriate risk management strategies.
Most of the terminology and concepts have been
derived from many years of research in the field of
human health risk, the endpoint often being cancer
risk. The application of the risk model for ecological
risks presents some significant differences and
increased complexities when compared to human
health risks. Among them are the following:
• Multiple, interactive, and interdependent
species of concern.
• Multiple scales of concern, over which these
species exist and interact.
• Multiple, and often competing, endpoints that
are of importance to society.
• Greater willingness to alter ecosystems to better
meet multiple societal interests.
Stated most simplistically, the challenge in the
ecological research area is to provide the information
and methods to develop risk assessments and
management strategies for:
• Single stressors (chemical and nonchemical,
natural and anthropogenic) acting on simple
receptors (ecosystems, ecosystem components,
communities, populations, and valued societal
goods and services—endpoints).
• Single stressors acting on multiple receptors.
• Multiple stressors acting on individual
receptors.
• Multiple stressors acting on multiple receptors.
The uncertainty in risk characterization increases as
the more complicated combinations are considered,
particularly when the interactions among stressors
and receptors are considered. Added to the
complexity is the additional need to conduct risk
characterization at multiple scales, and the fact that
nonchemical stressors may be more important than
chemical stressors (for which most of the concepts in
risk assessment have evolved) in ecosystems.
Therefore, although there remains a need for the more
"traditional" single stressor/single receptor/single
scale research, the dominant long-term priority for the
foundation, or "core," of the ecological research
program will be on the most complex of relative risk
evaluations—multiple stressors/multiple
receptors/multiple scales—with aquatic resources as
the initial endpoint of concern. If EPA's goal of
providing more flexible and decentralized decision
making (Section 1.1.2) is also to be met, it is
increasingly important to continue to improve the
ability to quantify ecological risks for that purpose.
It is also noteworthy that it is difficult to use the
paradigm for selection of the highest priority
research, as proposed in the ORD strategic plan
(EPA, 1997a). Although there is general agreement on
the criteria, there is no agreement on the relative risk
posed by multiple stressors, at multiple scales, and on
multiple endpoints, except in the most extreme
situations. Thus, the priorities for research and
regulatory action in the absence of scientific certainty
introduce considerable subjectivity and variability to
the selection process. One of the benefits of this
research program will be to make the process of
priority setting (i.e., determining what research to
fund or what regulatory action to take) far more
defensible over the next five to ten years.
1-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Introduction and Rationale
Integrate Available Information^
Source and Ecosystems Ecological
Exposure Potentially Effects
Characteristics at Risk
I
Planning
(Risk Assessor/
Risk Manager
Dialogue)
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
Characterization of
Exposure
Characterization of
Ecological Effects
Measures of
Ecosystem and
Receptor
Characteristics
Ecological N.
Response /
Analysis /
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Communicating Results to the
Risk Manager
Risk Management
Figure 1-1.
The ecological risk assessment framework (adapted from EPA, 1992) shown as a three-phase
process, with an expanded view of each phase. Within each phase, rectangular boxes designate
inputs, hexagonal boxes indicate actions, and circles represent outputs.
Ecological Research Strategy
1-5
-------
Introduction and Rationale
1.22 Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA)
All federal agencies are required to better account for
the success of their proposed actions. Therefore,
EPA has been developing a cascading set of goals,
objectives, subobjectives, milestones, measures,
tasks, and products in compliance with GPRA
(Figure 1-2). This figure also shows the management
and staff level responsibilities associated with the
hierarchy. Further, Figure 1-2 delineates the
approximate level where the strategy ends (setting
bounds for the program) and where specific research
plans begin. As a strategy, this document deals with
the issues of "what" and "why", not "how." There are
currently ten EPA goals:
environmental problems.
9.
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
Clean air.
Clean, safe water.
Safe food.
Safe communities, homes, workplaces, and
ecosystems.
Safe waste management.
Global and transboundary environmental risk
reductions.
Empower people with information and
education, and expanding their right to know.
Provide sound science to improve the
understanding of environmental risk, and
develop and implement innovative
approaches for current and future
Provide a credible deterrent and promote
compliance.
10. Effective management.
Appendix A provides a more complete description of
those goals with objectives and subobjectives of
of highest priority interest to the Ecological Research
Program. As GPRA is an evolutionary process,
the specific text and hierarchy is likely to change;
however, the concepts and broad goals remain
applicable.
ORD has a role to play in most, if not all, of these
goals as the regulatory process is dependent on
sound science. However Goal 8, "providing sound
science," is the goal that serves as the foundation, or
core, of ORD's Ecological Research Program. The
specific objective associated with the ecological
research is "Research for Ecosystem Assessment and
Restoration" and provides the scientific
understanding to measure, model, maintain, or
restore, at multiple scales, the integrity and
sustainability of ecosystems now, and in the future.
Goal 8 is the broad objective of the core research
program that is presented in Section 3. The more
problem-driven goals and objectives of the customer
offices will be presented in Section 4. These later
objectives and subobjectives determine how many of
the core capabilities in the Ecological Research
Program are applied to immediate EPA problems (see
Section 2).
Focus of
Ecological
Research
Strategy
Focus of
Research
Implementation
Plans
Assistant Administrators
GPRA
Objectives
Laboratory/Center Directors
GPRA
Subobjectives
Associate Directors
GPRA
Milestones
Laboratory/Center
Assistant Directors
Division Directors
and Branch Chiefs
Principal
Investigator
Products
Figure 1-2.
GPRA Architecture.
1-6
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Introduction and Rationale
1.3 Document Purpose and
Structure
The purpose of this document is to present the
goals, objectives, and priorities for the Ecological
Research Program. The document presents an
overview of the critical questions and activities that
constitute the goal of the Ecological Research
Program over the next five to ten years.
Section 2 introduces the basic themes of the
strategy. Section 3 provides an overview of the
priorities and direction of the core research
program. Section 4 presents the high-priority EPA
research selected for application of the core
capabilities, and Section 5 deals with the
geographic locations where many of these studies
are being and will be conducted. Section 6
provides insights as to how the research program
will be planned and conducted.
The intended audience for this document is the
scientific community and Agency scientists. As
noted previously, as a strategy, the document
focuses on the direction of the Program, not its
implementation (Figure 1-2). The implementation
of projects contributing to the programs outlined in
this strategy is documented and reviewed
separately from the strategy.
Ecological Research Strategy
1-7
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
SECTION 2
Ecological
Research
Program
Strategic
Direction
The common goal of the core
Program across ORD on aquatic
endpoints, relative risk of multiple
stressors acting alone and in
combination, the watershed and
larger geographic scales, and the
population, community, and
landscape levels of biological
organization is the strategic aim of
long-term research and
development of the foundation of
science needed for future,
increasingly complex, decision
making.
2.1 Introduction
ORD's ecological research can improve the
foundation necessary for local communities
to avoid costly environmental management
failures by better understanding stressor exposures to,
effects on, and restoration of the nation's ecological
resources. The common goal is to "provide the
scientific understanding required to measure, model,
maintain and/or restore, at multiple scales, the
integrity and sustainability of ecosystems now, and in
the future," with particular emphasis on aquatic
ecosystems.
In the context of this Program, ecological integrity is
defined in relative terms as "maintenance of
ecosystem structure and function characteristic of a
reference condition deemed appropriate for its use by
society." Relative sustainability is defined as "the
ability of an ecosystem to maintain relative ecological
integrity into the future." The goal of ORD's
Ecological Research Program, as stated in Section 1,
is also the objective of EPA's GPRA sound science
goal.
It is ORD's vision that, by 2008, EPA researchers
will have developed the next generation of
measurements and models necessary to assist in
managing the present and influencing the future
sustainability of ecosystems (specifically, surface
waters) at local, watershed, and regional scales.
Obviously, this is a vision that can not be
accomplished by ORD alone, but will be dependent
on contributions from in-house and extramural
programs, other agencies, the academic community,
states, and others. Research within ORD must then
be prioritized, capitalizing on the strengths of the
organization and the needs of customers most closely
supported by it. The grants program, however, allows
ORD to broaden both capacity and capability in those
high priority areas when ORD has additional need.
2.2 Scientific Questions
Consistent with the Program objective, the following
four broad scientific questions will be the primary
areas of the core research:
1. Monitoring Research. What is the current
condition of the environment, and what
stressors are most closely associated with that
condition?
2. Process and Modeling Research. What are
the biological, chemical, and physical
processes affecting the condition of
ecosystems and their response to stressors?
3. Risk Assessment Research. What is the
relative risk posed to ecosystems by these
stressors, alone and in combination, now and
in the future?
4. Risk Management and Restoration
Research. What options are available to
manage the risk to or restore degraded
ecosystems?
The primary purpose of all activities is the relative
risk posed by the stressors, because it represents an
Ecological Research Strategy
2-1
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
endpoint of the research that will not only assist EPA
in making the most cost-effective and environmen-
tally effective management decisions, but will also be
critical in guiding the ecological research needs of
this Program. If this Program is successful, the
scientific understanding required to ensure that
environmental decisions are concentrated on the
problems of most significance will be improved
significantly over the next ten years, and limited
resources will be most wisely used.
2.3 Program Subobjectives, "Core"
Research, and Goals
Consistent with the scientific questions, ORD's
Ecological Research Program is developed around
the following four broad, fundamental research
subobjectives:
1. Monitoring Research. Developing
indicators, monitoring systems and designs
for measuring the exposures of ecosystems to
multiple stressors and the resultant response
of ecosystems at local, regional, and national
scales.
2. Processes and Modeling Research
Developing the models to understand, predict,
and assess the current and probable future
exposure and response of ecosystems to
multiple stressors at multiple scales.
3. Risk Assessment Research Developing and
applying assessment methods, indices, and
guidelines for quantifying risk to the
sustainability and vulnerability of ecosystems
from multiple stressors at multiple scales.
4. Risk Management and Restoration
Research Developing prevention,
management, adaptation, and remediation
technologies to manage, restore, or
rehabilitate ecosystems to achieve local,
regional, and national goals.
The goal of this Program is consistent with the
objective of EPA's GPRA for "Sustainable
Ecosystems and Restoration" and the objectives of
the Program are the same as the GPRA subobjectives
(see Section 1). Again, however, while not ignoring
other resources, it is our expectation that the primary
success will be in the area of surface water protection.
ORD has numerous customers that must be
considered in the development of the research
program. Although the research could be organized
by the needs of any of these customer interests, the
fundamental research program would then be difficult
to present and extremely volatile because these needs
do change. Using the university structure as an
example, the departments do not change over time,
but the research within the departments changes
significantly for many reasons, such as new
advancements in science or new opportunities for
funding. Similarly, the Ecological Research Strategy
is then first and foremost aimed at defining the
fundamental core research program (Section 3). The
application of these capabilities to specific,
high-priority issues is presented in Section 4, and
Section 5 concentrates on where some of the research
is conducted. This approach might best be viewed as
a Rubik's cube, and the elements are the research
projects that can be arrayed many different ways
(Figures 2-la and 2-lb.) but do not clearly align in all
ways (Figure 2-lb).
Based on recommendations from the report entitled
Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental
Decisions (NRC, 1997a), ORD has chosen to think
about the development of the Programs in linear but
not fully independent (in terms of human and
financial resources or research projects) steps. That
is, the NRC report states:
"To develop the knowledge needed to address
current and emerging environmental issues,
EPA should undertake both problem-driven
research and core research... .Research
activities within problem-driven and core
research programs may often overlap."
We agree and expect that our core capabilities,
research and knowledge will be applied to, and
advanced by, specific problem areas for our
customers at locations that will benefit multiple
communities (Figure 2-2).
2.4 Strategic Principles
To meet the objective of the Program, there must be a
close working relationship among EPA's laboratories
and centers. To ensure this relationship, the
laboratories and centers will share not only common
objectives and core research, but also several
strategic elements that will be common to the
research (Figure 2-3).
First, consistent with the reorganization of ORD, the
risk paradigm, the objective of the Program, and the
core research areas, two common endpoints have
been chosen to guide research planning: (1) assessing
ecosystem sustainability and (2) maintaining and
restoring important ecosystems. Although there is
considerable controversy about sustainability, its
applicability as an endpoint, and even its definition,
2-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
GPRA
Subobjectives
(Primary)
Monitoring
Modeling
Assessment
Restoration
Biological Indicators
Landscape Indicators
Monitoring Design and Analysis
Monitoring
Model Integration and Frameworks
Effects Research and Modeling
ORD Core
Capabilities
(Secondary)
Exposure Research and Modeling
'~--id<
Oz"9
UVB
Acid Dep
PBTs
Contaminated Sediment
Pesticides/Toxins
Wet Weather Flow
Eco Criteria and TDML
Assessment Guidelines
Assessment Methods
Assessments
Restoration Tools and Technologies
Restoration Techniques
Toxic Algae Bloom
Endo. Disr.
Riparian Degradation
Wetlands Degradation
Landcover Change
Prob|ems
(Tertiary)
Figure 2-1 a.
Primary structure of Ecological Research Program.
S. Florida
o PNW
•J^ ® Great lakes
2 *[ Gulf °f Mexico
O ~ Mid-Atlantic
o> c
(!) ~ NLERA
Index Sites
Regional Offices
Office of Water
Officf! of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
Program Office,
Special Needs
Technical
Support
Congressional
Requests
Administrator
Priorities
Presidential Initiatives
Interagency Negotiations
Integrated Projects (EMAP, Global Change...)
Other Demands
Figure 2-1 b.
Alternative structure for the Ecological Research Program.
Ecological Research Strategy
2-3
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
Core Capabilities
are applied to
ever changing problems
program offices and regions
...at key locations
and other appropriate locations
Figure 2-2.
Elements of the research structure.
NHEERL
Monitoring
Design, Measurements, etc.
i
Existing Data
I
Receptor
Characterization
Measurements
and Models
Receptor Condition
and Sensitivity Profiles
NERL
Monitoring
Design, Measurements, etc.
4
Existing Data
I
Stressor/Ambient
Condition
Characterization
Measurements
and Models
I
Exposure Profiles
Common Database
for Intermediate Products
Risk
(Vulnerability/ Sustainability)
to Aquatic Resources
NRML
Risk Management
and Restoration
Figure 2-3.
Organizational model for ecological research.
(Note that the National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance
contributes to all compartments of the model.)
2-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
there remains a need to resolve this controversy,
focus on it, and incorporate this broader directive
into the risk assessment guidelines of the future.
In addition, three general issues need to be at the
forefront of improving the ability to make
ecosystem management decisions in the future
(considering more flexible regulations and
decentralized decision making) and to guide ORD
research. These areas for research include more
emphasis on relative risk, seeking a better
understanding of the impact of multiple stressors,
at multiple scales, and at multiple levels of
biological organization (see Section 1). Although
these are not new areas for research in ORD, the
core program will emphasize research considering
these interrelated issues over the next five to ten
years.
Multistressor Research
To manage risks, it is important that the endpoint
and the stressor affecting it be known. Also, to
improve management success, it is equally
important to understand all the other stressors that
interact with the receptor. Thus, the challenge will
be to compare the relative risk of multiple stressors
acting alone and in combination on all levels of
biological organization and geographic scales.
Only with this information can action be taken that
will ensure the desired result. Actions that have
unintended consequences and fail to achieve the
desired result because of a lack of understanding
are too often taken. Therefore, the long-term
research program will concentrate on ways of
partitioning the influence of multiple stressors on
individual and multiple receptors, particularly at
watershed and larger scales.
Multiple Levels of Biological Organization
More research has focused on individual organisms
and species than on any other level of biological
organization. New technologies continue to make
research at the molecular level easier. However,
the higher levels of biological organization (e.g.,
populations, communities, systems) must be
investigated as well. Therefore, the research will
concentrate on developing an improved
understanding of effects and exposure mechanisms
at all levels of biological organization but will give
a high priority to the molecular, community, and
landscape levels.
Multiscale Research
It is clear that there is an improved awareness of
the need to look more holistically at the
environment. By not doing so, we risk the
unintended consequences of ignoring the complex
linkages among ecosystem elements. EPA now has
taken a bold step forward to provide local decision
makers with a more flexible decision process at
watershed and other biologically and ecologically
relevant scales. However, it is important to
recognize that decisions at the local scale can
collectively affect increasingly larger scales.
Therefore, one of the important challenges facing
ORD is to better understand the relationships of
environmental processes at multiple scales to
provide guidance at local, regional, and national
levels of environmental management. In particular,
the regional scale will receive priority because it is
a scale that can be uniquely addressed by the
federal government.
The common direction of the core Program across
ORD will be toward aquatic endpoints, relative risk
of multiple stressors acting alone and in
combination, the watershed and larger geographic
scales, and the population, community, and
landscape levels of biological organization, which
is the strategic aim for long-term research and
development of the foundation of science needed
for future, increasingly complex, decision making.
The long-term core research will also be balanced
(Section 4) with the immediate needs of EPA,
which actually offer additional opportunities
consistent with the strategic direction of the
Program.
2.5 Administrative/Organizational
Structure
In ORD, there are three laboratories and two
centers. The research program is conducted
throughout the three laboratories (the National
Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory [NHEERL], the National Exposure
Research Laboratory [NERL], the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory [NRMRL]) and
one center (the National Center for Environmental
Assessment [NCEA]). The National Center for
Environmental Research and Quality Assurance
(NCERQA) is also part of the strategy. It provides
the guidelines for EPA's Quality Assurance
Program and the extramural grants program, a
mechanism by which much of the needed research
within the Program will be accomplished.
Coordination with NCERQA is discussed in
Section 6. To the extent possible, areas where
extramural support is anticipated are noted in later
Ecological Research Strategy
2-5
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
chapters. For example, an area of significant
interest to ORD and the Agency is in landscape
indicator development. NCERQA has a request for
proposals in this area which has increased ORD
capability, brought new ideas to the Program, and
just as importantly, provided resources to
universities who will be training the landscape
ecologists, geographers, and others that can be
hired. It should be noted, however, that the primary
concentration of this strategy is on the in-house
program. Additional information about the
organization of ORD and other components is
presented in the ORD strategy (EPA, 1997a).
Each laboratory and center plays a unique role in
these core research areas within the risk model. In
addition, however, each must play secondary and
supporting roles (Table 2-1).
Coordination across laboratories and centers—as
well as participation by other agencies, institutions,
and organizations—is essential to achieving the
goal of the Program. Figure 2-3 shows the
conceptual approach, mapped to the core research
agenda, for research to be conducted within the
base program. Of particular importance is the
necessity for sharing information and planning
research across organizations. These coordination
and management issues will be discussed in
Sections.
2.6 Research Structure
Figure 2-4 provides an overview of the elements of
the Program outlining the high priority core
research areas, the highest priority environmental
problems that will be addressed and, finally, where
much of the large scale, holistic research will be
conducted.
Table 2-1
Summary of general emphasis of core area research within the
Ecological Research Program at the participating laboratories and centers.
Core Research National Health National Exposure National Center National Risk National
Areas and Research for Environmental Management Center for
Environmental Laboratory Assessment Research Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory Research and
Laboratory Quality
Assurance
Monitoring and Primary
Monitoring
Research
Primary
Supporting
Supporting Supporting
Processes and
Modeling
Research
Primary
Primary
Supporting Supporting Supporting
Assessment
Research
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary Supporting
Risk
Management
and Restoration
Research
Supporting
Supporting Supporting Primary Supporting
2-6
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Ecological Research Program Strategic Direction
ORD Research Sound Science
I
Ecological Research Program
1
Core Research Capabilities
1O
High Priority Environmental
Research Issues
^ir-N
1 — K'
i
Geographic Research
Ecosystem Monitoring Research
Ecological Modeling and Process
Research
Assessment of Ecological Risk
Ecosystem Risk Management and
Restoration
Acid Deposition
Ozone
Mercury
UVB
Nitrogen
Global Change
Contaminated Sediment
Wet Weather flow
Toxic Algal Bloom
Eco-Criteria
Total Maximum Daily Loading
Wetland Degradation
Endocrine Disrupters
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
Pesticides
Landcover Change
Mid-Atlantic
Pacific Northwest
South Florida
Great Lakes
Near Laboratory Ecological
Research Areas
Figure 2-4.
Conceptual approach for research to be conducted within the base program.
Ecological Research Strategy
2-7
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
SECTION 3
Core Research
Objectives,
Rationale, and
Focus
A core research program is
fundamental to being able to meet
both the current and future needs
of EPA. Therefore, ORD will
maintain a fundamental and
applied research program in the
following areas:
• Ecosystem monitoring research
• Ecological processes and
modeling research
• Ecological risk assessment
research
• Ecosystem risk management
restoration research
3.1 Introduction
Underlying the ability for ORD to be
responsive to the current and future
environmental protection needs of EPA is a
long-term, fundamental and applied research program
in four areas:
1. Monitoring Research. What is the current
condition of the environment, and what
stressors are most closely associated with that
condition?
2. Process and Modeling Research. What are
the biological, chemical, and physical
processes affecting the condition of
ecosystems and their response to stressors?
3. Risk Assessment Research. What is the
relative risk posed to ecosystems by these
stressors, alone and in combination, now and
in the future?
4. Risk Management and Restoration
Research. What options are available to
manage the risk to or restore degraded
ecosystems?
As discussed in Section 2, these four areas have
historically been strengths in ORD and will continue
to serve as the foundation for research into the future.
How this expertise is applied to EPA's needs will
change as environmental issues change, but a basic
research program will be maintained in each of these
major areas. Section 4 discusses how these core
capabilities will be used to address high-priority
issues over the next few years. Because of the close
relationship in the core research and programmatic
needs, there is some redundancy in the materials
presented in Sections 3 and 4.
The sections that follow provide an overview of the
direction of the core research program that will be
undertaken over the next three to five years. As a
strategy, the intent is to present what work is to be
done and why, but not how. The research represents
a composite of capability. However, the intent will
be to concentrate on continually improving the ability
to quantify relative risk to ecosystems and to manage
those risks. The research goals for each area and the
associated scientific questions are quite broad, as they
should be given the mission of the Agency. However,
because the capability and capacity of the in-house
program is not unlimited, the core research emphasis
will be primarily concentrated on water quality
improvements (both biological and chemical). Thus
in the later sections, a more specific scientific
question will be presented that significantly narrows
the central aim of the Program.
Additional research strategies and plans to
complement both the core and problem-focused
research (Section 4) are or will be made available.
They provide more detailed information about how
the research will be conducted. Table 3-1 lists those
research strategies and plans that are applicable to the
Ecological Research Strategy and are now being
prepared or completed. This information will be
useful to the reader seeking a more detailed
understanding of the research to be conducted.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-1
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Table 3-1.
Companion ORD research plans or strategies to the Ecological Research Strategy.
Titles
Synopsis of the Plan
Endocrine The hypothesis that endocrine disrupting chemicals are causing adverse health in the
Disrupters wildlife and humans remains intriguing. Most of the knowledge and concerns to date
have arisen from situations with relatively high-level exposure to persistent organic
pollutants or therapeutic use of pharmacological agents. For proper regulatory action to
occur, the understanding of the potential scope of endocrine disruption in humans and
wildlife must be expanded, including definition of the range of health effects, critical life
stages, sensitive species, and exposures relevant to alterations in endocrine function, as
well as development of risk management options to reduce or prevent additional
adverse effects in populations.
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment Program
(EMAP)
This Program develops the science of measuring ecosystem health and monitoring the
condition and trends of natural resources at the regional scale. Using the White House
Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) National Monitoring
Framework and interagency workgroups as guides, EMAP supports complementary
intramural and extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research programs to
develop more cost-effective ecological indicators and to design multiple-tier monitoring
methods capable of detecting trends and associating ecological impacts with likely
stressors. The indicators and monitoring designs intended to support state-, regional-,
and national-level environmental report cards encompass multiple stressors and many
resource classes such as estuaries, streams, lakes, wetlands, forests, and grasslands.
Global Change Based on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
guidance in ORD's strategic plan; and the priorities specified in FY97, Our Changing
Planet by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), ORD will strategically
invest in global change research. ORD's Global Change Research Program will
concentrate on ecological vulnerabilities of ecosystems to climate change, the
implications for human health, and mitigation and adaptation approaches. The research
conducted will provide policy makers with information on potential ecological and
human health consequences of climate change and technical data needed to evaluate
alternative greenhouse gas emission reduction and adaptation approaches.
Waste
The goals of the ORD Waste Research Strategy are to set forth an effective research
program to understand and reduce human and ecological exposure to toxic materials
released during waste management, and to assess and remediate contamination that has
occurred because of improper waste management. These goals are directed toward
research on groundwater, soils, and the vadose zone at contaminated sites; on active
waste management facilities; and on emissions from waste combustion facilities.
Associated technical support activities to assist EPA Program Offices and regions and
other stakeholders also are described.
3-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Table 3-1.
Companion ORD research plans or strategies to the Ecological Research Strategy.
(Continued)
Titles
Synopsis of the Plan
Indicator Measuring the integrity and sustainability of ecosystems requires the development and
Development understanding of "indicators" of critical ecosystem characteristics. ORD's strategy for
ecosystem protection and the subcomponent, EMAP, place a high priority on the
development and implementation of effective measures of important ecosystem
attributes. This research plan builds on past research in EMAP and will outline the
major gaps in the ability to measure and interpret the integrity and sustainability of
ecological resources at multiple spatial scales and to diagnose the causes of impairment.
Based on these analyses, ORD will propose the portions of these gaps that will be
addressed through research by the EPA ORD staff and prioritize the indicators that
should receive research attention through the STAR grants program.
Ecosystem An ecosystem restoration strategy and research plan has been prepared and peer
Restoration reviewed by NRMRL. The strategy develops the rationale for restoring watersheds using
an array of rehabilitation and stressor reduction technologies and for providing decision
support systems for watershed restoration groups. The Program will be implemented via
an in-house competitive proposal approach and participants are seeking partnerships
with other ORD investigators in NERL, NCEA, and NHEERL. The Office of Water is
included in the proposal evaluation stages to ensure relevancy. On-going and future
restoration projects in the regions will be used as appropriate test beds for the developed
technologies.
Contaminated A contaminated sediment planning group has been convened within ORD to develop a
Sediments research strategy. In some cases (e.g., sediment quality), criteria development has been
an ongoing area of research that will continue. In other cases (e.g., remediation of
contaminated sediments), new work has been initiated. In this case, and as a follow-up to
the recent NRC recommendation on the subject, NRMRL has engaged the Corps of
Engineers in a discussion of joint projects and programs.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-3
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
3.2 Ecosystem Monitoring Research
Objective: Develop indicators,
monitoring systems, and designs
to measuring the exposures of
ecosystems to multiple stressors
and the resultant response of
ecosystems at local, regional, and
national scales.
Research Question: What is the
current condition of the
environment, and what stressors
are most closely associated with
that condition?
With rare exceptions, ecosystem monitoring has been
conducted to meet short-term or program specific
objectives, and it seldom is coordinated across large
geographic areas. Comparable measurements are
taken for only a short time (e.g., less than the length
of many natural ecological cycles) across a large area,
or, when measurements are made over a long period,
they usually are restricted to one or a few study sites.
Recently, there has been revived interest in creating a
multi-agency ecological monitoring network that
would monitor the condition of ecosystems and
provide periodic "report cards" to the public.
Early experience with EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
revealed that there remains a great deal of scientific
controversy over what to measure and with what
network design. The emerging consensus, based in
large part on the ecological risk assessment paradigm,
is that indicators of exposure (i.e., the juxtaposition of
a stressor and an ecological receptor in time and
space at a comparable and appropriate scale) and
effect (i.e., the actual change in an ecological
receptor, again at a number of relevant and
appropriate scales in time and space) should be
simultaneously monitored. Additionally,
environmental characteristics that modify the
exposure/effect relationship (i.e., characterization), as
well as exposure indicators that signify the occurrence
of a past exposure, perhaps in episodes or
cumulatively over long periods of time, also need to
be monitored.
With respect to monitoring design, there is also an
emerging consensus that a hierarchical, tiered design
is necessary. Such a design employs statistical
surveys or coarse-scale coverage, using remote
sensing to conduct periodic surveillance on large
areas, along with more intensive monitoring (both in
time and space), occurring at representative sites of
interest. Indicators must be adapted to the
appropriate tier of monitoring, and yet linked across
the tiers.
The monitoring research strategy sets a course to
improve monitoring technology in indicators,
environmental characterization and network design.
It retains a degree of disciplinary concentration (e.g.,
remote sensing, environmental analytical chemistry,
landscape ecology, community ecology) necessary for
progress, but it is the goal to insure that the
interconnections among the indicators, design, and
analysis elements lead ultimately to an integrated
solution to a successful national ecological
monitoring program.
3.2.1 Indicator Development Research
Monitoring serves multiple functions. It is certainly a
tool to assist in determining if there is an
environmental problem, and if so, how big the
problem is and where it is of most concern.
Monitoring is also essential to determine what is
causing problems that are of concern and the relative
importance of multiple stressors; it plays a role at all
levels of the risk assessment process (Figure 1-1).
Clearly, these functions of monitoring require
utilization of retrospective monitoring (i.e., has a
effect already occurred?) and prospective monitoring
(i.e., given current or projected levels of stressors, is
an effect likely to occur?). Both of these functions of
monitoring assist in targeting resources, both
resources directed at solving environmental problems
and resources expended on research related to
environmental concerns. Once decisions about
management actions are made, monitoring becomes
critical to determining if the decisions and actions
resulted in the changes or improvements expected.
Central to all of these functions are the decisions
about what should be monitored to meet the
objectives.
It is clearly impossible to measure all environmental
changes, and the concept of indicators is simply an
expression of efforts to summarize which elements of
environmental change should be tracked and will
provide the greatest information return for the least
investment. The distribution and intensity of stressors
generated by human activities and threatening
ecological resources are uncertain. It is not known
which stressors place ecosystems at most serious risk.
Also unknown is the condition of the resources or the
extent to which critical ecological processes are being
3-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
impaired. There is fragmented knowledge of places
with obvious, detrimental impacts but less knowledge
about the more pervasive and extensive ecological
problems. More limited means exist to sample and to
make the measurements that will provide the kind of
scientific data needed to understand, predict, and
resolve potential environmental threats.
ORD research on indicators must contribute to
developing an understanding of the conceptual basis
for defining sustainability and integrity for single
ecological resources and complexes of ecological
resources. What are mechanistic models for these
concepts from which can be developed a foundation
for monitoring? What are the ecological units of
organization for which sustainability and integrity can
be described? Are watersheds, ecoregions, or
landscapes the ecological units suited for describing
sustainability and integrity? Can individual
ecological resources such as lakes, streams, forests, or
rangelands exhibit sustainability and integrity, or are
these concepts applicable only to complexes of
ecological resources types?
Sustainability and integrity do not necessarily imply a
steady state or a desire to maintain the status quo.
Ecosystems are dynamic both in space and time.
Recognition of this dynamic character makes the
selection of a benchmark or yardstick against which
to evaluate current conditions a research challenge.
Indeed, this has been the challenge throughout the
development of chemical and biological criteria
within EPA's Office of Water. When human health is
the concern, dose-response studies of individual
chemicals form a basis for the development of
chemical criteria. The effort to develop similar
criteria relevant to evaluating sustainability will be
significantly more difficult. Prototypes do exist, and
their strengths and weaknesses require careful
evaluation.
The goal of the indicators research will be to develop
suites of new, field-applicable biological indicators
and criteria for measuring, understanding, and
diagnosing ecosystem exposures, effects and
recovery. An "Indicator Development Research
Plan" for ORD that will organize and prioritize the
in-house EPA research efforts on indicators is being
developed. The ORD indicator plan will be available
in the fall of 1998. This plan also will contain a
refinement of the indicator development evaluation
criteria described by Barber (1994). Therefore, what
follows is only a brief summary of the process and
areas for research.
3.2.1.1 Indicator Development Framework
Fundamentally, an indicator is:
"any expression of the environment that
quantitatively estimates the condition of ecological
resources, the magnitude of stress, the exposure of
biological components to stress, or the amount of
change in condition."
The indicator may be a single value or remotely
sensed measurement or it may be an index based on
multiple field or remotely sensed measurements. The
output of a mathematical model may also be used as
an indicator. ORD's four point goal is to identify and
select indicators that (1) quantify biological condition
relative to integrity and sustainability and quantify the
stressors to which the biota are exposed, (2) meet the
indicator selection criteria, (3) can be incorporated
into one of the three monitoring tiers (index sites,
regional surveys, remote sensing), and (4) can be
used in ecological risk assessment.
The research plan and the criteria guidelines under
development will outline in extensive detail the
evaluations to which indicators will be subjected.
However, these are five basic questions that must be
answered.
1. What should be measured? Requires a
conceptual model of the system, an evaluation
of the potential use of various levels of
biological organization, and the classes of
stressors that are potentially important for that
resource and scale. Table 3-2 summarizes the
biological levels of organization that will be
considered.
2. How should the indicator be measured?
Requires that a standard protocol be defined.
3. How responsive is the indicator?
Evaluating the degree to which a particular
indicator actually responds to various stressor
gradients at multiple scales, or if a stressor
indicator responds to changes in the source
emissions.
4. How variable is the indicator? The extent
to which natural or introduced variability
inhibits detection of the signal through the
noise and distorts the description of status or
the detection of trends.
5. How can the indicator be used?
Demonstrating the indicator in a monitoring
or assessment project to determine how it will
evaluate condition, vulnerability or the
magnitude of stressors.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-5
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Table 3-2.
Levels of biological organization to consider during indicator development with
examples of structural and functional aspects of each level.
Structure
Heterozygosity
Condition
Anomalies/Deformities
Maximum Size
Tissue Contamination
Abundance
Age Class Distribution
Size Class Distribution
Relative Abundance
Richness -Native
Richness - Total
Evenness
Trophic Composition
Reproductive Composition
Habitat Guilds
Regional Diversity (gamma)
Homogeneity
Hot Spots
Patches
Patterns
Fragmentation/Recovery
Level of Organization
Gene
Individual
Population
Assemblage (Community)
Watershed or Landscape
Process
Polyploidy Rate
Mutation Rate
Recombination Rate
Metabolic Rate
Growth Rate
Fecundity
Reproduction Rate
Growth Rate (of Population)
Death Rate
Evolution/Speciation
Competition/Predation
Disease/ Parasitism
Mutualism
Recovery Rate
Water Delivery
Chemical Delivery
(Native and Exotic)
Material Delivery
(Sediment, Wood)
Energy Flow
Nutrient Cycles and Spiraling
Population Sources and Sinks
Fragmentation Rate/Recovery Rate
ORD will undertake research to develop indicators in
two major areas.
• Landscapes (locally, regionally, and nationally)
• Aquatic Systems (estuaries, wetlands,
rivers/streams, and lakes)
These will include both "condition" and "stressor"
indicators but the balance will vary depending on the
state of science in each area.
3.2.1.2 Landscape Indicators
It is becoming increasingly clear that many of the
environmental threats today are caused by
developmental pressures on the landscape. In many
cases, habitat and landscape alterations pose far
larger threats to the integrity and sustainability of
ecosystems than do pollutants. As a result, ORD has
developed a landscape characterization, indicator
development and assessment capability to look not
only at current conditions but also to document past
changes and quantify future ones as well.
The objectives of the landscape indicators research
are the following:
• Develop a set of landscape indicators that can
be interpreted relative to status and changes in
fundamental ecological and hydrologic
processes that influence and constrain the
sustainability of ecological goods and services
valued by society.
3-6
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
• Develop a set of landscape indicators that can
be interpreted relative to cumulative stress on
areas ranging in size from local communities to
regions.
• Determine the interrelationship and associations
between cumulative stress and landscape
conditions at multiple scales.
• Provide guidance to EPA on the measurement
and application of landscape indicators.
The primary emphasis of this research will be on the
development and application of approaches to
analyze landscape composition and pattern relative to
the sustainability of environmental values across
scales ranging from local communities to regions.
These approaches will take advantage of
comprehensive spatial databases that are now
available and those being used. High resolution,
remote sensing imagery and field data will be used to
validate and enhance landscape indicator
interpretations. The ability to enhance the
interpretation of landscape indicators through
collection of finer scale data may also depend on
hierarchical relationships among site, landscape, and
regional conditions which will also be considered.
Indicators of Human Stress on Landscapes
The primary purpose of this research is to relate
indicators of human patterns in landscape to exposure
profiles (landscape composition and pattern) of
indigenous ecosystems, including as forests, deserts,
grasslands, and prairies, as well as larger systems,
including watersheds. Correlations or linkages
between human patterns and exposure profiles of
landscapes provide a way to evaluate how human
settlement in landscapes influence fundamental
ecological and hydrological processes, because
changes in landscape composition and pattern are
tightly coupled to fundamental ecological processes.
Indicators of Landscape Condition and
Vulnerability
If landscape composition and pattern indicators are to
be used to evaluate the vulnerability of ecosystems at
many scales across a region, they must be linked to
ecological conditions at one to several scales.
Therefore, the following areas of research will be
undertaken.
Habitat Suitability and Landscape-Level Biotic
Processes. Status and changes in landscape
composition and pattern have significant
consequences for plants, animals, and entire
biotic communities, primarily through alteration
of the amount and spatial pattern of suitable
habitat. Changes in suitable habitat influence
landscape-level processes of plant and animal
metapopulations, including immigration,
emigration, and population sizes; these in turn
influence species' vulnerabilities to
(probabilities of) extinction. The primary
purpose of this research is to evaluate the
degree to which certain landscape indicators
co-vary with habitat suitability of species that
interact with their environment at different
scales. Moreover, the research will determine if
critical thresholds exist between landscape
indicator values and habitat suitability. If
successful, this research will permit an
assessment of vulnerability of certain habitats
due to human-induced changes in the landscape.
It also should facilitate an assessment of species
extinction probability (vulnerability) through
the use of landscape indicator input into
metapopulation extinction models.
Water Resources and Hydrologic Processes.
An increasing number of recent studies have
suggested that landscape composition and
pattern influence water quality, the biological
health of streams, and the risk or vulnerability
of watersheds to flooding. The primary purpose
of this research is to evaluate the degree to
which indicators of landscape composition and
pattern co-vary with the water quality, stream
biotic condition, and watershed vulnerability to
flooding. An understanding of these
relationships permits an assessment of the
vulnerability of hydrologic processes to significant
impairment due to human-induced landscape
changes, as well as underlying landscape
conditions (e.g., soils, topography) and
biophysical processes (e.g., climate). This
activity will include research to determine the
role of riparian habitat in landscape-water
interactions, and evaluation of critical threshold
values of landscape indicators with regard to the
quality of water resources.
Terrestrial Productivity. Status of and change
in landscape composition and pattern have
direct implications for potential vulnerability of
terrestrial ecosystems to losses in productivity,
especially in those situations where human
pattern and uses influence soil loss. Soil loss
reduces the ability of an area to sustain
productive forests, rangelands, and prairies. It
also results in increased need for fertilizers in
Ecological Research Strategy
3-7
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
agricultural landscapes, which can decrease
farm profitability (and hence, farm
sustainability), and results in decreased surface
and ground water quality, as well as stream
biotic conditions. The primary aim of this
research is to develop and test landscape
indicators, that when coupled with soil loss
models, estimate the spatial variability of soil
loss potential within and among watersheds.
Within watershed analysis permits an
assessment of the spatial variation of soil loss
across a watershed, as well as an assessment of
the vulnerability of streams to degradation due
to soil loss. Other indicators, such as changes in
the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index,
will be evaluated relative to terrestrial
productivity vulnerability. This research also
will determine if critical thresholds exist
between landscape indicator values, soil loss,
and losses in overall productivity.
Effects of Data Properties on Landscape Indicator
Interpretation
This research concentrates on two areas that can
affect the interpretation of landscape indicator values
relative to vulnerability analysis:
Statistical Properties of the Data. There are a
number of properties of landscape data that
influence the ability to interpret landscape
indicators relative to landscape condition and
vulnerability. These properties include the
number of samples (in land cover maps, these
can vary from a few hundred to several million),
the number of attributes (e.g., land cover
classes), and the scale dependency. This
research will test approaches to reduce losses in
interpretative power of landscape indicators
resulting from statistical properties of the
primary data.
Sensitivity of Landscape Indicators to
Misclassification in the Data. Interpretability
of landscape indicators is influenced by
sensitivity of individual indicator to
misclassification embedded within land cover
and other primary spatial data. Moreover, many
landscape indicators are calculated by
overlaying different spatial coverages; for
example vegetation (land cover data) adjacent
to streams (digital line-graph data). This
research will develop and test protocols to
understand the influence of misclassification of
spatial data on landscape indicators.
3.2.1.3 Aquatic Indicators (Estuarine,
Wetland, Rivers/Streams, and
Lakes)
The traditional focus of the Agency has been on
aquatic resources, and the ORD research strategy
reiterates this priority in its setting of goals for
ecosystem protection. Indicators for estuaries,
wetlands, rivers/stream and lakes are in a similar
stage of development. The movement toward
biocriteria within EPA and the States has pushed the
use of biological indicators as tools needed to
compliment the existing measures of physical and
chemical integrity that have traditionally been used.
The objectives of the aquatic indicators research are
to:
• Develop a set of indicators for estuarine,
wetland, riverine, and lake systems that can be
interpreted relative to status and changes in
fundamental ecological and hydrologic
processes that influence and constrain the
integrity and sustainability of these systems.
• Develop a set of aquatic indicators that can be
interpreted relative to cumulative stress in areas
ranging in size from local communities to
regions.
• Develop a set of aquatic indicators that can be
used to quantify the extent of chemical
disturbance, physical habitat alteration,
hydrologic alteration, and biological
perturbations such as introduction of exotic
species and overstocking/overharvesting.
• Determine the interrelationship/associations
between primary stressors in aquatic systems
(i.e., chemical, hydrologic, habitat and
biological alterations) and aquatic conditions at
multiple scales.
• Provide guidance to the Agency on the
establishment of "expected conditions" for
aquatic indicators of condition and stressors.
Community/Assemblage Level Indicators
The community or assemblage level of biological
organization has emerged as the dominant level at
which effective indicators of integrity and
sustainability are being developed. This suggests that
aquatic communities are a good reflection of the
cumulative effect of the various stressors to which
they are exposed. With a few exceptions, the species
have moderate to rather short generation times and
3-8
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
thus allow us to identify and react to problems before
they become irreversible.
Most of the community- or assemblage-level
indicators in aquatic systems come from analysis of
the fish, benthic invertebrate, or algal communities.
The sampling methodologies are reasonably well
established, although they require greater
quantification as to the amount of variability
associated with the sampling process. Establishment
of expected conditions for assemblage-level
indicators will consume and extensive amount of the
effort in aquatic indicator research. These
"expectations" respond to a variety of natural drivers,
and these must be accounted for in establishing the
indicators. For example, a common metric in fish
indices of integrity is species richness. Species
richness in lake fish assemblages naturally varies with
watershed area. Thus, an indicator with this measure
must account for these natural differences. Similarly
the benthic community in estuaries varies naturally
with substrate type and salinity. Without an ability to
include consideration of these types of natural
drivers, an effective indicator will not be possible.
An added aspect of our research on aquatic indicators
will be the consideration of the necessary suite of
indicators for effective monitoring programs. For
example, what is the added value of monitoring the
fish assemblage, macroinvertebrate assemblage and
periphyton assemblage? Each community of
organisms has different life cycle characteristics and
responds to slightly different stressors. This type of
sensitivity analysis will be important in developing
recommendations for aquatic indicators.
Molecular Indicators
Tools of chemistry and biology are able to be used in
the ambient environment to quantify stressor-induced
changes at the organismal level and below. Linkages,
direct or indirect, continue to be made between
stressors and these changes. Directly, chemical
stressors may be detected and quantified by their
covalent binding to biological macromolecules (e.g.,
DNA and protein [hemoglobin]) or by the appearance
of parent compounds or their metabolites. Indirectly,
chemical stressors may be detected by the appearance
of induced biochemical structures, lesions or disease,
brought about only by past exposure to specific
stressors and occurring only after the progression of a
cascade of cellular events. Although these changes
may be detected at the molecular level, they may be
interpreted at biological levels above that of the
organism (e.g., reduced variability in DNA
fingerprints offish may indicate vulnerability of the
population to further exposure). Besides the
indication of chemical stress, molecular indicators
can indicate habitat changes or act as indicators of
ecosystem vulnerability (e.g., changes in sediment
microbial metabolic activity indicate a vulnerability
of the sustainability of stream integrity). Molecular
indicators have been developed in the laboratory and
are being validated in the field recognizing the
importance of additional sources of variation in the
ambient environment.
Specific areas of molecular indicator research
include:
• Biochemical indicators. Measuring changes in
cellular processes or structures after stressor
exposure.
• Toxicological indicators. Improving toxicity
tests which parallel the environmental
conditions known to exist in areas that are the
focal point of exposure characterization.
• Genetic indicators. Measuring heritable
molecular structure of organisms and DNA and
its RNA transcripts present a number of
indicator- development opportunities that will
be pursued including (1) indicators of genetic
toxicity, (2) changes in the level of specific gene
expression, and (3) fingerprinting DNA.
3.2.2 Monitoring Design Research
It is clear that we cannot monitor everything,
everywhere, all the time. Historically, we have
monitored an individual location because of our
interest in that particular site, a point source discharge
location or high priority resource. In doing so
however, we have seldom given serious thought to
how well we can actually detect the signal of
environmental disturbance we are seeking and
whether or not we will actually be able to identify a
change, if it occurs, that is the result of our
management action. We are even more in our infancy
in monitoring large geographic portions of our
country. In addition to lacking indicators, we have
lacked any serious attention to the design of
monitoring approaches that can describe the status of
large regions and actually allow us to detect changes
and trends. Our research in monitoring will range
from the fundamental elements of taking
measurements at the local scale to the designs
necessary for describing status and detecting trends
over large geographic areas. Our monitoring research
will culminate in regional and national
demonstrations which bring into light the results of
Ecological Research Strategy
3-9
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
our indicator development, monitoring design
research, and process understanding research, and
then apply them in regional assessments.
Most monitoring systems start fundamentally with
"plot" measurements (i.e., the measurements or
samples taken at a particular point in the
environment). The "plot" measurement design is
closely linked with the development of the particular
"indicator" and the scale at which it is appropriate.
This has variously been referred to as the "plot scale"
protocol or the "response" design or "site"
measurement design. It ranges from how one chooses
to represent and sample a particular point (e.g., such
as an air sample for chemical analysis), a small area
of a resource (e.g., a stream "reach") or a different
scale (e.g., a landscape viewed through remote
imagery). Examples would be the plot design one
uses to collect an effective representation of the fish
assemblage structure within a stream, or the design
one uses to collect "wet" and "dry" deposition at a
location, or a sample of chemical contaminants in
soil from a site.
A second element of monitoring systems design
research relates to the way in which samples from
multiple "plots" are aggregated together for an
assessment across a broader geographical area. This
may still depend upon the scale of the question of
interest. For example, it may be of interest to
characterize the extent and magnitude of soil
contamination within a Superfund site which is still a
relatively local scale, or the question may relate to the
best design to use for selecting stream reaches in
order to sample when the end result is supposed to be
aggregated, and then to answer questions about the
length of stream which is impacted within a state or
EPA region.
Whatever the scale of interest, it is important to
consider the entire "monitoring process" as the
system of interest. Variability which will ultimately
impact the assessment process can be introduced at
several levels, starting with the design process itself
(uncertainty in the source information used to develop
the design, e.g., maps of stream reaches), the
sampling (temporal and spatial variability at the
sample location, crew errors, variability in
implementing the field protocols), the sample
processing and analysis (variability in analytical
methods, variability in identification of biota), the
sample aggregation process (combining data from
multiple locations, e.g., a random sample from all
possible streams that could have been sampled) to the
data analysis phase.
Within ORD, the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) serves as the focal
point for our monitoring research. EMAP is an
ORD-wide program geared toward providing
improved monitoring capabilities for regional and
national scale assessment questions. The research on
monitoring designs required to make EMAP
successful are developed in more detail in the 1997
EMAP Research Plan.
3.2.2.1 Ecological Monitoring Research
The federal Committee for the Environment and
Natural Resources (CENR) has proposed a national
monitoring framework that recognizes the importance
of different approaches to monitoring, from
intensively studied, hand-selected sites, to regional
and national probability surveys, and finally remote
sensing where a complete census can be derived. The
most significant aspect of this framework is that
remote sensing, regional surveys, and site-specific
monitoring should be coordinated, allowing the full
range of integration that has so far been impossible.
All three types of monitoring identified are essential
for an integrated environmental monitoring
capability. While key elements of the CENR
framework can be put into place now, additional
research will be required before complete
implementation is possible. Within each of the three
tiers described, research must be conducted at
appropriate scales to improve survey and monitoring
methods, to understand our ability to detect and
interpret meaningful changes that are observed, and
to link these results in the development of descriptive
or predictive models. Research on our ability to
determine cause and effect must integrate information
on processes that occur across the range of scales
from large regions to individual sites. Additionally,
we must explore methods of designing each of these
approaches such that they can be integrated and allow
additional information to emerge that might not
otherwise be available. ORD has already
demonstrated this through a monitoring approach for
detecting trends in aquatic systems which are
sensitive to acidic deposition. This type of research
must be extended to other systems and other types of
stressors.
Specific objectives within this phase of research are:
• Develop plot scale designs for effective local
monitoring to describe status and detect trends
in local conditions.
• Develop survey designs for describing status
and trends in regional populations of lakes,
3-10
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
streams/rivers, wetlands, estuaries, and
landscapes.
• Develop a process for determining the power of
specific designs for detecting trends of varying
magnitudes.
Atmospheric Monitoring. Increasingly, the
chemical contaminants which were entering the
biosphere via point sources are now being introduced
via non-point source emissions. "Non-point source
emissions" was, for a period, synonymous with the
distributed introduction of chemicals overland into
our water resources. More recently, we have become
aware that many chemicals are also being introduced
to the atmosphere and being transported locally and
globally. They are returned to aquatic and terrestrial
systems via wet and dry deposition. Research will
concentrate on dry deposition estimates of nitrogen
and sulfur, UV-B monitoring, and improvements in
air toxics, ozone, and metals monitoring.
Soil and Sediment Monitoring. Soils and sediments
represent a three-dimensional matrix that is extremely
heterogeneous in each of its dimensions. As concerns
increase about the safety of our water supplies in
aquifers, the storage of contaminants in sediments of
lakes, rivers and estuaries, and the viability of our
soils for future production, it becomes more
important to improve our ability to characterize this
multi-dimensional matrix.
Aquatic Systems Monitoring. Extensive work has
been devoted to our ability to characterize small
streams that dominate the landscape in terms of their
length and distribution. We have made significant
advances in our ability to monitor the chemical,
physical and biological quality of these systems.
However, we have paid relatively little attention to
larger riverine systems and how best to characterize
any specific segment of a large system either from a
chemical, physical or a biological perspective. Given
our reliance on these systems for commercial
fisheries, drinking water supplies and navigation
sources, we must change this state of knowledge.
Survey designs, which can be applied to extensive
aquatic resources such as wetlands and estuaries, are
also a priority for research. The local variability
within these systems, as well as the population or
regional level of variability, are poorly understood.
Quantification of these aspects of variability is
essential before future designs can be recommended
confidently.
Landscape Monitoring and Characterization.
Landscape characterization documents the
composition and spatial relationships (patterns) of
ecological resources, including forests, streams,
estuaries, urban environments, and agricultural and
rangelands over a range of scales as it relates to
ecological condition and resource sustainability. The
approach also considers the spatial pattern of other
biophysical attributes, including geology, climate,
topography, hydrology, and soils, because they often
influence or determine landscape composition and
pattern, and the sensitivity of ecological resources to
stressors within any given area. The goal of this
research and coordination will be to develop
comprehensive, consistent databases of the nation's
landscapes, resources, and physical features at
multiple spatial and temporal scales.
3.2.2.2 Integration of Monitoring Approaches
Given the increased importance of understanding our
actions over broad geographic regions, improved
network design is a major research issue. Monitoring
designs most often are directed at narrowly defined
problems and are seldom explicit in terms of
quantifying bias, predictive power, or value to a
concept for holistic risk assessment. In the United
States, there are dozens of intensive study sites and
hundreds of specialized monitoring sites nationwide
with no unifying scientific concept to integrate data.
Monitoring data cannot often be aggregated to answer
larger questions.
Specifically, the objectives of this research are:
• Develop approaches for integrating different
types of monitoring, including probability
surveys, remote sensing, and data from
hand-selected sites.
• Estimate on a regional basis, with known
confidence, status, changes, and trends in
landcover.
• Estimate on a regional basis, with known
confidence, status, changes, and trends in
condition of estuaries, streams/rivers, and
wetlands.
• Estimate on a regional basis, with known
confidence, status, changes, and trends in
condition of landscapes.
• Seek associations between indicators of
condition in aquatic resources and landscapes
and indicators of natural and anthropogenic
stressors.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-11
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
ORD will stimulate an effort aimed at improving
multi-tier designs and engaging design specialists in
all agencies. Key areas in this research will be the
evaluation of the role of sample surveys (statistical or
probability based surveys) in characterizing ambient
stressor and condition information both for estimates
of status (current situation) and trends.
Within terrestrial monitoring agencies, sample
surveys are a standard operational tool. Within the
aquatic monitoring agencies sample surveys are
almost unheard of as a standard tool. The historic
reasons for this are important. We have traditionally
monitored aspects of terrestrial systems which are of
economic importance (e.g., crop production,
availability of timber for harvest). Historically, we
have relied on rigorous statistical estimation when
financial resources are of concern, hence the use of
rigorous surveys. We have not historically viewed
aquatic systems from the same perspective in spite of
their obvious economic importance. Additionally,
aquatic monitoring comes predominantly from a
background of concern about point-source discharges
of pollution. This naturally leads to more localized
designs and an upstream/downstream monitoring
perspective. As we acknowledge the importance of
non-point source pollution and other stressors to
aquatic systems as well as the geographic breadth of
our concerns, we need to evaluate more applicable
monitoring network designs.
This area of research will focus on advancing our
understanding of survey designs for monitoring
inland aquatic, estuarine and wetland resources as
well as landscapes. The options available for
monitoring status, trends or blending the needs of
both will be evaluated. The concern will also extend
to differences in survey design approaches for
extensive resources such as estuaries, linear systems
such as streams, discrete resources such as lakes, and
wetland systems which have elements of each of the
above characteristics.
The Mid-Atlantic Region will serve as the first
demonstration project for pulling these monitoring
efforts for aquatic resources and landscapes together
in conjunction with indicators of stressors that may be
impacting these systems.
In support, there will be an expanded environmental
statistics research program. There are very specific
aspects of environmental statistics that require
research for improving our monitoring capabilities.
We know that there are both spatial and temporal
dimensions to the environmental characteristics that
we will choose to monitor. There is also a great deal
of both natural and introduced variability in the
resulting picture that we develop. At the interface of
indicators and monitoring design is the need to
develop a process or framework for measuring,
describing and understanding these dimensions of
variability. In some cases, the monitoring system can
be designed to minimize the extraneous or introduced
variability, in other instances such as natural
dimensions of variability we cannot minimize it, but
we can describe it so that we understand how it
clouds our ability to describe status and detect trends.
This framework for evaluation of variability has
begun with the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) and can be expanded
to other research efforts within ORD and expanded
within EMAP. This is truly an integrative area
linking our indicator research and monitoring design
research, and impinging upon the risk assessment
products that can be developed. This area of research
will require extensive evaluation of indicators over
broad geographic regions, as well as temporally
within and across years. The variability analyses that
results from these data will then be brought to bear on
evaluating monitoring design options for programs
being developed within ORD and other parts of EPA
and the States. Research will include:
• The development of designs and composite
estimators for surveys over time, should lead to
improved efficiency of estimation and hence
reduction of cost for conducting large-scale
status and trend monitoring.
• Statistical models, which improve the
spatial-temporal linkages of information from
intensively monitored, hand-selected networks
and probability survey, have received little
attention to date and will be a key goal of
research on streams in the Mid-Atlantic.
• The accuracy of remotely sensed data for
evaluating the reliability of our monitoring of
changes in landcover and landscapes will be
assessed.
• Methods for analysis of massive data sets from
remote sensing platforms must be developed to
reduce the time between acquisition of data
from the satellite and availability of product.
Given that changes in land cover are among the
most significant stressors in impacting
ecological resources, the length of this delay
must be resolved soon.
3-12
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
• A concentration on spatial statistics and analysis
must result in the development of new data
analysis tools to help describe, understand, and
interpret environmental data over large regions
and capture its critical spatial characteristics.
3.2.3 Anticipated Products
• By 2000, make publicly available digital land
cover data for a baseline period (1990/1993)
and all Regions from which changes in land
cover can be accurately and quantitatively
documented.
• By 2001, complete an evaluation of a
multi-tiered, ecological monitoring system for
the Mid-Atlantic Region of the U.S. and its
applicability to other areas of the country.
• By 2002, publish a design and guidelines for
establishing multi-tiered monitoring systems
capable of assessing, optimally, the current and
long-term trends in the exposure to, and
condition of, ecosystems at multiple geographic
and temporal scales.
3.3 Ecological Processes and
Modeling Research
Objective: Develop the models to
understand, predict, and assess
the current and probable future
exposure and response of
ecosystems to multiple stressors at
multiple scales.
Research Question: What are the
biological, chemical, and physical
processes affecting the condition of
ecosystems and their response to
stressors?
Process and modeling research develops the basic
understanding and modeling technology to predict
future landscapes, stressor patterns, ambient
conditions, exposure profiles, habitat suitability, and
probable receptor responses as a function of risk
management alternatives. Future models will
consider multimedia, multipath sources, intermedia
pollutant transfers, transport and transformations,
microenvironments, and receptor activity patterns in
the context of anticipated regional changes resulting
from both natural and anthropogenic causes.
To estimate the distribution of exposure to multiple
stressors across vulnerable ecosystems, there is a
need to understand and quantify the governing
processes and develop models linking sources,
transport, and transformations of pollutant stressors,
along with physical stressor predictive models to
estimate exposures at appropriate temporal and
spatial scales. These models also must be linked to
landscape models to characterize future environments
and habitats. In addition, ties to appropriate suites of
biological response models are essential to the risk
manager, because often the goal is to forecast the
response of receptors to management actions.
For convenience and simplicity, current models used
to predict the outcome of any individual management
option are generally single media, involving only a
single pollutant or stressor. Modeling must move
past this piecemeal approach and represent the
interactions that occur across scales, media, stressors,
and multiple levels of biological organization
(Figure 3-1). The complexity of the problems that
EPA will face in the future will require models to
predict beyond today's physical and chemical
conditions to new, never-before-measured conditions.
Therefore, future models need to be based as closely
as possible on first principles. They need to be
sufficiently complex in their description of the
underlying processes that they become virtual
realities. By doing so, scientists can best advance the
understanding of the whole of the environment and
develop anticipatory and more flexible management
strategies that avoid unwanted results. It is
envisioned that future models will be interrogated as
virtual realities in the same way engineering tables
and interactive CD-ROM encyclopedias are used
today.
The next generation of models developed by ORD to
predict exposure to and the effects of multiple
stressors on ecosystems will be based on:
• Developing a "community"-accepted systems
approach (a common framework) to support
multimedia and multistressor modeling, both
within and outside of ORD.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-13
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Human Systems
Natural Systems
Figure 3-1.
Interactions across scales, media, stressors, and multiple levels of biological organization to be
considered in multimedia processes and modeling research.
• Developing state-of-the-science process
algorithms and component computational
models with flexible scaling to provide
problem-solving methodologies that are
applicable at multiple geographic and
temporal scales and, therefore, are useful to
environmental managers locally, regionally.
and nationally, and for critical event, daily.
seasonal, yearly, decadal, and longer
timeframe assessments.
• Systematic development and incorporation of
state-of-the-science atmospheric, terrestrial.
aquatic, and biotic compartment stressor and
effects models necessary to predict real world
conditions into the common framework.
• Improving the ability to interconnect.
"cooperate," and exchange information in one
system (e.g., the atmosphere), with another
system (e.g., surface water ecosystems) with a
different framework.
3.3.1 A Common Framework for
Multimedia Exposure and Integrated
Effects Modeling
Historically, three distinct classes of assessment
problems at EPA independently have set the stage
and defined the needs for an integrated
multistressor, multimedia, multipathway stressor
exposure modeling system:
1. Regional air pollutant exposure
assessments (e.g., acid deposition).
2. Watershed pollutant, temperature, and
sediment assessments (e.g., non-point
source best management practice [BMP]
strategies, total maximum daily loads
[TMDLs], and water-quality-based
permits).
3. Groundwater system threat assessment
(e.g., hazardous waste sites permits and
pesticide management plans).
The latter two problem classes involve the direct
interaction of the land surface with the hydrologic
cycle producing runoff of water and eroded soil
(and related pollutants) to and through surface
water ecosystems (fresh and estuarine) and the
percolation of water and related pollutants to and
through groundwater systems. Both are directly
impacted by human activity (intensity and location)
but also are linked naturally to atmospheric
processes and forcing functions.
In addition, the development of regional
atmospheric pollutant fate and exposure models
launched OPJ) into the high-performance
computing age. Although limited in multimedia
scope, the early regional models had to address the
atmospheric gas phase and the atmospheric cloud
water phase, accommodate biogenic emissions
from the terrestrial component, and account for
3-14
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
removal by rain and by dry interaction with the
land surface and vegetation.
Since 1992, the computational aspect of modeling
in EPA has become state-of-the-art. ORD
developed a prototype, air-oriented environmental
modeling framework, Models-3, that contains data
and model management, data processing, parallel
and cross-platform computing, and output
visualization and analysis capabilities that generally
are applicable to a variety of environmental
assessment yields. Models-3 is an obvious starting
point for a broader multistressor, multimedia model
framework development effort. This next effort
will be called the Multimedia Integrated Modeling
System (MIMS).
The objectives of developing MIMS are to:
• Foster and establish a "community approach"
to a multistressor, multimedia, multiscale
environmental modeling system involving
federal agencies, research institutes, and
academia.
• Foster active participation in the community
development of scientific, technical,
computational, and procedural guidance to
facilitate the formulation and development of
interoperable environmental modeling
systems, interchangeable science process
components, and network-accessible
environmental data repositories.
• Construct and maintain an open-architecture
software system that enables (1) data access
and management; (2) development, linkage,
and execution of simulation modules at
various spatial and temporal scales; and (3)
visualization, analysis, and interpretation of
model outputs across a full range of
computing technologies from desktop PCs to
scalable, parallel supercomputers across
networks.
• Formulate and develop state-of-the-science
process and component modules that can
serve as the fundamental building blocks for
framework implementation.
• Develop innovative techniques to resolve
spatial and temporal mismatches encountered
in multiscale, multimedia modeling, including
tight integration of geospatial analysis and
environmental process simulation.
• Develop efficient computational approaches
to meet increased demands of complex,
multiscale, multimedia, multidimensional
environmental models.
• Develop dynamic, intelligent computer
interfaces to assist users in access and
synthesis of data, information, and knowledge
related to environmental assessment issues.
This includes model parameterization,
uncertainty/sensitivity analysis, and
innovative output techniques for
visualization, multivariate analysis, and
interpretation.
• Ensure appropriate framework links are
available to ecological receptor effects
databases, microenvironmental and effects
databases, activity pattern databases, and
socioeconomic, demographic, and climatic
predictive forcing functions to assemble
relevant, problem-solving methodologies
using the framework.
3.3.1.1 Framework Development
As indicated in the previous section, development
of an integrated community framework for
multistressor, multimedia, multipathway exposure
(and risk) assessment modeling, and eventually,
effects modeling as well, is needed (1) to take
advantage of rapidly improving computer software
and computational capabilities, (2) to provide a
standardized, less duplicative, more efficient
assessment platform that is accessible by a wider
range of environmental assessors and managers,
and (3) simply to cope with the expanding scope of
emerging environmental management and
remediation problems.
The approach will be to exploit and expand the
software features of the Models-3 prototype into
the general framework and to incorporate
developmental and existing media computational
models, themselves to be systematically upgraded
with respect to their process descriptions (i.e.,
transport, transformation, sources, and sinks
algorithms), in a phased manner based on
application priorities and resources availability.
The overarching longer-term objectives for the
framework development were provided in the
previous section. Shorter-term objectives include:
• Plan and conduct a comprehensive,
multimedia, multistressor ecosystem exposure
assessment case study on a selected subregion
Ecological Research Strategy
3-15
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
of the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
Area (MAIA) to provide a rapid prototype
focal point for framework development.
• Write draft coding guidelines for community
review and acceptance, with emphasis on
code and data set integration.
• Obtain general use and distribution licensing
for software for framework development.
• Develop a data dictionary for those data
shared by the media-specific modules
anticipated for use in the ecosystem exposure
assessment case study.
• Evaluate and revise the Multiple Resource
Land Cover (MRLC) database for use in the
ecosystem exposure assessment case study.
• Phase in, as rapidly as possible, the
integration into the framework of
media/component modules anticipated for use
in the ecosystem exposure assessment case
study.
• Start simple linkages with to-be-selected
predictive meteorological and land use
change models for the ecosystem exposure
assessment case study (incorporate
socioeconomic drivers to the extent possible).
• Address spatial and temporal mismatches for
those modules to be used in the ecosystem
exposure assessment case study.
The following research will be areas for the further
development of the framework.
Atmospheric-Terrestrial Interaction
Water exchange is the principal basis of pollutant
transfers and subsequent transport. Gases and
aerosols can be stored and freely exchanged
between the atmosphere and the biosphere.
Modeling these reservoirs and fluxes requires an
intricate understanding of many different processes,
including bacteria, plant physiology,
micrometeorology, and biochemistry. Biogenic
processes, many of which are perturbed by
anthropogenic activity, can cause emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
vegetation; nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, carbon
dioxide (CO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) from
bacteria in soil; methane from wetlands; and
sulfurous compounds from water bodies.
Biological processes also can transform, reroute,
and reschedule the exposure pathways of
anthropogenic compounds such as dioxin, mercury,
and nutrients. In addition, plant matter can store
many pollutants, which then can be either ingested
by animals or rereleased into the environment.
Because these processes involve several
compartments and media (water, air, soil,
vegetation, bacteria, and other living organisms),
requiring an understanding of complex processes
and interactions, developing net flux and other
transfer linkages between compartmental models
will continue to be a long-term research challenge
for the framework development. The initial
emphasis will be on those compartment modules
needed for the multimedia, multistressor ecosystem
exposure assessment case study within MAIA.
Flux rate, transformation, sorption, and other
process algorithms will be developed/upgraded for
the needed component modules, based on the
research described below.
Spatial Scales
The nesting feature of the Models-3 prototype
computational framework already can handle a
wide variety of spatial scales. However, the
environmental process modules and databases have
a much more limited range of applicable spatial
scales. Resolving the incompatibilities in the
spatial scales of different processes is a significant
research area requiring additional process
understanding for each media/compartment.
Sub-grid scale features must be handled within
current science formulations; however, process
formulations typically are based on site
measurement studies that may not represent the full
texture and complexity of the grid scale modeled.
For example, dry deposition formulations based on
single land use type in a grid cannot represent the
deposition resulting from heterogeneity resulting
from its actual multiple land use. Transport
processes (such as those involved in convective
turbulence or clouds) are known to be scale-
specific, but their formulations may be inadequate
for the modeling of wide scale ranges. Linkages
between atmospheric processes and between
atmospheric and land/water surfaces may be crucial
for accurate simulations of pollutant concentration
and deposition fields. However, process
formulations often are oversimplified, and the
resulting linkages are poorly or inadequately
modeled. Most of these spatial scale issues must be
handled within the various compartment transport
modules (e.g., air, lakes, estuaries, watersheds, etc).
The first framework scalar issue is likely to be the
ecosystem exposure assessment case study within
3-16
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
MAIA, particularly if the selected subregion
problem involves nitrogen and estuaries.
Temporal Scales
Time scales for modeling ecosystems extend over a
vast range, from seconds and minutes for chemical
processes to minutes to hours to daily to seasonal
for atmospheric and hydrologic transport and
deposition processes, and to decadal and beyond
for ecosystem response to bioaccumulation and
climate and land use change. The linkages among
the media components, whose processes often
operate on vastly different time scales, must be
recognized, and suitable operational techniques
developed and implemented in the framework to
deal with those mismatches. The degree of direct
process coupling (e.g., wind and wave/currents,
toxic exchanges between air and water, etc.), versus
linking of module outputs and inputs for the
different media also needs to be examined and
optimized. The first practical attempts to deal with
this problem will be the ecosystem exposure
assessment case study within MAIA (i.e., for the
compartment modules to be integrated within the
framework for that study and the human health case
study).
Grid Structure for Coupling Processes/Models
The underlying computational grid structure used
to simulate physical, chemical, and biological
processes in two or more dimensions is dependent
on the nature of the process, the underlying
assumptions of the scientific theory, and the
computational approach. Therefore, underlying
grid structures may vary with each process, both
within and across media/compartments. To
facilitate the transition from one-dimensional
models toward higher dimensional models with
spatial and temporal coupling at either the process
or module level, there must be a tight coupling of
science process models with geospatial analysis
techniques to enable interprocess exchange of data.
Another major difficulty with many multimedia
models is the labor-intensive nature of the input
data preparation because of the type, complexity,
and spatial variability of the required input data,
especially where unstructured, irregular grids are
involved (e.g., in estuarine and large lake
hydrologic and pollutant transport module
boundary conditions). Embedded spatial analysis
capabilities can reduce the burden involved with
preparing spatially and temporally varying input
data for models. For the framework development
process, this will become a very acute issue as
river, lake, and estuary compartment modules are
integrated therein.
Databases
The initial concentration on databases relative to
the framework will be to identify those needed for
the ecosystems exposure assessment case study.
Once identified, a data dictionary must be
developed, and code guidelines established and
implemented to facilitate their access and use.
There are some obvious candidates. Another
critical linkage required is to pollutant transport
and transformation parameter databases and
computerized estimation systems. Development of
these estimation techniques is discussed under
Section 3.3 of this strategy.
3.3.1.2 Integrating Exposure and Effects
Modeling
It is important to ensure that the developmental
exposure assessment framework will possess the
appropriate linkages to ecological effects databases
and models for all levels of biological organization.
This includes habitat suitability in the broadest
sense for terrestrial, surface water-sediment, and
soil-subsurface environmental compartments.
Another concern is the activity-ranging patterns and
predator-prey interrelationships needed for food-
web exposure and impact analysis and the habitat
suitability assessment for key ecological species
and populations.
Some of these connections will be more
definitively identified and implemented at the
media component level in support of selected
"community-based ecoprotection" projects (see
Figure 2-2). More detailed connectivity
identification will be a feature of the integrated,
multistressor, multimedia ecosystem exposure
assessment case study within the Mid-Atlantic.
Once the case study has been completed, and
expanded framework development and
implementation is initiated, those effects models
and databases found to be most useful for general
"risk characterization-assessment" will be linked to
the framework.
Specifically, the objectives of this research are to:
• Develop state-of-the-science, tailored, linked,
compartment and multimedia exposure-risk
assessment frameworks in support of selected
community-based ecoprotection efforts and
case studies, and assist in their field testing
and application.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-17
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
• Identify and establish appropriate links for
general effects databases and models, such
that the developmental framework can
address both pollutant and nonpollutant
stressors, including habitat alteration/loss,
climate change, etc.
• Ensure socioeconomic drivers and climate
change are accounted for relative to predicted
land use change and habitat alteration, both
terrestrial and aquatic, within the framework.
• Focus special attention on the development of
and linkage to a spatially distributed
watershed response model as a major required
new component model for multimedia,
multistressor eco-risk characterization,
assessment, and restoration design and as a
framework element.
• Test these developmental compartment risk
assessment modules and especially the
prototype multimedia, multichemical,
multipathway ecosystem risk assessment
module for restoration design, watershed
diagnosis, and regional ecosystem assessment
and rule-making, via application in South
Florida-Everglades and the MAIA ecosystem
exposure assessment case study and
subsequent regional assessments.
The main areas are the integrated exposure-effects
compartment models needed for the Mid-Atlantic
assessments and their development and
implementation. Habitat change and suitability
predictive modeling are other areas that will be
pursued in the context of demographic
development, socioeconomic, and climate change
forcing functions. The long-range goal involves
the systematic and phased integration of these
linked, compartmental models and databases into
the general framework.
Multiscale Modeling
Answers and knowledge requirements about
stressor exposures and habitat alteration, and the
resulting ecological responses, are required for
different temporal, spatial, and ecological scales.
A great range of scales must be considered in the
context of local and regional decision making. A
region such as the Mid-Atlantic is at mid-scale,
encompassing scales of local concern and thereby
providing a context within which local-scale
problems can be considered. At the other end of
the range of scales, global changes (both climatic
and other human-induced changes) affects regional
and larger scale processes. The uncertainty in
climate change and development-demographic
projections makes predictions of regional changes
more difficult. Problems often occur in attempting
to apply knowledge gained from studies at a given
scale to a very different scale, such as the routine
application of a process description developed in a
laboratory setting to a field-scale projection. The
major difficulty to be overcome is whether any
description used is an adequate model of the
process as it functions in the environment, where
influencing factors cannot be controlled. ORD will
bring many such scale problems to the fore and
prepare for greater research effort to be directed to
the application of tools developed for local-scale,
or even scale-free, generic applications to
subregional and regional ecosystem assessments.
The integrated goal is to determine how regional
ecosystems are vulnerable to socioeconomics/
demographics, land use change, climate change,
habitat alteration, modifications to ecosystem
structure and diversity, and other large-scale
environmental perturbations such as mercury, acid
deposition, pesticides, or eutrophication. The
primary goal will be on methodology application to
the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States.
Results of this work will permit advances in
regional- and state-level vulnerability assessments
and national-level integrated assessments. This
will enhance EPA's ability to develop realistic
bounds on the nature and magnitude of the
vulnerabilities identified and to assess the costs of
mitigation and adaptation strategies, particularly
where habitat, chemical, climate, and management
stressors interact.
Model Coupling
Model coupling will be performed at all scales and
for all ecosystem endpoints of concern through the
general multimedia modeling framework previously
described. In the framework developmental-
transition period, model coupling, which links
related ecosystem impact assessment modules, will
be at the watershed and site scale. Prototype
component/media ecosystem assessment models
already exist at watershed, large lake, estuary, and
site scales. These will be updated with respect to
stressor exposure algorithms, effects, and activity
database linkages and impact assessment modules
during the transition period (two to five years), and
then incorporated into the general framework in a
planned, phased approach.
3-18
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
3.3.1.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, provide updated methodologies and
models for regional ecological exposure
assessment.
• By 2001, complete development of ecological
models for regional vulnerability assessment.
Publish significant research findings from
mesocosm experiments, field studies, and
modeling studies on reducing global and
transboundary risks.
• By 2004, complete exposure assessment of
ecosystem vulnerability to pesticide
contaminants over regional scales.
Recommend, evaluate, and adopt a modeling
architecture for integrating atmospheric,
terrestrial, and aquatic exposure and effects
models.
• By 2004, develop and demonstrate a multiple
pathway, multiple chemical model that
integrates human health and ecological
cumulative exposure and risk assessments.
• By 2005, develop advanced measurement,
computing, modeling, and data management
technologies, and integrate them into an
effective system for real-time delivery of
multimedia, multipollutant environmental
status and risk.
• By 2008, deliver an integrated exposure and
effects modeling system to be tested and
evaluated.
3.3.2 Improving Atmospheric Exposure
Modeling
Consistent with the development of a common
modeling framework is the need to improve the
exposure and effects models that will go into the
framework. The next section will present the high-
priority research areas in atmospheric exposure
modeling where the goal is to develop a state-of-
the-art air quality modeling system capable of
handling multipollutant issues and multimedia
interactions, and a second such system capable of
handling multipollutant issues and multimedia
interactions.
Atmospheric pollutant fate and transport research is
concentrated on the Models-3, third-generation
modeling system. This platform provides an
integrating mechanism for this research across EPA
and the atmospheric modeling community at large.
The initial version of Models-3 focuses on urban-
to regional-scale air quality simulation of
ground-level ozone, acid deposition, visibility, and
fine paniculate matter. The Models-3 framework
provides an interface between the user and
operational models, between the scientist and
models under development, and between the
hardware and model software. This allows the user
to perform a wide range of environmental tasks,
from regulatory and policy analysis to
understanding the interactions of atmospheric
chemistry and physics, while rapidly adapting to
new technology.
Atmospheric processes research focuses on the
formation, chemistry, transport, and behavior of
gases and aerosols in the atmosphere, plus
fundamental research in source apportionment,
aerosol physics, and paniculate matter chemistry
and fate. Pollutants of interest include ozone,
nitrogen oxides (NOx), NOy, and VOC species and
urban hazardous air pollutants.
The objectives of this research are to:
• Develop a state-of-the-art, "one-atmosphere,"
air quality modeling system capable of
handling multipollutant issues.
• Provide advanced air quality modeling
capabilities with the flexibility to operate at a
spectrum of spatial scales, including regional,
urban, and point source.
• Provide a standard interface that facilitates
interchange of science modules.
• Serve as a basis for research into advanced
science issues, multiscale interactions, mixed-
and cross-media issues, and physical and
chemical processes.
• Serve as a basis for diagnostic evaluation and
continuing modeling system development.
• Incorporate an advanced approach to
sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.
• Couple meteorological models closely with
chemistry-transport models.
• Take advantage of the enhanced
computational capabilities provided by high-
performance computing and communications
architectures.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-19
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
• Offer sufficient extensibility to address and
fulfill EPA's anticipated air quality research
modeling needs.
• Couple these models with terrestrial and
aquatic exposure models inMIMS.
3.3.2.1 Emissions Process Research
Specification of the emissions source terms is a
critically important factor in accurate air/water
quality modeling applications. Generally, the
emissions fluxes contain the most inherent errors
and uncertainties of all of the required input
parameters in air/water quality simulation. Yet, it
is these fluxes that are the independent variables
that are modulated in modeling exercises to seek
the optimum emissions control strategies for the
improvement of environmental quality. Thus, ORD
maintains a strong research emphasis on the
understanding of source emissions processes and
improvement in the estimation of emissions fluxes.
The objectives of emissions process research within
ORD are:
• To characterize and refine the emissions
factors for significant anthropogenic and
biogenic sources that contribute to
air/multimedia pollution problems.
• To determine the chemically speciated source
profiles of significant emission source
processes.
• To characterize levels of anthropogenic and
biogenic emissions activity as a function of
emissions process, location, and time (by
hour, day, month, or season, as appropriate).
• To build, refine, and maintain models and
databases of emission factors, source profiles,
and activity levels applicable to North
American locations that may be used in
air/multimedia quality modeling applications.
3.3.2.2 Wet/Dry Deposition Research
Deposition is the main pathway for all pollutants
from the atmosphere to the biosphere (land and
water) and the geosphere. All pollutants moving
from the atmosphere to plant communities, animals,
soils, water, etc., do so by this route. Thus, to
understand exposure of ecosystems to airborne
pollutants, an understanding of deposition
processes is essential. Deposition is dependent on
pollutant, plant species, plant physiology, surface
properties, and atmospheric transport and diffusion.
To understand and model deposition, all the above
processes must be understood. From the
atmospheric perspective, deposition is also a major
loss pathway for pollutants. Atmospheric models
must accurately account for deposition in order to
model chemical transport, transformation,
diffusion, and fate correctly.
The objective of this research is to understand wet
and dry deposition processes, develop and improve
deposition models, evaluate models with deposition
data, and describe the spatial and temporal extent
and trends in deposition. More specifically, the
objectives of this research will be to:
• Measure fluxes of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
ozone, and nitric acid (HNO3) to forests and
to evaluate existing point and regional
deposition models.
• Measure fluxes of SO2, ozone, and HNO3 to
surface waters, fresh and estuarine, and to
evaluate existing point and regional
deposition models.
• Develop methods to measure net intermedia
fluxes of NO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ammonia (NH3), mercury, toxics, pesticides,
and fine particles, and to develop and
evaluate intermedia transfer models.
• Measure fluxes of SO2, ozone, and HNO3
over land and surface waters during the winter
and evaluate existing intermedia transfer
models.
• Develop techniques to measure fluxes over
complex terrain, and apply and evaluate
intermedia transfer models.
• Conduct analyses of air pollutant dry and wet
concentration, deposition velocity, and dry,
wet, and total flux. These analyses will
address temporal behavior, spatial
distribution, climatological/meteorological
variables, transformation processes, and
coupling with emissions.
• Develop third-generation deposition models
that take into account the cell level chemical
reactions that occur in the leaf.
• Develop a better understanding of the
turbulent processes that control some
deposition processes and incorporate them
3-20
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
into operational deposition models, including
LES (Large Eddy Simulation) modeling.
• Through experiments and modeling, develop
an understanding of nocturnal processes, both
at the plant and atmospheric level, that
control, develop and apply methods to
measure fluxes of aerosols and develop,
refine, and evaluate existing models.
3.3.2.3 Community Multiscale Air Quality
(CMAQ) Modeling
EPA is developing an advanced air quality
modeling system, Models-3/CMAQ, as a
state-of-science assessment tool for scientific
analyses of air pollutants, their loadings and
distributions, as well as to provide a tool for
determining the efficacy of various control
scenarios. The chemical composition of air (and in
the case of airborne particles, their size
distribution) is controlled by numerous atmospheric
processes that operate over large ranges of
temporal and spatial scales. Models-3/CMAQ is a
flexible and general modeling system designed to
support computational scalability for multipollutant
and multiscale air quality simulation, while taking
advantage of the enhanced computational
capabilities provided by state-of-the-art
architectures. CMAQ is an emissions-based,
Eulerian, air quality modeling system that
integrates state-of-the-science physical and
chemical process algorithms with efficient
numerical solvers and data linkages. The inclusion
of particles in air quality simulation models will
allow the capability for modeling heterogeneous
processes. The various processes inclusive of
transport and deposition, as well as the chemistry,
are therefore much more adequately and credibly
simulated. Models-3/CMAQ will provide a basis
for understanding the complex temporal and spatial
distribution of air pollution on scales ranging from
airshed/watershed to regional (subcontinental)
scales. In addition to its use as an implementation
tool for simulating ground-level ozone, acid
deposition, visibility, and fine particles, CMAQ is
designed to be implemented for assessments of
transport and deposition of heavy metals (including
mercury), toxic semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), and nitrogen and other airborne nutrients
that impact sensitive receptor ecosystems. The
primary objectives will be to:
• Develop SVOC capability in
Models-3/CMAQ with paniculate matter.
• Add mercury and other heavy metal
deposition to CMAQ.
• Develop aggregation schemes for application
studies.
• Perform model evaluation.
3.3.2.4 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, Phase I of diagnostic evaluation of
Models-3/CMAQ is to be completed against
comprehensive field study data sets.
• By 2000, Phase II of diagnostic evaluation of
Model-3/CMAQ is to be completed against
comprehensive field study data sets. Mercury
modeling capability is incorporated into
Models-3/CMAQ.
• By 2001, more advanced chemical kinetic
mechanisms and meteorological process
algorithms are to be incorporated and tested
in the Models-3/CMAQ system. Phase I
evaluation of mercury modeling, using
Models-3/CMAQ framework, is to be
completed, and an integrated, evaluated air
chemistry, fate, and transport model for
coupling to existing terrestrial and aquatic
models is to be delivered.
• By 2002, methods for assessing the errors and
uncertainties in air quality predictions from
the Models-3/CMAQ system are to be
incorporated and tested, and SVOC modeling
capability is to be incorporated into
Models-3/CMAQ.
• By 2003, model evaluation exercises are to be
conducted with a newly revised version of
Models-3/CMAQ; the evaluation focuses on
urban- and local-scale pollution problems and
the larger scale influences on those problems;
preliminary evaluation of Models-3/CMAQ
for SVOCs is to take place.
3.3.3 Improving Aquatic and Terrestrial
Exposure Models
The uncertainties associated with predicting
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem exposures and
responses to pollutant stressors are heightened
greatly by ORD's frequent inability to incorporate
quantitative descriptions of these stressors' cycling,
speciation, intermedia transfers, sorption, and
transformation/degradation. These processes
determine not only the ambient concentrations of
pollutants and their transformation products
Ecological Research Strategy
3-21
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
available for direct and indirect ecosystem receptor
exposure, but also the pathogenic, chemical,
toxicity, oxidation-reduction potential, and
sediment and nutrient status factors relative to
general habitat suitability and overall risk
characterization.
Based on an assessment of the state of the science,
the major process uncertainties exist for: (1)
pathogenic bacteria and virus viability kinetics and
partitioning; (2) speciation and sorption of
ionizable organic chemicals and metals; (3)
microbial transformation kinetics and pathways,
particularly anaerobic transformation of hazardous
chemicals; (4) phytotransformation process kinetics
and pathways; (5) abiotic redox transformation
process kinetics and pathways; and (6) terrestrial
biospheric cycling/storage/release of nitrogenous
and carbonaceous greenhouse gases and nutrients.
Consequently, these areas will constitute the major
processes research areas for both terrestrial and
aquatic systems.
As indicated in previous sections of this strategy,
stressors other than pollutants must be assessed at
various geographical and temporal scales, in
various media, and in conjunction with pollutant
stressors. One major goal of the effort to improve
aquatic and terrestrial component stressor exposure
modules must include the development and
incorporation of those physical descriptors
necessary to define "suitable habitat" (e.g.,
temperature, sediment deposition-scone transport,
shear stress, riffles-pools, land forms, and
distribution, "patchiness," corridors, edge-to-
volume configurations, etc.). This requirement will
necessitate a vigorous program to link geographic
information system (GIS) technology to existing
and developmental aquatic and terrestrial
component exposure modules. It also will
necessitate a comprehensive evaluation and
upgrade of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and sediment
transport algorithms in existing and developmental
component modules, along with the pollutant
transport and transformation process descriptions.
Finally, in order to accelerate the development of
these new multistressor aquatic and terrestrial
component modules for both regulatory support
application and for general framework
incorporation, ORD will initially concentrate on
linked, watershed response system modules,
including associated terrestrial and groundwater
components, and site screening modules.
3.3.3.1 Biogeochemical Processes
The internal cycling, storage, and intermedia
exchanges of nitrogenic and carbonaceous
greenhouse gases, particularly their net releases to
or removal from the atmosphere, and the factors
that determine the same are major unknowns
relative to the projection of global climate change
and any feedback effects that the terrestrial
biosphere may impact thereon. In addition,
nitrogen and, to a lesser extent, phosphorus cycling
and storage within various land use categories is a
major unknown relative to the ability to predict
nutrient exports from these land forms to
groundwater and surface aquatic systems at a
watershed or regional scale, given the potential mix
of nutrient inputs to these various land forms (i.e.,
natural and anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen
deposition, fertilizers, animal wastes, and
biosolids).
The objectives of this research are to:
• Quantify the net carbon and nitrogen
greenhouse gas fluxes between the terrestrial
biosphere and the atmosphere as a function of
selected land use changes and management
practices.
• Quantify and model carbon and nitrogen gas
cycling, storage, and release from the
terrestrial biosphere for coupling to an ESM
for use in projecting long-term regional
climate (precipitation) changes.
• Quantify and model nutrient storage and
release form major land use categories (i.e.,
forests, row crops, pastures, etc.) as a function
of total nutrient inputs and management
practices.
3.3.3.2 Transport Properties and
Processes for Organic and
Inorganic Pollutants
Before any defensible terrestrial or aquatic
ecosystem exposure assessment can be conducted,
key pollutant source-sink processes must be
characterized, modeled, and integrated into the
appropriate media exposure-risk assessment
methodology (or general model framework). As
indicated previously, a state-of-the-art assessment
has identified those "most uncertain" pollutant
transport processes to be addressed in this strategy
as follows:
• Understand, quantify, and model the
3-22
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
speciation of complex molecules (organics
and metal/nonmetal inorganics) in natural soil
water and sediment water systems.
• Quantify and model the sorption-desorption-
complexation interactions of ionizable
pollutants with natural mineral surfaces,
humic-coated natural materials and dissolved
organic matter.
• Expand, test, and link to selected media
compartment exposure assessment models (or
general framework) the SPARC computerized
organic pollutant transport process parameter
estimation expert system.
3.3.3.3 Transformation Processes of
Pollutants
The key transformation processes to be
characterized, modeled, and incorporated into the
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem compartment
exposure-risk assessment models (framework
modules) are microbial transformations (both
aerobic and anaerobic) and phytotransformation
(plants and enzymes).
Specifically, the objectives of this research are to:
• Understand pathways and quantify and model
the kinetics of previously uncharacterized
sink-source processes for pollutants in soil-
water and sediment-water systems,
particularly microbial and
phytotransformations. Emphasis is on
anaerobic transformations of chlorinated
aromatic compounds and aerobic
transformations of PAHs and chlorinated
aliphatics.
• Develop organometallic formation and
degradation kinetics and pathways data for
selected metals of concern, particularly
mercury, arsenic, and lead.
• Characterize and model abiotic
(heterogeneous) reductive transformation
rates and pathways for selected classes of
organic pollutants of concern to EPA.
3.3.3.4 Anticipated Products
• By 2000, estimate kinetics of contaminant
release from sediment models to determine or
predict the bioavailability and residue-based
approaches for chemical stressor.
• By 2002, estimate the effects of sorption on
biotic and abiotic transformation rates in
sediments. Produce prototype model(s) at the
watershed scale integrating landscape
conditions and biophysical and
socioeconomic variables for application in
different regions of the United States.
• By 2003, evaluate publicly available water
flow and quality simulation models in terms
of their ability to evaluate risks associated
with various control technologies for wet
weather flows in a watershed.
• By 2004, provide next generation of water
and soil transport and fate models to predict
the distribution of chemical and other
stressors.
3.3.4 Improving Effects Modeling
The use of the ecological risk assessment process
as a foundation for environmental decision-making
is currently limited by the science supporting the
activities of problem formulation, analysis, and risk
characterization. Research to improve knowledge
of the ecosystem processes that will enhance effects
modeling will reduce the scope of these limitations.
In prioritizing areas of ecological effects research,
ORD has identified the following scientific
uncertainties as the aims of research for the next
five years:
• Identification of scientifically credible
assessment endpoints that accurately reflect
management goals and societal values.
• Availability and use of measures of effects
and measures of ecosystem characteristics to
represent assessment endpoints adequately.
• Understanding of ecological processes,
mechanisms, and relationships that support
development of stressor-response analyses
and cause-and-effect relationships.
Risk assessment endpoints must be ecologically
relevant, susceptible to known or potential
stressors, and represent management goals. Risk
assessment endpoints directly influence the type,
characteristics, and interpretation of data and
information used for analyses and the scale and
character of an assessment. Failures to define
assessment endpoints properly often limit the
usefulness of ecological risk assessments.
Developing the proper linkages of assessment
Ecological Research Strategy
3-23
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
endpoints to the scale of a risk assessment is a
significant challenge and requires an improved
understanding of the relationships between levels
of biological organization and the hierarchical
relationships of ecosystem components and
processes across space and time. Understanding
relationships between risk assessment endpoints
and the presence of multiple stressors is also a
critical issue. The presence of multiple stressors in
many ecological risk assessments requires the
selection of assessment endpoints that respond
differently to stressors to evaluate cumulative
effects and to discriminate effects among stressor
types. Multiple stressors may act at different
spatial and temporal scales and levels of biological
organization and require selection of an appropriate
array of endpoints that capture both indirect and
direct effects.
Although assessment endpoints must be defined in
terms of measurable attributes, their selection does
not depend on the ability to measure these
attributes directly. In cases where the assessment
endpoints cannot be measured directly, their
response may be predicted based on responses of
surrogate or similar entities (i.e., measures of
effects). In addition, measures of ecosystem
characteristics are often needed to improve the
means of interpreting assessment endpoints or
measures of effects. Methods to link assessment
endpoints with measures of effects must be applied
in a manner consistent with sound ecological
principles. Empirical and process-based
approaches for linking measures of effects to
assessment endpoints are used to varying degrees
depending on the scope of the assessment and the
data and resources available. Empirical and
process-based models can range from the use of
uncertainty factors to the application of complex
models that require extensive inputs. The
development of improved empirical and process-
based models is required to aid in extrapolating
measures of effects to assessment endpoints. The
development of decision trees for selecting
modeling approaches and "standard" models or
parameter sets to simplify comparisons among
stressors and species, populations, communities,
and ecosystems are also needed.
The goal of the research to be discussed in this
section will be on understanding processes and
developing models for determining the relationship
between stressor levels and ecological change.
These effects may be manifested at several
different spatial scales ranging from regions to sub-
organism that require different approaches and
techniques. The nature, extent and type of stressor
along with the uses and applications of the
information often influences the scale that is most
appropriate to study. The descriptions that follow
have been organized into three basic categories:
1. Watershed and Regional Responses.
Research addressing responses of a mosaic
of ecosystems to broad or cumulative
impacts of wide-spread stressors such as
regional air quality or land use practices.
2. Ecosystem Modeling. Research addressing
responses of ecosystems to physical,
chemical and biological stressors as
influenced by abiotic and biotic
interactions.
3. Ecotoxicology. Research addressing
responses at the organism and sub-
organism level primarily to chemical
stressors and factors that influence those
responses.
At the same time, it is recognized that in order to
properly understand and predict responses to
stressors, research must be undertaken that not only
improves our understanding at these different levels
but also provides insights as to how to extrapolate
results across these levels. Thus, close
coordination of all of these studies is necessary to
address the overall research questions.
3.3.4.1 Understanding and Predicting the
Effects of Watershed and
Regional Change
Ecological risk assessments typically are conducted
on single human-induced stressors (e.g., a single
contaminant introduced into a stream) at a single
level of biological organization. For toxicological
issues, the biological organizations usually range
from the cellular to the species. For ecological
issues, populations of species, communities, and
ecosystems may be added. The interaction of the
biologic and abiotic components in ecosystems
greatly increases the complexity of the assessment.
Although endpoints are relatively easily described
up to the population level, defining endpoints for
ecosystems becomes much more challenging
because concepts like health and sustainability
often are introduced. At the larger scale,
ecosystems are structurally and functionally
integrated because of the interactions and exchange
of energy and nutrients between the mosaic of
terrestrial and aquatic components. An
3-24
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
understanding of how these systems respond to
human activities requires research to be conducted
in the context of the surrounding landscape from
the watershed to regional scale. The research to be
conducted by ORD includes studies to facilitate the
prediction and extrapolation of the effects of real or
potential changes in landscape characteristics on a
variety of ecosystem endpoints of concern.
Methods to evaluate the effects of future change
and diagnose causes of responses to change will be
developed. In addition, a number of studies on
specific regional issues that require the integration
of data across multiple systems will be conducted
in various areas of the nation. These efforts will
provide an opportunity to test ideas, develop
methods, and address issues across a wide array of
biogeographic regions.
Watershed and Regional Responses
Research will be directed toward improving
methods and models to understand linkages among
ecosystem components within watersheds and
regions and the degree to which landscape patterns
affect the sustainability of ecosystems. These
efforts will contribute to an improved ability to
predict cumulative impacts and to diagnose causes
of impairment. The ability to predict the response
of systems at the watershed and regional scale to a
variety of potential landscape changes will be an
important objective. Scientific investigations will
be conducted on: (1) watershed structure/function
relationships and the degree to which changing
landscape patterns affect integrity and
sustainability; (2) the extent to which cumulative
impacts can be differentiated or partitioned among
chemical, physical, and biological stressors; and (3)
how effects are integrated across hierarchical
scales. Understanding these relationships requires
a knowledge of landscape component functions,
relationships between location in the landscape and
the sensitivity of ecosystems to stressors, and the
effect of landscape pattern on the transfer of
energy, materials, or populations across ecotones.
Results of the research also are anticipated to
improve understanding of diagnostic indicators of
ecological sustainability.
Integrated Effects in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Regional and watershed research in the Mid-
Atlantic Region is focused on the development and
application of methods to conduct integrated
ecological resource assessments on regional spatial
scales. The goals of this research are to: (1)
develop a framework that can be used to conduct
integrated resource assessments across various
levels of geographic scale; (2) evaluate the use of
historical data as a means of testing the assessment
process;, (3) identify research gaps that must be
addressed to reduce uncertainties in conducting
such assessments; and (4) develop an information
management system that can be used effectively
and efficiently in future regional assessments. The
experience gained from this research will be
applied and transferred to other geographical areas
to conduct these assessments more cost-effectively.
Predicting Effects in South Florida
Activities in the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA), located south of Lake Okeechobee, utilize
herbicides and pesticides for plant and animal
control and fertilizers to promote yield. Drainage
from the EAA is channeled through a series of
canals into Biscayne Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, or
Florida Bay. There is an increased awareness by
the public and scientific communities of a mercury
problem in South Florida. Warnings against eating
gamefish have been issued, as concentrations of 0.5
to 1.5 ppm of mercury are common. In addition to
the transport of mercury, herbicides, and pesticides,
flows within the South Florida system contain
nutrients in the form of nitrates and phosphates. If
excessive nutrients are discharged into Florida Bay,
the potential exists for impacting algal,
phytoplankton, and submerged aquatic vegetation
populations. Through these impacts to the system's
plant communities, broader effects to biota
including local finfish and shellfish populations are
possible.
The objectives of this research are to develop the
data and predictive mathematical models to assess
the effects of mercury, herbicides, pesticides, and
nutrients—alone or in combination—on stability of
amphibian, reptilian, fish, bird, plant, and coral
populations; diversity of communities; and the
condition of the Florida Bay ecosystem. Relevant
field data will be collected to develop four
mechanistic, ecological models to assess and
understand better the ecological conditions and
their causes in South Florida estuaries and coastal
waters. The four proposed models are: (1) a
population model of the relationship between
reproductive success and endocrine disrupters; (2)
an ecological model of pesticide and mercury flow
and fate and their effects on biota; (3) a model of
the nutrient dynamics in Florida Bay and the effects
on trophic structure; and (4) a community model of
UV-B, contaminant, and nutrient dynamics and
their aggregate effects on coral assemblages.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-25
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Cumulative Effects on Pacific Northwest
Estuarine Systems
The high rate of human population growth in the
Pacific Northwest is subjecting estuaries and
coastal watersheds to many anthropogenic stresses.
The amount of this stress will continue to increase
as population growth continues and the Northwest
further develops economically. Activities that
jeopardize the ecological sustainability of estuarine
and coastal watershed resources include watershed
alterations, such as urbanization and other land use
changes, road construction, and agricultural and
forestry practices. These activities result in
increased nutrient and sediment loads, alteration,
and loss of habitat, including elevated stream
temperatures, pollution, exotic biotic introductions,
and alterations in extreme natural events such as
floods and disease or pest outbreaks. Determining
the effects of stressors is complicated by the fact
that they have different ecological effects and act at
various, often overlapping, spatial and temporal
scales.
The purpose of this research is to develop methods
and models for predicting the cumulative effects of
multiple stressors on ecologically and economically
important estuarine assessment endpoints at
multiple spatial and temporal scales. This involves:
(1) determining single and multiple stressor-
response relationships; (2) developing spatially and
temporally explicit sampling procedures and
models; (3) quantifying the variability of multiple
stressor effects; and (4) distinguishing multiple
stressor effects from natural variability. The goal is
to produce a framework, including a scientifically
credible approach and set of analytical tools, to
predict the combined effects of important stressors
on the trajectory of ecological assessment
endpoints over time.
Great Lakes Effect Modeling
The St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and associated
drainage have been subjected to a wide array of
stressors for several centuries. In response to
previous degradation, The Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement calls for the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem. The governments of the United
States and Canada, which provide joint oversight of
the lakes, cite four general issues that encompass a
broad array of problems and outline the major
stressors on aquatic life and wildlife: (1) the loss of
biodiversity and biological integrity; (2)
degradation and loss of habitat, including tributary,
near-shore, and coastal wetlands areas; (3) impacts
of persistent toxic contaminants; and (4)
eutrophication in certain areas. Because of the vast
size of the Great Lakes, contrasting ecoregions and
habitats, multiple stressors with different modes of
action and behavior, stressor interactions, and
numerous sources and media, the development of
management strategies often has been hampered.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires
a holistic, ecosystem approach for the management
of the Great Lakes. Recognizing the need to
synthesize interdisciplinary information for
forecasting capabilities, mathematical modeling has
been accepted as an essential component of
environmental management decision making.
Research will be undertaken to develop, refine,
apply, and verify mathematical ecosystem response
models for the Great Lakes. Research will address
uncertainties and validate model predictions for the
stressors of greatest environmental concern, using
field data specifically collected for such purposes.
Uncertainties in predicting eutrophication,
bioaccumulation, and ecosystem productivity will
be emphasized.
3.3.4.2 Ecosystem Modeling
Although many improvements have been made
over the last few decades, the Nation's freshwater,
marine, and terrestrial ecosystems continue to be
threatened by a variety of anthropogenic stressors.
While the effects of chemical stressors remain a
significant issue in many waters, the effects of
physical and biological disturbances are also
widespread problems. The successful protection of
freshwater and marine ecosystems depends on an
understanding of the interactions and cumulative
impacts of a complex mixture of stressors at
various temporal and spatial scales. Within
terrestrial ecosystems, understanding of the
functioning and response of plants and the
vegetative component to environmental stress is
most limited. In the past, vegetation was
considered to be an easily regenerated and
manipulated natural resource that was relatively
insensitive to environmental stress. However,
understanding and concern for this basic
component of the biosphere has changed, with
effects of atmospherically mediated stressors, such
as regional air pollution and climate change, and
the interaction of these stressors with land and
resource use, as primary concerns.
Based on an evaluation of the state-of-the-science,
as well as the scientific and ecological risk
3-26
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
assessment uncertainties identified in CENR and
EPA strategic plans, process and modeling effects
research undertaken by ORD will be directed
towards the following areas: (1) characterizing and
predicting the responses of ecosystems to physical,
biological and chemical stressors; (2) advancing
techniques to extrapolate and interpret effects
across levels of biological organization; and (3)
developing ways to measure the integrity and
sustainability of ecosystems and diagnose causes of
degradation. This research will involve the
development of sound methods and models to
screen, diagnose and predict ecological effects for
both prospective and retrospective ecological risk
assessments. Coordination with environmental
monitoring research, as described previously, will
be a critical aspect of success in this research
effort. For example, monitoring can provide
correlations between ecological condition and
potential stressors that then become hypotheses for
the more mechanistic stressor-response research
described below. Similarly, the multi-tier designs
and evaluations conducted as part of environmental
monitoring research can provide information useful
in research on the uncertainties associated with
extrapolating predictions of effects across spatial
and temporal scales. Finally, the development of
ways to measure integrity and sustainability as well
as diagnose causes of degradation may provide
useful insights into the selection of appropriate
indicators for environmental monitoring. The
discussion below describes the research directions
that support the three areas listed above as they
relate to freshwater, marine/estuarine and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Freshwater Ecosystems
The goal of this research is to understand how
stressors modify constraints on aquatic ecosystem
structure and function to reduce uncertainties in
effect extrapolations from the laboratory to the
field and to develop and evaluate measurement
techniques for components and processes that
describe the responses of aquatic ecosystems to
these stressors. In contrast to the research
described later on ecotoxicology, the stressors of
primary interest are physical, biological and
chemical stressors other than toxic chemicals.
Historically, much of the stressor-effects data used
in ecological risk assessments is obtained from
laboratory tests and present significant
extrapolation challenges when assessment
endpoints are at the population, community or
ecosystem level. Whole-ecosystem studies or
studies of intact ecosystem components are rarely
performed because of high cost and time
commitments. In addition, the high degree of
variability among natural ecosystems makes
extrapolations from examined systems to other
systems difficult. In turn, these uncertainties
impact ecological effect characterizations and risk
assessments which are designed to protect aquatic
communities and ecosystems. Research will be
designed to advance an understanding of
population, community and ecosystem organization
and dynamics to improve predictive components of
prospective risk assessments, interpretations within
retrospective assessments, and the linkage of
ecological indicators to measures of effects and
ecosystem characteristics in a risk assessment
context. Research at the population, community,
and ecosystem level will incorporate modeling,
laboratory investigations and field studies.
Initial choices for ecosystems of primary interest
are those that are believed to be important in the
context of whole systems but to date have been
poorly or little studied. Of particular interest are
coastal wetlands and near shore areas of the Great
Lakes. Field studies will involve intensive study
sites within a multi-watershed design and will result
in models that link watershed function and
landscape effects on wetlands and the near shore
environment of large water bodies. Strategic
choices have also been made to aim this research
toward the assessment endpoints of sustainable fish
assemblages and water quality.
Marine Ecosystems
ORD is responsible, in part, for conducting
research in the estuaries and coastal waters of the
Nation to provide rigorous, quantifiable methods
and models that will allow managers to carry out
environmental regulations. The goal of this
research effort is to develop approaches to
predicting the response of estuarine systems to
environmental stressors across various levels of
biological organization and geographic extent. The
results of this research will provide the critical
scientific information necessary to address the
fundamental question of what effect specific
changes in anthropogenic inputs will have on the
integrity of these systems. This research effort will
develop the theoretical framework and ecological
approaches to characterize, quantify, and predict
the ecological integrity of estuarine and marine
ecosystems at the management unit scale of a
watershed sub-basin. This will be accomplished
through an integrated approach capable of
describing the complexity within an estuarine
Ecological Research Strategy
3-27
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
ecosystem and also aggregating that complexity
into meaningful ecological indicators. Within this
framework, key structural and functional
components will be quantified for coastal wetlands,
fish habitats, benthic community, and the overall
trophic structure of estuaries. The physiological,
pathological and reproductive systems of key
estuarine organisms will be characterized to assist
in predicting their responses to stressors. For the
concept of ecological integrity to be useful in a
scientific and regulatory context, it must be
quantified relative to an expected condition or
reference state. As a consequence, the research
effort will also examine the structural and
functional basis to defining ecosystem similarity,
both spatially and temporally.
Natural and anthropogenic stressors affect estuarine
and coastal environments at all levels of
organization, yet effects research historically has
focused on organism or sub-organism responses.
However, assessment endpoints for ecological risk
assessments are typically at the population,
community or ecosystem level. As a consequence,
there is a need to improve the extrapolation of
effects across levels of biological organization.
Efforts to improve the means of predicting
population-level responses will be accomplished by
improving the understanding of influences on
population dynamics as well as by explicitly
incorporating stressor-response relationships into
population models. Stressors can also act as
strong selective agents in an evolutionary context
by eliciting compensatory mechanisms that allow a
population to persist in the stressed environment.
These compensatory mechanisms, expressed at a
range of biological organization from molecular
adaptation to life history strategy alterations, will
be explicitly incorporated into population models
to improve the means of forecasting ecological
effects. Choices of populations to study will be
made through consideration of key biological
components of estuarine systems, current
knowledge of the biological interactions within
these systems and the availability of the data that
forms the foundation for model development.
While chemical stressors remain a concern, nutrient
enrichment, climate change, and other types of
habitat alteration have been ranked as significant
current and future stressors of coastal ecosystems.
As a result, research is needed to better
characterize causal linkages between physical,
biological and chemicals stressors and coastal
ecosystem responses, and to develop the means of
quantifying future coastal zone change. Research
will identify the factors that regulate the way in
which nutrient enrichment and eutrophication are
expressed in estuarine ecosystems. The effort will
lead to community/ecosystem mechanistic
mathematical models to assess effects of nutrient
enrichment on selected system endpoints such as:
1) hypoxia/anoxia; 2) loss of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) habitat through mechanisms
dependent on enrichment; 3) increases in nuisance
and toxic phytoplankton blooms; 4) qualitative and
quantitative changes in linkage between primary
and secondary productivity; and 5) the relationships
of trophic cascading and nutrient supplies as effects
of the estuarine eutrophication process. Research
addressing effects on SAV will be emphasized
because it provides essential nursery habitats for a
wide variety of economically important fish and
shellfish, stabilizes sediments and reduces erosion
of shorelines. The widespread loss of SAV
communities worldwide has been attributed to
increased water turbidity due to dredging and
runoff, increased nutrient loading and algal
production, and direct physical damage from
recreational activities. Potential long-term effects
from global climate change are also plausible.
The research described above cannot possibly be
conducted at all parts of the vast extent and
geographic distribution of the Nation's estuaries.
Therefore, the goal will be on developing
approaches at a selected number of sites that can
subsequently be applied to estuaries of future
concern. These sites will include representative
locations from the Atlantic seaboard, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Pacific Northwest. The degree to
which these estuarine methods and models can be
used to extrapolate predictions of responses to
stressors between sites will be an important
component of the long-term research effort.
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Understanding the effects of environmental
stressors on terrestrial ecosystems has most often
involved collection of experimental data at the
level of the individual and populations. Frequently,
the studies have involved single species and single
pollutants resulting in exposure-response functions
characterizing the effects on biomass or
reproduction (crop yield) at the individual or
population level of that species. Experimental
observations of effects at higher levels of biological
hierarchy (community and ecosystem) or increasing
biological complexity (species diversity, stand
structure, and presence of trophic functional
3-28
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
groups) are limited. Invariably, the data from one
set of experiments is extrapolated to predict the
species' response nationwide. This often includes
extrapolating the response in natural environments
with all the concomitant moisture, nutrient, and
competitive stresses that may be in place across the
spatial and temporal extent of the species in
question, even though the data sets do not include
these conditions. In addition, only a very small
representation of species is ever studied and yet
frequently, these data are used to represent all
vegetation, crop or forest tree species. At
ecosystem and landscape scales, even less
information is available to predict changes with
changing pollutant exposure scenarios or changing
global climate. To develop the necessary linkages,
an approach is required to extrapolate experimental
data taken at the individual level, often in artificial
conditions, to suggest changes occurring in more
complex native environments to individuals or
populations. Equal attention is needed to
understand changes at higher scales of biological
organization as well as landscapes. A multifaceted,
interactive research approach is necessary,
including experimental and modeling components,
with each informing the other. The objective of
this research is to provide a scientifically sound
understanding of error sources in extrapolating
from individual responses to ecosystem responses
and across geographic scales. Additionally, a
mechanistic knowledge of the ecosystem processes
is needed to predict to multiple environmental
stressor. The research will involve experimental,
modeling, and field studies at a range of scales
from the individual to the landscape.
Compared to above-ground components of
terrestrial systems, we know much less about the
below-ground area. Yet there is increasing
evidence that the rhizosphere may play a critical
role in the response of vegetative systems to stress.
For example, ORD's research has shown that ozone
stress may be first manifest in the rhizosphere.
Increasing our understanding of the role of the
rhizosphere appears to offer promise for improving
our capability to assess the overall condition of
terrestrial systems and predicting their response to
stress. As the rhizosphere is the interface between
the primary carbon processes (i.e., aboveground
carbon acquisition) and primary nutrient and water
processes (i.e., below ground nutrient and water
acquisition), it is essential to understand how
specific stressors will affect this interface. The goal
of the rhizosphere research is to determine the
effects of atmospheric pollutants and global change
components (e.g., CO2, precipitation, temperature,
etc.) on key processes in controlling the exchange
of C and N between the root/soil and the plant
canopy. For example, elevated CO2 increases fine
root growth and fine root life span. In contrast,
elevated ozone decreases fine root growth and is
hypothesized to decrease fine root size span as it
decreases fine root carbohydrate levels.
In situ techniques and microbiological and
molecular (DNA fingerprinting) approaches will be
applied. Intensive sampling in terracosms and at
field sites will provide the data necessary to
parameterize ecosystem models that are used to
develop a predictive understanding of the multiple
stress effects on carbon and nitrogen cycling in
forest ecosystems.
3.3.4.3 Ecotoxicology
ORD conducts research to provide scientific
information on the toxic effects of chemical
stressors to aquatic life and wildlife in order to
reduce uncertainty in risk assessments and support
risk management options. The research is designed
to develop a mechanistic understanding to establish
cause and effect relationships for chemical stressors
already in the environment and predict responses to
stressors not yet present or released. As a result,
research involves the development of sound
methods and models to screen, diagnose and
predict ecological effects in both prospective and
retrospective ecological risk assessments. Effects
research undertaken is designed to improve
knowledge bases, mechanistic understandings and
techniques in the context of the problem
formulation, analysis and risk characterization
phases of ecological risk assessments.
Ecological risk assessments of chemical stressors
are typically confronted with a lack of toxicity data
for either the chemical or species of concern.
Owing to the complexity of most environmental
problems, and because of limited testing capability,
there is also a need to extrapolate existing
information to untested species and/or exposure
scenarios. Although understanding of the lethal
effects of xenobiotics to aquatic organisms
continues to expand and support improved
extrapolations across chemicals and species, there
is significant uncertainty when reproductive and
developmental endpoints are considered along with
the influence of environmental factors on the
toxicity of single chemicals and mixtures. In
addition, the quantitative extrapolation of adverse
reproductive and developmental effects at the
Ecological Research Strategy
3-29
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
organismal-level to population-level responses
remains a challenge in ecological risk assessments.
Based on an evaluation of the state-of-the-science,
as well as the scientific and ecological risk
assessment uncertainties identified in the CENR
and EPA strategic plans, ecotoxicology research
will be focused in the following areas:
• Understanding and predicting basic biological
and chemical mechanisms of toxicity.
• Measuring and predicting the uptake,
distribution and elimination of xenobiotics in
aquatic life and wildlife.
• Predicting reproductive and developmental
effects of chemical stressors.
• Predicting the effects of mixtures and/or
multiple stressors in water and sediment.
Addressing these issues is essential to improving
the ability to extrapolate the effects of chemicals
across the range of untested chemicals as well as
untested biological species.
Biochemical and Cellular Toxicology
The goal of this research is to advance
understanding of biochemical and cellular
toxicodynamics and xenobiotic metabolism to
reduce uncertainties in extrapolating toxic effects
across chemicals and species. In the field of
environmental toxicology, and especially aquatic
toxicology, quantitative structure-activity
relationships (QSARs) have developed as
scientifically credible tools for predicting the acute,
and in some instances sub-chronic, toxicity of
chemicals when little or no empirical data are
available. In addition to the use of these predictive
toxicology models, there has also been an increased
call for the complementary use of in-vitro or short-
term in-vivo experimental models to provide the
ecotoxicological data required for preliminary or
screening-level effect characterizations. Challenges
to improve the use of predictive models and
screening assays for either "chemical" or species
extrapolations, center on uncertainties in
understanding mechanisms of chemical toxicity and
xenobiotic metabolism, as well as the linkage of
cellular or biochemical effects and processes to
organismal-level responses. Tissue, cellular and
subcellular models will be used in research
designed to explore the relationships between
chemical structures and properties and biological
activity. A significant challenge to the research will
be to link biochemical and molecular biological
responses to cellular and subcellular structure and
to the intact organism. Metabolism research will be
undertaken to help expand understanding of
specific mechanisms of action and bioaccumulation
of xenobiotics, with a bias to experimental designs
that further the means of relating kinetics of
metabolic reactions to chemical structure.
Toxicokinetics and Dosimetry
The goal of this research will be to develop
physiologically based toxicokinetic models as
components to a biologically-based approach to
reducing uncertainties in species extrapolation and
the interpretation of toxic effects. Toxicokinetic
and dosimetry research is concerned principally
with the uptake and disposition of chemical
stressors by individual organisms, recognizing that
in many cases this uptake is part of an extended
chain of events involving entire food webs. The
quantitative nature of toxicokinetics lends itself to
the development of mathematical models that
formalize, simplify and codify complex information
that can be used to extrapolate limited effect
information. Research will be conducted in support
of model development and as a means of evaluating
model performance. Descriptive research will be
undertaken frequently in advance of mechanistic
research to define the system under study and to
collect an empirical data set which then becomes
the basis for subsequent development of
mechanistic hypotheses. Metabolic
biotransformation and bioavailability have been
identified as scientific uncertainties that represent
the highest priority areas of research in
understanding the effects of chemical stressors.
Metabolism research will be directed toward
developing the capability to model the rates of
parent compound disappearance and formation of
biotransformation products. An emphasis will be
placed on compounds that undergo metabolism to
more reactive species, although consideration will
also be given to metabolism as a pathway for
chemical elimination (particularly in the case of
bioaccumulative organic compounds).
Bioavailability research will concentrate initially on
the dietary uptake of hydrophobic organic
compounds, followed by studies on the waterborne
and dietary uptake of metals. Efforts will be
initiated to expand modeling activities to include
other taxa, including piscivorous wildlife,
invertebrates, amphibians, and marine mammals.
3-30
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology
Research efforts in this area will involve
investigations of the reproductive and
developmental effects of xenobiotics on aquatic life
and wildlife to reduce uncertainties in predicting
effects and interpreting population and community
level responses. An increased mechanistic
understanding of developmental and reproductive
toxicants at the organismal-level is needed to
support the relevancy of in vitro and/or structure
activity relationship based screening assays
designed to identify potentially potent compounds.
An understanding of those organismal-level
attributes and processes that primarily constrain
population dynamics is also needed to ensure that
relevant lexicological responses are addressed.
ORD has a long history in developing aquatic
toxicity testing methods and techniques used
nationally and internationally. Experience has been
gained with invertebrates, small aquarium fish and
large coldwater fish. However, studies with species
for which extensive molecular biological
information is available (e.g., zebrafish, medaka)
are limited, while techniques and basic
physiological and lexicological information is
limited for species representative of declining
amphibian and mollusk populations. Sludies and
bioassay approaches specifically designed to
optimize exposures wilhin developmental windows
controlled by specific hormonal axes, and lo
properly identify and quantify associated adverse
effecls, are nol available. To address Ihese issues a
systematic evaluation of compounds known or
suspected lo disrupl endocrine function through
interaction wilh the aryl hydrocarbon, estrogen,
androgen, Ihyroid and/or relenoic acid receptors
will be evaluated in a variety offish species. In
addition, amphibian species (such as Ranapipiens
and Xenopus laevis) will be used lo embark on a
systematic examination of comparative
physiological and lexicological responses lo
provide more detailed insighls into Ihe slrenglhs
and weaknesses of differenl models in terms of
mechanistic and ecological relevancy.
Ecotoxicity Characterization
The goal of Ihis research effort is lo investigate Ihe
interaction of chemical and non-chemical slressors
on aquatic life lo reduce uncertainties in predicting
Ihe joinl action of slressors and diagnosing cause
and effecl relationships in impacted ecosystems.
Knowledge gaps lhal limil Ihe advancemenl of
aquatic life and sedimenl criteria, and which reflecl
limitations in current scientific understanding, can
be grouped into four broad categories:
1. Interactions of physical and chemical
factors
2. Organismal variability
3. Dose characterization
4. Chemical mixture interactions
Fulure research will build upon Ihe existing
ecoloxicological knowledge base lo address
specific high priority topics lhal reflecl importanl
scientific uncertainties lhal are relevanl lo classes
of ecological risk assessmenls lhal confronl the
Agency. Research will address the need for
assessment approaches lhal integrate aquatic life
effecls, and slressor interactions, wilhin Ihe water
column and sedimenls. Research lo be undertaken
lo improve understanding in Ihe areas of
physical/chemical interactions will include sludies
lhal address metal bioavailability and toxicity and
Ihe role of UV in photo-activating organic
compounds. Dose-characterization research will
improve Ihe means of interpreting the adverse
effects of superhyrophobic chemicals in Ihe conlexl
of measured or predicted organismal or tissue
bioaccumulalion. Chemical mixture research will
concentrate on the completion of toxicity
identification evaluation techniques and be
followed by efforts lo improve predictive
techniques. Efforts will also be maintained to
ensure lhal Ihe resulls of ecoloxicological sludies
are available lo Ihe risk assessmenl communities al
Ihe federal, stale and local levels through Ihe
ECOTOX database.
3.3.4.4 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, publish a report on waslewaler
streams as a source of sedimenl
contamination in the Gulf of Mexico.
• By 1999, complete ORD Research slralegy
for harmful algal bloom species.
• By 1999, develop an approach for
establishing sedimenl quality criteria for PAH
mixlures.
• By 2000, publish a report on a melhod using
surrogate, nonendangered lesl species for
assessing risks lo endangered species.
• By 2001, develop conceptual, empirical, and
mechanistic models lo evaluate Ihe role of
wellands wilhin Ihe landscape.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-31
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
• By 2001, develop methods and guidance to
evaluate the effects of stressor mixtures in
sediments at different levels of biological
organization.
3.4 Assessment of Ecological Risk
Objective: Develop guidelines,
assessments, and methods that
quantify risks to ecosystems
from multiple stressors at
multiple scales and multiple
endpoints.
Research Question: What is the
relative risk posed to ecosystems
by these stressors, alone and in
combination, now and in the
future?
Since the 1970s, EPA has implemented numerous
environmental statutes (e.g., Clean Air Act [CAA],
Clean Water Act [CWA], Toxic Substances
Control Act [TSCA]). Using an "end of the pipe"
regulatory approach, releases to the environment
have been significantly reduced from smokestacks,
wastewater treatment facilities, and solid and
hazardous wastes. As a result, regional and global
scale problems, including habitat alteration, loss of
biodiversity, climate change, and land-use changes,
are currently considered greater risks to ecosystems
than site-specific problems (EPA, 1987). The early
1980s saw both the emergence of risk assessment
as a regulatory paradigm (NRC, 1983) and the first
widespread use of ecological impact findings to
influence regulatory and policy decisions. The use
of ecological information for decision making has
expanded slowly through the 1980s. This trend is
illustrated by Federal actions to address the adverse
impacts of acid deposition on lakes and forests and
the damaging effects of ozone on crops, as well as
regulation of diazinon that was based on its impacts
to birds. During the mid to late 1980s, tools and
methods for conducting ecological risk assessments
were compiled in documents such as the Ambient
Water Quality Criteria methodology (EPA, 1985),
Standard Evaluation Procedures (EPA, 1986) for
pesticides, and Superfund's Environmental
Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989).
The EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) report,
titled Future Risk: Research Strategies for the
1990s (1988), emphasized the need for a
fundamental shift in EPA's approach to
environmental protection and challenged ORD to
provide leadership in the area of ecosystem science.
This report provided the impetus to conduct
ecological assessments focused on the resources at
risk and their composition and distribution within a
landscape, multiple stressors, and multiple
assessment endpoints. In 1992, EPA published the
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment as the
first statement of principles for ecological risk
assessment (EPA, 1992) and, in 1998, published
the Ecological Risk Assessment Guideline
(EPA, 1998a). These documents describes not only
methods for conducting the more conventional
single-species, chemical-based risk assessment,
but also for assessing risks to ecosystems
from multiple stressors and multiple endpoints.
The publication of these important documents
argued for an organization that would focus on
enhancing EPA's ability to do better ecological
assessments. This is the goal of the NCEA within
ORD.
Ecological risk assessment occupies a central
position in the continuum from data collection to
management decisions. As discussed in Sections 1
and 2, the ability to assess risks to ecosystems must
be based on a knowledge of ecosystem functions,
behavior, and processes. Other elements of this
strategy (effects research and research on ecological
exposure, models, and monitoring) present the scope
and nature of the research being conducted by the
other ORD laboratories to specifically address the
critical information needs prerequisite to a robust
assessment process. To be effective, the outcome
of an ecological risk assessment, i.e., identifying
and characterizing risks and determining at what
level ecosystems should be protected to ensure
their sustainability, requires an essential
conjunction of risk assessment and risk
management processes. A research approach to
advancing the science of multiple-scale, multiple-
stressor, and multiple-endpoint ecological
assessments is presented in this section. This
emphasizes three key areas:
1. Developing risk assessment guidance
2. Performing risk assessments
3. Conducting research on methods
3.4.1 Developing Ecological Risk
Assessment Guidance
The development and publication of risk
assessment guidelines are important functions
managed by the Risk Assessment Forum (RAF), an
interagency group of risk assessors, administered
3-32
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
by NCEA. Risk assessment guidelines provide
consistent procedures for risk assessors to follow
standard methods in conducting risk assessments.
Using these guidelines, risk managers can better
concentrate on actions that will reduce or
ameliorate risks, rather than debating the technical
merits of the risk assessments. The development
process is dynamic, involving individuals with
many different scientific disciplines, perspectives,
and environmental interests. The refinement of
existing ecological risk assessment guidelines and
the development of new guidelines are major
components of NCEA's risk assessment research
program.
Guidelines Development
Proposed guidelines for ecological risk assessment
were published in the Federal Register on
September 9, 1996. After further revision, final
guidelines were published. These guidelines are a
broad-based expansion of the principles contained
in an earlier report (Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment, EPA, 1992). One or more cross-
agency colloquia will be organized under the
auspices of the RAF to identify and prioritize topics
for specific guidance. Next, teams will be formed
to develop the guidance documents. Finally, the
guidance documents will be peer reviewed and
published.
The development of place-based guidelines for
those assessments that involve specific places such
as watersheds, Superfund sites or other
biogeographically defined areas are a high priority
for NCEA. These will include conceptual models
and their optimization, the involvement of
stakeholders, the evaluation of ecological
information, and economic considerations in an
assessment process.
Ecological Values
EPA's SAB has recommended that EPA devote
more resources to evaluating risk to the
environment (EPA, 1988), due to the lack of a clear
consensus, both within the Agency and with the
public, on the value of components. Recently, a
multi-program work group identified a common set
of agency-wide priorities for ecological protection
that help to focus the issues considered by EPA risk
managers and decision makers (EPA, 1997b). ORD
proposes to build on this project by obtaining the
additional EPA review and consensus necessary to
finalize the objectives and to begin the process of
defining the range of outcomes for an endpoint
(i.e., providing bounding estimates for acceptable
and unacceptable effects). Combined with other
Agency initiatives in this area, this effort could
contribute significantly towards the development of
EPA-wide risk management guidelines that
consider such important issues in the risk
assessment process as valuation of ecological
systems, cost-benefit analysis, risk communication
and perception, and stakeholder involvement in the
risk assessment process. Providing guidance for
risk managers on the use of ecological risk
assessment information should be highly effective
in advancing the consideration of ecological risks
in decision making at the EPA.
Training and Consultation
Development of ecological risk assessment training
is a logical follow-up to the publication of final
EPA-wide Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines
(EPA, 1998a). Training can strengthen the use of
ecological risk assessment approaches across EPA,
draw on the experiences of EPA risk assessors to
identify significant issues, and generally improve the
ecological risk assessment process. Options could
include a short course for managers, a longer
program for risk assessors, and an interactive
computer-based course. A critical element is the
preparation of a range of ecological risk assessment
case studies that can be used to tailor the training to
a particular audience (e.g., Superfund, pesticides,
etc.). Training materials will receive periodic
review during development to ensure that the
course will be relevant and useful to EPA's
customers.
3.4.2 Assessments
The type of ecological assessments conducted by
NCEA are selected because they meet one of the
following criteria: they offer opportunities to
advance the state of science, they are unusually
important in that they represent important cross-
program and interagency problems (e.g., dioxin,
invasive species, global climate change), or the risk
assessment may lead to new methods and
procedures in assessing risks to ecological systems.
Specific assessments may be organized around a set
of ecological receptors that are at risk at a
particular place (e.g., a watershed), a chemical that
is known to pose major risks to ecological
resources, or special ecological issues of concern.
3.4.2.1 Place-Based Ecological Risk
Assessments
EPA has placed increased emphasis on community
and place-based approaches to environmental
Ecological Research Strategy
3-33
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
management. This represents a fundamental change
from traditional single-media-based approaches for
environmental regulation to a concern for the
impact of multiple stressors over a broad range of
spatial scales. The purpose of place-based research
is to develop and demonstrate methods to assess the
impact of multiple chemical, physical, and
biological stressors at several different ecological
scales. The way communities and entire ecosystems
respond to stressors is the goal of our ecological
risk assessments. Eventually, we may be able to
sufficiently define impacts on ecosystems,
including the significance of stressors and
management actions, sufficiently well that they will
be useful in assessments done at the watershed
scale. The research will develop and demonstrate
tools, methods, and techniques to better quantify
uncertainties associated with risk assessment.
Watersheds
ORD is applying the general principles outlined in
the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines to five
competitively selected watersheds located in
different regions across the United States. These
ecological risk assessments were undertaken to
address local or state concerns and to analyze
stressors and resulting ecological effects.
Developing and evaluating these demonstration
projects will improve place-based risk assessments
methods. The approach brings numerous
organizations together to address and analyze an
environmental problem and stimulates public
awareness and participation in decision making for
reducing ecological risks. The five watershed-level
ecological risk assessment case study sites are:
1. Big Darby Creek, OH. A watershed
relatively free of pollution that is highly
valued for its scenic beauty, its high water
quality, and for recreational opportunities.
2. Clinch Valley Watershed, VA. The
assemblage offish and freshwater mussel
species in the rivers in this watershed is
among the most diverse in North America.
3. Middle Platte River Wetlands, NE. The
Platte River provides water for agricultural
irrigation, electric power production,
recreation, fish, wildlife, and community
and industrial water supplies.
4. Waquoit Bay Estuary, MA. A shallow
Cape Cod estuary fed by groundwater and
freshwater streams is prized by residents
and visitors for its aesthetic beauty and
recreational opportunities.
5. Middle Snake River, ID. The west-central
Snake River plain of southern Idaho is the
most degraded stream reach of the Snake
River.
The planning and problem-formulation stage in all
five watershed case studies were completed and
presented to the SAB for review in June 1996. Risk
analyses are currently underway and are expected
to be finished in 1999.
Large-Scale Place-Based Assessments
Complementing the watershed studies are larger
scale place-based studies. These studies are
important for developing additional guidance on
increasingly complex environmental problems.
Such studies include both chemical-specific and
multiple-stressor assessments. For example, ORD
is working with EPA's Region 10 to apply the
ecological risk assessment paradigm and to build
an ecological information management system
database for the river basins that include the entire
state of Idaho. This system will develop a
streamlined process that can be used to quantify
total maximum daily pollutant loadings at multiple
spatial scales. In a cooperative effort including all
ORD laboratories and Centers and contributing to a
similar effort by the interagency Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, an integrated
assessment of the Mid-Atlantic area is being
conducted. The first effort will be the development
of a "state-of-the-region" report on the condition of
the ecological resources and the magnitude and
extent of stressors in the Region. The role of
climate change as an exacerbating influence on
these and other stressors will be a major component
of this assessment.
3.4.2.2 Chemical-Based Risk
Assessments
Although EPA is moving towards implementing
community or place-based approaches to
environmental protection, chemical-based
assessments retain their importance to some EPA
programs. There is still a need to improve the
science in assessing the risks from chemicals.
Assessment methods for chemicals will, however,
require emphasis on those that: (1) address
chemical mixtures; (2) address cumulative risks
from combinations of chemical and nonchemical
stressors; (3) can be used to prioritize places and
systems for more intensive work; and (4) place
impacts of chemicals in a landscape perspective.
3-34
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
While risk assessments from the single-chemical,
single-species perspective is well developed, more
work is needed on higher levels of biological
organization: populations, communities,
ecosystems, and landscapes. One of the most
pressing questions requiring more research is
whether it is possible to extrapolate
ecotoxicological information from a single
surrogate test species in a single test medium to
ecosystem-scale risks. Criteria for prioritizing
chemical assessments include: (1) multimedia,
multi-program, or contentious issues; (2)
assessments that provide examples or prototypes or
allow for methodology development; and (3)
assessments that provide the opportunity to
improve the state-of-the-art as used in EPA's
programs and regions through technology transfer
and support. Considering these criteria, dioxin and
endocrine-disrupting chemicals are strong
candidates for ecological risk assessments.
Another important chemical-based activity will be
the inclusion of ecotoxicology data in the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This
database has become an important reference source
for chemical-based risk assessments and is widely
used throughout EPA and other federal agencies
and in the private sector as a peer-reviewed source
of the most important information on the fate and
effects of toxic chemicals. The database is now
available via the Internet.
3.4.2.3 Special Ecological Assessments
There is a growing concern for the need to
understand and assess important ecological issues
that transcend the more traditional chemical-based
or recently developed, place-based approaches.
Some of these are multiple-stressor issues involving
global climate change, habitat loss, acid deposition,
and a worldwide decrease in biological diversity.
These and other regional- and global-scale
problems, such as non-point source pollution, may
present greater risks to public and environmental
health than specific chemicals alone (EPA, 1987).
As part of NCEA's mission to advance the science
of risk assessment, it will conduct assessments on
important ecological issues. Examples of some of
the special assessments are identified here.
Acid Precipitation
Since 1990, monitoring networks have provided
new data that clarify trends in deposition and have
improved the understanding of the relationship
among emissions, deposition, and effects.
Improved models allow us to reconstruct historical
conditions as well as project future scenarios. As a
result of these developments, there is a better
understanding of the relationship between sulfur
and nitrogen emissions and acid deposition and its
ecosystems effects. Title IX of the CAA
Amendments requires the National Acidic
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) to
prepare a scientific assessment of the current state
of knowledge of acid precipitation and its effects.
ORD will work with a NAPAP interagency team
that conducted a preliminary assessment in 1996
and is responsible for a more thorough assessment
by the year 2000. The study will focus on the
assessment of improvements in aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems resulting from reductions in
sulfur emissions.
Disease-Causing Shrimp Viruses
The worldwide shrimp industry has grown at a
tremendous rate since the 1950s, largely due to the
increase in shrimp aquaculture around the world.
Along with the expansion in shrimp aquaculture,
there has been an increase in the occurrence of
disease-causing shrimp viruses, which have caused
catastrophic mortalities and economic losses
throughout this worldwide industry, including the
United States. The threat of these viruses to shrimp
aquaculture is well known. However, there is little
or no information on the potential impact of these
viruses on wild shrimp fisheries. In response to the
growing concerns for pathogenic shrimp viruses,
ORD is working on a coordinated government
effort to conduct an interagency assessment to deal
with the impact of disease-causing shrimp viruses
on the wild stocks and on the shrimp aquaculture,
importation, and processing industries. ORD is
leading the effort to define the problem and frame
the boundaries of the risk assessment. The
assessment will help support risk management
actions to control the impact of these viruses on the
wild shrimp fishery and to protect the shrimp
aquaculture industry.
Regional Vulnerabilities to Global Climate
Change
ORD's Global Change Research Program (GCRP)
will focus on integrated assessments of the
potential ecological risks of climate change on
coastal, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems from
different regions across the United States, and it
will extend the analysis to include implications for
human health. The direct impacts of global climate
change, such as the increased frequency and
Ecological Research Strategy
3-35
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
intensity of heat waves, hurricanes, and storms,
have significant implications for environmental
equity concerns. Often the elderly, poor, infirm, or
mentally ill people suffer the most from extreme
weather events. The goal of this project is to
identify the patterns of human health impacts
caused by extreme weather events and to develop a
plan to reduce the risk of similar damages in the
future.
Indirect impacts of climate change on human health
are those that are mediated through ecological
systems that may be impacted or altered by global
climate change, namely, vector-borne diseases,
such as encephalitis. Alterations in the patterns of
temperature and precipitation will have impacts on
the ecology of both the vector host (e.g.,
mosquitoes), as well as on the parasite or pathogen
(e.g., arboviruses in the case of encephalitis).
Assessment of Biodiversity Loss
There is a worldwide concern about the loss of
biodiversity. For example, frog and toad
populations throughout the world have long been
used by scientists as biological indicators of
environmental concerns. The rapid decline of frog
species worldwide has been associated with a
variety of environmental degradation factors, such
as habitat loss and fragmentation, chemical
pollutants, increased UV radiation, and acidic
precipitation. Thus, frog population declines may
be a harbinger for environmental degradation.
Recently, severely malformed frogs have been
reported in wetlands areas in the Midwestern
United States and in Canada. A variety of frog
species has been found with deformities of the hind
limbs (missing limbs, extra limbs, bony limb-like
protrusions), other muscular and digit deformities,
and deformities of the eye and central nervous
system. Although the exact cause of the increase in
the observed frequency of such deformities in frog
populations is as yet unknown, many theories exist.
Another concern is for the loss of neotropical
migratory bird species, those that breed in North
America and over-winter in Central and South
America. A number of these species are showing
significant declines in their breeding populations,
and the causes of these decline are not clear. It may
be a combination of factors, including habitat loss
and fragmentation, excess UV radiation, endocrine-
like chemicals, decline in insect numbers (an
important food for bird fledglings), or other causes
of unknown origin. As with amphibians, migratory
birds are considered barometers of environmental
quality. While the research on fundamental causes
and effects is ongoing, close association with the
risk assessment process will help to ensure that
experimental and field data will be most useful to
environmental decision making. The primary goal
will be to identify the problems using current
guidelines for ecological risk assessment.
3.4.3 Risk Assessment Methods Research
Considerable progress has been made in assessing
the ecological risks from the most serious forms of
pollution, such as contaminated areas around
industrial plants or sediments and soils highly
contaminated by pesticides and toxic chemicals. In
many instances where cause-effect relationships
can be estimated prospectively, ecological risk
assessment has drawn from what is known as the
"quotient method" (EPA 1986). Using normative
procedures, a hazard and an exposure value may be
derived such that when the former is divided by the
latter and estimate of risk can be made. That is, the
closer the quotient is to 1, the more likely there will
be an unacceptable risk. Quotients at values
significantly less than 1 may be considered
acceptable, depending on the certainty in the
derived components (hazard and exposure values)
of the risk assessment. This method has been
extremely useful in conducting a "comparative"
risk assessment (the process of comparing the risk
of one chemical or stressor with that of another),
but is limited in its utility when applied to assessing
"absolute" risks to specific receptors. Thus, new
methods are needed to assess risk from multiple
stressors, assess risk across multiple-scales, link
sources, stressors, and effects in terrestrial and
aquatic systems, and integrate human health and
ecological risks. The ability to assess risks from
such major environmental threats as global climate
change, forest decline, reproductive failure and
decline in species, loss of genetic or biological
diversity and decreases in habitat availability,
requires the development of new assessment
methods that adequately incorporate the complexity
of the environment. When successfully
implemented, these newer methods may help us to
better understand how multiple stressors effect the
vulnerability and sustainability of important
ecological resources at a range of spatial and
temporal scales.
Although there is much to be done in methods
development research, the following areas are
considered most important and highest priority for
ORD.
3-36
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Place-Based Methods
The primary challenge to place-based assessment
methods is how to incorporate the complex
relationships of landscapes, ecological receptors,
and condition. Traditional concepts (e.g., those
used for assessment of the risk for a single
chemical to a single receptor) for the
characterization of hazard, exposure, receptors, and
vulnerability have to be reconsidered. One
approach is to broaden the application of the
stressor-response curve which is an essential
element for evaluating risk management
alternatives. For example, how would the x and y
parameters be derived in a stress-response curve
when the stressor is an invasive species and the
response is habitat alteration? In close cooperation
with extensive data collection programs described
elsewhere in this strategy and by applying
ecological risk assessment principles at watershed
and regional scales, effective methods to conduct
place-based risk assessments will be developed.
Assessment Endpoints and Indicators
The identification of what resources to protect, and
at what level to protect them, and the measure of
success in protecting the resource are critical
components of this research strategy. Initial work
already has begun through a joint NSF/EPA
solicitation proposals on research in ecological
values. The early results of research demonstrate
how ecological values are identified and
incorporated into measurements and assessment
endpoints. Much of the research will be carried out
in those places where work is already underway,
the five watershed case studies, the Mid-Atlantic
area, and EPA's Region 10.
The development of ecological indicators is
highlighted as a major research priority ORD
(EPA, 1997b) and an aim of this strategy. Indicator
selection and development and their use in
determining the condition of ecosystems,
"ecological condition," will be described
elsewhere (Indicator Evaluation Guidelines, in
preparation). Predetermined environmental values
and the recognized need for monitoring them, are
primary factors in selecting assessment endpoints
and the measurement endpoints derived from them.
Accordingly, the choice of indicators is driven by
societal values and the management goals that are
articulated for protecting and restoring ecosystems.
It would be tragic to develop indicators of
ecological condition that have no relationship to
assessment endpoints. Thus, a principal objective
of this strategy is to show the linkages between
indicator development and risk assessment methods
development. This indicator research will be
conducted in a highly cooperative, coordinated
manner across the ORD divisions and their
ecological research units. The research in indicator
development and risk assessment methods will
necessarily include the collection and synthesis of
ecological values from a variety of stakeholders,
using sociological measurement methods.
Extrapolation
Most ecological research on the issue of ecosystem
stress is addressed by selecting a simple system to
study (e.g., hot springs), and applying the results to
a more complex system (e.g., rocky tidal
interfaces). This "reductionist" approach to
complex systems has helped to better understand
many of the components of ecosystems and how
they function. However, modeling efforts to
attempt comparison of the responses of these
simpler systems and those of more complex ones
have resulted in significant disagreement between
measured and predicted responses. Applying a
"systems" or holistic approach will lead to better
understanding of complex ecosystem responses and
improve our capability to extrapolate the results
from single species to populations, communities,
and ecosystems; from surrogate test species to
target species; from one watershed or region to
another; or from simple systems to more complex
systems. As discussed in Section 1 of this strategy,
there remains a substantial amount of research to be
done to assess multiple stressors, multiple
endpoints, and multiple scales, all of which will
add significantly to useful systems modeling and
extrapolation capability.
Our approach will take advantage of the fact that
risk assessments like the MAIA are designed not
only to assess the risks to that area but to advance
the science of risk assessment. The term integrated
assessment refers to integration across resources
(e.g., aquatic versus terrestrial), scale (e.g., national
versus regional) and sector (e.g., "natural"
processes versus human-induced impacts). Many
agencies at all levels of government and other
organizations, are attempting to generate
assessments, but in the absence of standardized
methods, more organized hierarchical approaches,
and the development of "objective-values-
endpoints-measures" paradigms, these assessments
often end up being little more than interpretive
reports. A major research need is to concentrate on
the development of multiple large scale (watershed
Ecological Research Strategy
3-37
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
and regional) ecological assessments where results
from smaller scale experiments are extrapolated
and applied to other, different types of ecological
systems. This will include the development of
methods to combine data from disparate sources
(e.g., from different states) into an integrated
assessment.
Integration of Human Health and Ecological
Risk
Over 40 years ago, dead and dying cats and birds
provided an early warning of mercury-
contaminated fish that subsequently resulted in
widespread human health effects in Minimata,
Japan. Soon thereafter, Rachel Carson's Silent
Spring (1962) made the acceptance of wildlife as
indicators of environmental contamination
commonplace. Today, there are new examples of
animals serving as sentinels of potential
environmental health effects. Environmental
endocrine disrupter effects observed in wildlife
offer valuable insight into potential human health
effects, and other environmental issues are being
continually identified, such as the increased
occurrence of deformed frogs in the Midwest.
Research will be conducted to build on the
frequently underutilized commonalties between
human health and ecological risk assessment and to
develop, validate, and test new approaches for
using animals as environmental sentinels for
problems with potential human health
consequences.
For example, research on sentinel species can draw
upon a broad range of available information to
address critical human health and ecological issues.
Consistent with the purpose of this integrated
assessment initiative then would be to develop,
validate, and use sentinel species approaches to
improve human health and ecological risk
assessments. A range of techniques will be
evaluated, including further use of disease
information from companion and/or prey species,
stress response data from surveys of aquatic
animals and wildlife, and the use of in situ
monitoring for ecosystem change. Correlations
between occurrences of human and animal
environmental diseases will be evaluated. The
interpretation and appropriate use of these data in
risk assessment will be emphasized.
3.4.4 Anticipated Products
• By 2001, complete an assessment estimating
the relative vulnerability of forests and small
streams in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the
United States to multiple stressors, including
habitat change, acid deposition, acid mine
drainage, global change, ozone, pesticides,
and nitrification.
• By 2002, issue guidance on methods to
conduct place-based risk assessments.
• By 2005, prepare a synthesis report on
conducting ecological risk assessments at
watersheds, and indicate how these results can
be applied to watershed-scale risk
assessments.
3.5 Ecosystem Risk Management
and Restoration
Objective: Develop prevention,
management, adaption, and
remediation technologies to
manage, restore, or rehabilitate
ecosystems to achieve local,
regional, and national goals.
Research Question: What
options are available to manage
the risk to or restore degraded
ecosystems?
Ecosystem management and sustainability recently
have moved to the forefront of both scientific and
policy debates (Christensen et al., 1996; Baker,
1996; Morrissey, 1996). Many of the issues raised
remain unresolved (including consensus on the
meaning of sustainable ecosystems), but one thing
seems clear: the increasing attention to ecosystem
management, in tandem with discussions of
sustainability, represents a significant
reexamination of U.S. land and natural resources
management practice and policy (Haeuber and
Franklin, 1996). Risk management actions are an
important part of ecosystem management and
typically occur at multiple scales. For example,
transboundary issues such as acid deposition and
atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases require risk
reduction via widespread actions that usually are
applied at every source. In most cases, active
management- and technology-based risk
management (which often follows as an
implementation requirement from policies and
regulations) is typically applied to watersheds or
ecosystems that can be defined by watersheds.
Accordingly, the strategic choices for the scales of
risk management research are "national" (for
3-38
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
regulatory based transboundary considerations) and
"watershed" (for most regulatory and local
management efforts). Current EPA regulatory,
oversight, and policy instruments for risk
management include chemical-specific regulation
via registration, control, and classification
processes (FIFRA); discharge and use permits that
require compliance with ecologically based criteria
(CWA and CAA); technology-based requirements
for specific point and non-point pollutant sources
and constituents (CWA, Coastal Zone Management
Act [CZMA], and CAA); policy initiatives often in
concert with other international, federal, or state
agencies (Montreal Protocol, Climate Convention);
review and approval of environmental impact
statements for federally funded projects (NEPA);
and site remediation as part of mandated clean-up
programs (SARA, RCRA).
Significant attention will be given to Community
Based Environmental Protection and watershed
planning for flexible local implementation of
selected regulatory requirements, as well as for
reaching local environmental goals that can be
above the regulatory floor. These local,
collaborative planning efforts often attempt to
integrate community values for economic, social,
and environmental concerns to reach locally
defined sustainability goals and offer new research
opportunities.
Technological and policy-based risk management
options are now available. However, given the rate
of development of the man-made environment,
present regulatory approaches may not always limit
risks to tolerable levels for vulnerable ecosystems.
There is a need to develop new, cost-effective
prevention, control, and remediation approaches
for sources of stressors and adaptation and
restoration approaches for ecosystems. Risk
management options, from pollution prevention
through ecosystem restoration, correlate in
sequence with the steps of the Ecological Risk
Assessment Paradigm in the sense that some
options can eliminate stressors at their source, and
some can manage stressors to acceptable levels,
whereas others adapt to unavoidable stressors and
repair damaged ecosystems to functioning levels.
Ultimately, the risk management research products
must be fully integrated with risk assessment
research products and support decision-making
needs of risk managers in meeting regulatory or
community-based goals.
3.5.1 Ecosystem Risk Management
A number of issues have been identified that
provide the rationale for ORD risk management
research, the highest priority of which are:
• Land use changes and pollutant loadings from
urban and infrastructure development needs,
agriculture, and other economic development,
which are increasingly responsible for
ecosystem degradation and loss of ecosystem
function.
• Non-point sources of pollutants (including
atmospheric sources), which remain the
largest uncontrolled pollutant problems in
watershed and aquatic ecosystems.
• The need for remediation of contaminated
sediments for coastal and freshwater
ecosystems.
• The lack of data, tools, and demonstrated
technologies to design and implement
successful risk management programs for
ecosystems for local communities.
The science and engineering needs for stressor
source characterization, prevention, reduction, and
other management alternatives to address these
priorities include:
• Developing and applying stressor source
characterization methodologies, such as
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment.
• Developing the pollution prevention
approaches, source control technologies,
remediation practices, and watershed
planning methods to manage or reduce
stressors to levels that protect ecosystems and
meet public health goals.
• Identifying criteria for the optimum mix of
risk management policies, technologies, and
approaches within watersheds, based on
effectiveness and economics.
• Developing watershed management decision
support systems to assist local planners in
evaluating options in the complex integrated
airshed/watershed/groundwater context and
transferring the information to the user
community.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-39
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
There will be three areas of ecosystem management
research: (1) pollution prevention; (2) control
technology; and (3) remediation.
Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention (P2) has been applied
primarily as a way for industries to reduce costs to
meet national effluent and emission standards and
is still being developed as a means to further reduce
ecologically important emissions (e.g.,
chlorofluorocarbon [CFC] and solvent
substitutions). A broader application of P2 in a
watershed context offers promise as a part of
achieving sustainable communities, including
ecosystems. As development within watersheds
proceeds, particularly in those urban fringe areas
susceptible to sprawl, community planners are
asking long-term questions regarding how housing,
commercial buildings, roads, and other
infrastructure elements can be designed and
operated to minimize resource consumption and the
pollutants that affect nearby ecosystems. For
example, Environmental Life Cycle Analysis is a
well-developed analytical tool to enable systematic
examination of the tendencies for a given design of
a process, system, structure, or product to consume
resources and to generate pollutants. Using such a
tool, in combination with risk assessment
information, it is possible to characterize sources of
stressors and identify designs that minimize their
occurrence. Research objectives within this area
will concentrate on examining the most beneficial
pollution prevention approaches for remaining
major industrial problems and identifying the most
cost-effective applications for pollution prevention
within a watershed context.
ORD's research in ecologically related pollution
prevention will be directed to these objectives:
• Develop stressor-source characterization
approaches based on Environmental Life
Cycle Analysis and related approaches. Life
cycle analysis and other P2 tools developed
for industrial applications will be evaluated
and modified as appropriate for application to
watershed and ecosystem management.
• Identify chemical substitutions and other P2
solutions that are most cost-effective for
alternative solvents and tropospheric ozone
precursors. Opportunities to reduce major
and widespread stressors that present
exposures to ecosystems over large areas and
that contribute to transboundary problems
will be exploited. Criteria for reducing the
highest risks to ecosystems will be applied to
research projects traditionally focused
exclusively on the industrial sector.
• Identify criteria for the most cost-effective
applications of pollution prevention for
design of new development in a watershed
context. Cost accounting approaches,
valuation research from the grants program,
and the integration of P2 and business cycles
will be exploited for application to watershed
and ecosystem management.
Control Technologies
Ecosystem research is often characterized as
"place-based" because the stressors, their impacts,
and their reduction and management are most often
ecosystem specific and can only be understood and
reduced "in-place." Notable exceptions to this
characterization exist; among these are control
technologies that reduce emissions to the
atmosphere or to aquatic systems that are applied to
all sources.
Watershed management has evolved during the
past two decades to depend heavily on defining and
implementing best management practices (BMPs)
that are directed primarily at non-point source
problems, including wet weather flows. BMPs are
designed to minimize the ecosystem (and human
health) impacts of the watershed activity while
permitting their continuation. Examples are
erosion controls for urban development, nutrient
and pesticide management for agriculture, and
storm water management in urban watersheds.
BMPs are not new. Although uncertainties remain
about their cost-effectiveness, a considerable body
of research has been completed and BMPs are now
widely promoted by both watershed managers
(federal, state, and local agencies; planning
commissions; etc.) and land use managers (farmers,
foresters, developers, miners, etc.) The ongoing
research program in wet weather flow control
technologies and related watershed planning issues
is described in more detail in Section 4.
Control technology research will be focused on:
• Defining, developing, and demonstrating the
most cost-effective control technologies for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, wastes,
and waste waters; pollutants in effluents and
emissions; and BMPs for managing storm
water runoff.
3-40
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
• Identifying, developing, and demonstrating
the most cost-effective combinations of
pollution prevention approaches and control
technologies for reducing stressors to major
ecosystems in the United States.
• Defining, developing, and demonstrating
cost-effective control approaches for
emerging risks, including endocrine
disrupters, cryptospiridium and other
pathogens, and atmospheric deposition, and
for multimedia effectiveness, including
impacts on ground- and surface waters.
Remediation
Remediation of contaminated portions of
watersheds is often desirable, if not necessary.
Since 1980, almost all remediation research has
been directed to waste site cleanup and has usually
been driven by human health risk concerns.
Increasingly, data are showing that contaminated
sediments threaten ecosystems, and that waste sites
having contaminated groundwater and soils pose
threats to ecosystems. Although the actual
ecological risks of contaminated media remain
uncertain, EPA has clear mandates for action to
clean up sites, and aggressive risk management
steps are contemplated. Remediation approaches
for contaminated media within ecosystems must be
modified to concentrate on reducing stressors while
sustaining ecosystem functions. Reducing specific
chemical contaminants to risk-based lexicological
levels may not be sufficient remediation if the
technology used to reduce such levels introduces
additional or unacceptable risks. For example,
dredging contaminated sediments for high-energy
treatment in engineered treatment systems is
generally more costly and may be more
ecologically disruptive than strategies for in situ
bioremediation coupled with partial or complete
containment. Similarly, phytoremediation (using
plants to remediate soils and groundwater) applied
in strategic locations in watersheds may be
effective in passive cleanup of widespread
contamination from pesticides and waste site
residuals.
Research in the remediation area will be limited
primarily to:
• Defining the most applicable existing
remediation technologies for contaminated
media within vulnerable ecosystems.
• Developing new, cost-effective technologies
for in situ treatment of contaminated
sediments.
• Defining or developing remediation options
for reduction of lower level, but still
ecologically relevant, concentrations of
spatially dispersed contamination, including
pesticides in groundwater, plumes from waste
sites, and contaminated sediments.
• Defining conditions where ecosystem
restoration approaches (described below)
increase the resilience of ecosystems to levels
that reduce requirements for remediation of
contaminated media.
3.5.2 Adaptation and Restoration
Adaptation activities are efforts enabling improved
accommodation to inevitable stressors, exposures,
and habitat alteration. Climate change impacts, for
example, and the residual and cumulative impacts
from other multiple stressors will likely require
adaptation and restoration measures to sustain
ecosystems for future generations. Adaptation is
closely linked to ecosystem restoration, described
in more detail below. Rehabilitating an ecosystem
may decrease significantly its vulnerability to
stressors. For example, restoring riparian zones
within watersheds is an adaptation measure that
may be applicable for certain land use activities
within the watershed that cannot be excluded for
economic or political reasons. Adaptation includes
intentional introduction of nonnative species or
biotechnological modifications of species to alter
vulnerabilities and carries notable risks with it.
Adaptation
Ecosystem stressors from both natural and
anthropogenic sources are inevitable. Cost-
effective stressor reduction, as a means to reduce
risks, may not always be feasible or practical.
Investments in stressor reduction are quite large,
and innovative technologies could emerge for
virtually every circumstance. Investments made
now in developing adaptation approaches for
ecosystems that make them more resilient to
inevitable stressors are directed toward sustaining
ecosystems into the future.
Adaptation is not simply a means to enhance the
assimilative capacity of ecosystems so that they can
tolerate increases in stressors, including pollutant
loads and land use changes. Rather adaptation is a
means to enhance the sustainability of ecosystems
after stressor reductions and pollution prevention
Ecological Research Strategy
3-41
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
have reached their maximum achievable levels.
Research in the adaptation area will focus on:
• Defining, developing, and evaluating
adaptation options for climate change and
other transboundary stressors, including the
costs and effectiveness of these options.
• Developing adaptation approaches to
accommodate ecosystems to inevitable
stressors.
• Identifying circumstances where adaptation
measures are less costly and produce lower
ecological risks than does remediation of
contaminated ecosystem media.
• Evaluating the practicality of effective
eradication of undesirable nonindigenous
species and prevention of their future
invasion, including cost-effective approaches
for the most serious terrestrial and aquatic
problems.
Habitat Modification and Restoration
Increasingly, ecologists are noting that loss of
habitat and degradation of ecosystems are derived
from land management practices, intensive
watershed development, hydrologic modifications,
erosion and sedimentation, and human
infrastructure "build out." This increased
recognition also is emerging in risk-based
watershed assessments. Related stressors are
multiple, and impacts are both direct (e.g., loss of
wetlands and riparian zones to construction and
development) and indirect (e.g., nutrient
enrichment and herbicide impacts on field-edge
vegetation and related impacts on fauna).
Changes in landscape composition and pattern can
influence significantly the fundamental ecological
processes of water, nutrient and materials, energy,
and biotic flows and fluxes at a variety of scales
which, in turn, affect the risk to and sustainability
of desired conditions in valued ecological goods
(e.g., high-quality and abundant water, productive
forests, and abundant and diverse wildlife) and
services (e.g., watershed resistance to flooding). It
is through the modification of these patterns (e.g.,
increasing forest fragmentation, roads crossing
streams, and agricultural on steep slopes) that
humans threaten sustainability of ecological goods
and services that permit local and regional
socioeconomic stability and resilience.
EPA's mandates for assessing ecological risks from
this array of activities and for mitigating their
impacts through restoration programs are both
long-standing and emerging. The CWA requires
wetland mitigation as part of the joint EPA/Corps
of Engineers (COE) implementation programs.
Non-point source control programs, as part of the
CWA and the CZMA, require EPA to identify
problems, provide solutions, and promulgate
programs and regulations. NEPA requires
environmental impact assessments for certain
federal projects. More recently, litigation centered
around the TMDL process apparently will lead to
incorporating ecosystem restoration and habitat
modification limitations into water quality
management at the watershed scale.
In any case, the relative risks posed by the full
array of stressors, in combination with calls for risk
management options for sustaining ecosystems for
coming generations, signal the need for an active
research program. Risk management
considerations will be engaged at local and national
scales and will address both improvements to
restoration approaches and the technical foundation
for restoration policies developed by others.
All elements of the ecological risk assessment
process must be involved to evaluate damaged
ecosystems and to provide the ecological basis for
managing the risks and restoring the ecosystems.
Although chemical-pollutant-based risk
assessments enjoy a relatively long history of both
research and application within EPA, habitat
modification and restoration are emerging as
important issues, both scientifically and
operationally.
Specifically, research will focus on the need to
develop: (1) protocols and indicators to diagnose
ecosystem restoration needs; (2) criteria to evaluate
progress toward restoration; (3) analysis of
technical issues related to riparian zone policies;
(4) data for costs and effectiveness for watershed
ecosystem restoration practices; and (5) decision
support systems for state and community planners
and their supporting consultants to establish
ecologically relevant goals and facilitate consistent,
cost-effective decisions on ecosystem restoration
within watersheds.
Landscape Characterization
In many cases, habitat and landscape alterations
pose far larger threats to the integrity and
sustainability of our ecosystems than pollutants do.
3-42
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Landscape characterization documents the
composition and spatial relationships (patterns) of
ecological resources, including forests, streams,
estuaries, urban environments, and agricultural and
rangelands, over a range of scales, as it relates to
ecological condition and resource sustainability.
Spatial patterns of other biophysical attributes,
including geology, climate, topography, hydrology,
and soils, often influence (or determine) landscape
composition and pattern and the sensitivity of
ecological resources to stressors within any given
area. Therefore, characterization of landscape
composition and pattern is fundamentally important
in understanding the relative vulnerability of and
the risks to ecological goods and services valued by
society.
Additionally, an understanding of the relationships
between landscape composition and pattern and
conditions of ecological goods and services can
lead to formulation of a set of alternatives to reduce
vulnerability and risk. Development of
methodologies and tools to characterize landscapes
should significantly reduce the uncertainty in
vulnerability and risk assessments and in
formulation and implementation of risk reduction
strategies at a variety of scales.
Eco-criteria for Habitat Modification and
Restoration
Protecting aquatic ecosystems requires moving
beyond a dependency on traditional
chemical-specific criteria and whole-effluent
testing. Additional stressors, such as habitat
modifications, increased sediment loads from
erosion, and overenrichment of nutrients, are often
cited as causes of ecosystem degradation. EPA is
moving toward a more comprehensive watershed
approach to ecosystem protection to accommodate
these and other human-induced stressors. Methods
are needed to establish biological criteria, to assess
the cumulative impacts of human activities in a
watershed, and to diagnose causes of degradation.
The development of criteria to protect and sustain
ecosystem resources also depends on research to
better understand how populations, communities
and ecosystems operate and how they respond to
stressors introduced by human activities.
Sustainability also depends not only on the integrity
of individual ecosystems, but also on the exchange
of materials and energy within and among
ecosystems within a watershed or region.
Riparian Zones
The Office of Water, the regions, and the federal
natural resource management agencies have placed
considerable emphasis in the last one to two years
on the concept of stream corridor and riparian zone
management and restoration. Research has
demonstrated that riparian zones can be effective in
reducing pollutant loads to streams, and stream
corridor management and restoration is known to
increase the quality of stream habitat for fish and
other aquatic species. A leading question for future
ecosystem restoration policy development is the
extent to which many watershed restoration goals
can be met by focusing on stream corridors and
riparian zones.
Watershed Restoration
The developing fringe upstream of Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) and coastal and estuarine
areas have been under stress for some time and,
increasingly, communities are engaged actively in
watershed management. These areas support over
60% of the U.S. population, and roughly one-half
of its population increase during the last three
decades has occurred in coastal and estuarine areas.
These watersheds, in contrast to nationally
recognized ecosystems (e.g., the Florida
Everglades), are not heavily funded "research and
application test beds" that have both research and
operational budgets. Rather, such watershed
restoration programs are typically organized as part
of community-based initiatives.
These watersheds include areas that extend
upstream of new development into agricultural and
forested areas. In many cases, wetlands have been
lost or degraded, riparian zones have been
neglected or overdeveloped, soil has eroded
severely, and, as a result, habitats are impaired by
reductions in species diversity. In other cases,
stream flow rates have been altered to the detriment
of aquatic species. Tools, databases, and decision
support systems are needed urgently by local
planners and risk managers for these situations.
The Office of Water is actively promoting
watershed restoration in these circumstances and
most recently, President Clinton announced the
American Heritage Rivers initiative that targets
rivers to focus restoration and protection efforts.
Although numerous advocacy programs have been
launched, systematically collected data to identify
the cost-effectiveness of such efforts are sparse,
and large uncertainties exist about the long-term
success of restoration projects.
Ecological Research Strategy
3-43
-------
Core Research Objectives, Rationale, and Focus
Decision Support for Risk Managers
Ecosystem restoration within watershed settings
will become increasingly important in protecting
and sustaining ecosystems as communities and
watershed management organizations employ such
restoration methods. The most common needs for
decision information will be those of local groups
committed to restoration and those of regional and
state programs that promote restoration as part of
total water quality management programs. The
Office of Water anticipates that the waste load
allocation process, which uses TMDLs as a means
to allocate obligations for improvement in water
quality, will increase dramatically the demand for
restoration practices. Thus, restoration goals and
opportunities must be considered in both water
quality and ecological contexts. In these contexts,
decision-support systems are central to efficient
and systematic planning and implementation.
The form and content of decision-support systems
not only will build on the specific restoration
technologies under development within ORD, but
also will consolidate and integrate data, case
studies, and information produced by others,
including the ORD STAR Program. Where
appropriate, remotely sensed data, diagnostic
indicators, and EMAP results will be combined to
provide relevant decision support for watershed
managers.
3.5.3 Anticipated Products
Ecosystem Management
• By 2000, identify and test one chemical
replacement for existing CFC substitutes
having high global warming potential.
• By 2002, develop global change adaptation
strategies and costs for pollution control,
water supply, and related infrastructure.
• By 2005, demonstrate at least two reliable
and cost-effective in situ technologies for the
treatment or containment of in-place
contaminated sediments.
• By 2003, complete an assessment of the
requirements and costs of mitigating and
adapting to the watershed vulnerabilities
identified in the Mid-Atlantic regional
vulnerability assessment.
• By 2008, demonstrate cost-effective
adaptation and mitigation technologies for
watershed and regional systems in at least two
regions of the United States, including the
Mid-Atlantic Region.
Adaptation and Restoration
• By 2003, complete an assessment of the
requirements and costs of mitigating and
adapting to the watershed vulnerabilities
identified in the Mid-Atlantic regional
vulnerability assessment.
• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models
for assessing feasibility, priorities, and
measures of success for watershed restoration
projects and issue guidance on the application
of the tools and models.
• By 2005, complete an assessment of the
regional sustainability/vulnerability of
ecosystems in the Southeastern United States;
provide decision support tools for watershed
restoration projects.
• By 2008, complete an assessment of the
regional sustainability/vulnerability of
ecosystems to local, regional, and national
stressors, now and in the future; demonstrate
cost-effective adaptation and mitigation
technologies for watershed and regional
systems in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the
United States and in one additional region.
• By 2008, complete three pilot restoration
projects for developed and partially
developed watersheds with different
endpoints of societal value.
3-44
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
SECTION 4
High Priority
Environmental
Research
Issues
Using ORD's ecological core
capabilities and research to
address high-priority customer
needs
4.1 Introduction
As the underlying concept for the Ecological
Research Strategy (Section 2), and as
consistent with the recent NRC report
(NRC, 1997a), the Ecological Research Program
has begun by defining the in-house, core research
and core capabilities (Figure 2-4). This is the
foundation from which all of the in-house, short-
and long-term research is based. These core
capabilities and research for the core ecological
research program are presented in Section 3. Part
of that core capability is clearly applied to these
future, expected, high priority needs of the Agency:
for example, the next generation of exposure and
effects models for environmental management
across large areas of the country; the development
of large scale regional assessment methods; new
monitoring instruments, designs, and statistical
techniques; and alternative restoration options.
ORD's goal is to see that this research will lead us
to the innovative environmental management
discoveries for the 21st Century.
These core capabilities are also the foundation for
meeting the shorter-term needs of the Agency. The
environmental problems or hazards, real and
potential, identified by the Agency, Congress, the
public, and others are clearly the required focus of
most of the ORD research. In many cases, it is not
clear where the core (fundamental) research
program ends and the more immediate, problem
focused (applied) research begins. As ORD works
at the interface between the fundamental and
applied sciences, it is expected that differentiation
between the two designations would be difficult. It
might best be thought of as a three-part system as
shown in Figure 4-1. Obviously, this core
capability is finite and therefore must be focused
for both the maintenance of the trunk of the tree
and the ever changing canopy in areas that are of
high priority and where ORD can, in fact, make a
difference.
For the purpose of this document, ORD has
focused on the core program and its direction
(Section 3), how these talents and maintenance of a
core program address Agency issues of importance
(Section 4), and how to assist in integrating the
research, to address real problems in research
(Section 5) (Figure 2-4). However, the Ecological
Research Strategy may be best represented in an
interactive, three-dimensional web of core
capabilities, problems and field locations where the
capabilities are applied to the problems, and where
all of the elements dependent on each other to
varying degrees (Figure 4-2).
Ecological Research Strategy
4-1
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
Cone 0-RD
Ecological
Research
Fundamental Scientific Knowledge
from All Sources
Figure 4-1.
Office of Research and Development's research elements
(fundamental, core, and problem focused) portrayed as a tree.
Concept derived from NRC report, "Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions," (NRC, 1997a).
Figure 4-2.
Considerable overlap is necessary between core, geographic issues, Program Office needs,
Congressional interests, and other interests,
making clean separation among such related topics unrealistic.
4-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
This section of the Strategy is devoted to presenting
research directions relative to the high priority
problem areas that have been identified for
concentrated effort over the next three to five years.
The scientific questions are those that are receiving
the primary emphasis by the in-house research
program, and by omission, the research that is not
expected to receive significant effort in the in-
house program. These "problems" or
"environmental hazards" are not independent of
each other (Figure 4-2), and no attempt to separate
them has been made. For example, it would be
foolish to assume there would be no overlap of
funding for scientists working on acid deposition,
nitrogen research, landscape changes, and/or
eutrophication. However, we have attempted to
identify the scientific questions that are most
appropriate to each high priority problem area in
order to assist our customers, not all of whom need
to address cross media and multiple stressor issues,
in identifying their specific areas of interest.
Table 4-1 provides an overview of the high priority
problems and the organization within the Agency
most interested in these issues. It is useful to
emphasize that it is the regional offices who may be
the primary customers for the whole of the Program
as they are forced by requirement to think about the
environment holistically.
4.2 Acid Deposition Research
Government Performance and
Results Act Subobjective: Reduce
ambient sulfates and total sulfur
deposition by 20% to 40% and
reduce ambient nitrates and total
nitrogen deposition by 5% to 10%.
Acid deposition effects on lakes and streams have
been well documented, and the CAA Amendments
of 1990 have required reductions in sulfur and
nitrogen deposition. Recent evaluations of long-
term sulfur and nitrogen air concentration and wet
deposition trends appear to show that the above
subobjective has been met for both sulfur and
nitrogen as the result of Phase I emissions
reductions. Concern continues, however, as to
whether these reductions protect the most sensitive
surface waters and forests. Title IX of the Clean Air
Act Amendments requires a comprehensive
assessment of the Acid Deposition Control
Program in the year 2000 and every four years
thereafter. OPJ) will, therefore, continue to conduct
relevant ecological research to assist with this
requirement. The research will focus on evaluating
existing and future monitoring data, monitoring of
high elevation index sites, continued monitoring of
representative lakes and streams in sensitive areas
of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and conducting
research at index sites to better understand
acidification and recovery processes and modeling.
Process research will focus on evaluating (1)
relative effects of sulfur versus nitrogen deposition,
(2) responses to reduced deposition (including
causes of reduced base cation concentrations in
Northeastern lakes), and (3) needs for future
process research, monitoring, and predictive
modeling.
4.2.1 Research Questions
• What are the current status and future trends
in sulfur and nitrogen air concentrations and
wet and dry deposition?
• What is the contribution of cloud water
deposition to total deposition at the high
elevation index sites?
• What is the optimal network design for
monitoring long-term local and regional
trends in deposition?
• How is dry deposition best measured and
estimated over regional scales?
• What are the trends in the chemistry of lakes
and streams in response to decreased acidic
deposition?
• How can the use of probability surveys and
fixed site networks be optimized for
measuring long-term regional trends in
chronic and episodic surface water
acidification?
• How can we improve the use and
interpretation of surface water/watershed
acidification models?
• What are the relative future effects of sulfur
versus nitrogen deposition?
• How does current monitoring compare to
model projections?
• What are the causes and relative regional
controls of decreased base cation
concentrations in NE surface waters (and,
thus, what aren't they recovering more in the
wake of drastically reduced deposition)?
Ecological Research Strategy
4-3
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
Table 4-1.
Summary of high priority environmental problems of interest to the Agency.
(Shaded box represents primary customer interest.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Research Problems
Acid Deposition
Ozone
Mercury
UVB
Nitrogen
Global Change
Contaminated Sediment
Wet Weather Flow
Toxic Algal Bloom
Eco-Criteria
Total Maximum Daily
Loading
Endocrine Disrupters
Pesticides
Landcover Change
Customers
Regional Offices
Office of Air and
Radiation
Off ice of Water
Office of Pollution
Prevention,
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Off ice of Solid
Waste and
Emergency
Response
Office of Policy
Planning and
Evaluation
4-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
4.2.2 Implementation
The Office of Air and Radiation will maintain a
national deposition monitoring network, while
ORD will continue the annual monitoring of a
representative set of 100 lakes in the Northeast and
100 streams in the Mid-Atlantic that are
appropriate for estimating the regional changes in
acidification in surface waters in these two regions
of the United States (TIME Program). More
frequent monitoring and data analysis will be
conducted on 30 lakes in the Northeast and 15
streams in the Mid-Atlantic (the LTM Program).
ORD will also maintain three mountain cloud
chemistry sites in the northern and southern
Appalachians to better quantify the contribution of
clouds to total deposition at high elevations. In
addition, ORD will conduct watershed modeling to
evaluate controls on responses of watersheds and
surface waters to forms and levels of acidic
deposition as well as to help explain and predict
possible future responses of watersheds and surface
waters.
Finally, ORD will continue to conduct research on
dry deposition measurement and estimation
methods and network optimization. All of the ORD
research will be done in-house with cooperators
from other agencies , universities, or through
contracts (see also anthropogenic nitrogen research
in the multimedia section). Further, however,
research on acidification and recovery processes
will be conducted through grants provided by the
EMAP, DISPro Program (see Section 5.8).
4.2.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, report on the trends in dry
deposition of sulfur and nitrogen in the
eastern United States between 1989 and
1995/1996. (NERL)
• By 2000, assess ecological improvements in
surface water condition based on the Long
Term Monitoring (LTM) Program as they
relate to the reduction of SO2 emissions in the
Adirondacks. (NHEERL)
• By 2000, a report that quantifies the relative
contribution of wet, dry, and cloud deposition
to selected Eastern high elevation forest sites.
(NERL)
• By 2001, report on the relationships between
observed trends in deposition chemistry and
the chemical response of lakes and streams.
(NHEERL and NERL)
• By 2001, report on improved model
projections of potential future effects of sulfur
and nitrogen deposition on surface waters.
(NERL)
• By 2003, reevaluate the improvements of
surface water chemistry in the Northeastern
and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. using
probability-based sampling of the Temporally
Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME)
studies. (NHEERL)
4.3 Ozone Research
Government Performance and
Results Act Subobjective:
Develop tropospheric ozone
precursor measurements,
modeling, source emissions, and
control information to guide
cost-effective risk management
options and produce health and
ecological effects information for
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards related to ozone risk
assessments
Chronic ozone exposures have been shown to cause
significant forest and crop damage in North
America. Since 1970, the CAA has treated ozone
as a "criteria pollutant" by mandating National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
establishing sanctions against states that fail to
meet the prescribed targets. Although considerable
progress has been made since the 1970s in reducing
the highest ambient levels of urban ozone
exposures through national and local precursor
emissions controls, there are still 106 counties not
meeting the current NAAQS for ozone. The
perceived failure of the current Program to achieve
greater health and ecosystem protection has led to
continued interest and attention to the problem.
The ORD Ecological Research Program is focusing
attention on two primary areas, exposure modeling
and remediation research, and forest effects
research.
4.3.1 Research Questions
4.3.1.1 Ozone Exposure Modeling and
Remediation Research
For over 25 years, many air quality research and
management groups throughout North America
have struggled with the best approach to managing
Ecological Research Strategy
4-5
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
the ozone levels in urban and rural environments.
NRC addressed many of the issues in their 1991
publication, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in
Urban and Regional Air Pollution. One of their
major conclusions was that scientific progress had
been hampered by the lack of a coordinated
national strategy to address the issues in a
systematic manner. Heeding the advice of NRC,
ORD, along with NOAA and the Electric Power
Research Institute, initiated discussions among
most of the sponsors and participants in
tropospheric ozone research in North America.
The continental research program known as the
North American Research Strategy for
Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) was officially
launched in 1995, with a charter signed by over 70
members of the public, private, and academic
research communities, a comprehensive 10-year
research strategy, and an organizational structure.
There are four technical teams within NARSTO:
1. Modeling and Chemistry Team
2. Observations Team
3. Emissions Team
4. Analysis and Assessment Team
Collectively, they are addressing the following
scientific questions:
• How does ozone accumulation on urban
(<200 km) and regional (200 to 2,000 km)
scales depend on the precursor source
strength and location? How does it depend
on the relative contribution from urban and
regional sources?
• What do recent assessments indicate about
the relative contribution of NOX, VOCs, and
CO to ozone accumulation on urban and
regional scales in North America?
• For a given area, what portion of the ozone
problem is local and what portion is
transported into the area? What portion of the
problem is essentially irreducible (natural
sources) and what portion is potentially
controllable?
• What are the strengths and limitations of the
current scientific methods and tools in
assessing tropospheric ozone issues and
developing emissions management strategies?
• What approaches are required to determine
historic concentration trends of ozone and its
precursors on urban and regional scales?
• What is required to demonstrate the
effectiveness of emissions control strategies
over time?
• What are the relationships among the control
strategies designed to manage tropospheric
ozone and those designed to manage other
pollutant regimes of concern?
• What are current exposure profiles in the
Mid-Atlantic and how are they expected to
change over time?
4.3.1.2 Ozone Effects Research
ORD is limiting ozone effects research to the
function and response of natural vegetation in
terrestrial ecosystems. There are many questions
regarding terrestrial wildlife, but many of these are
being addressed by other research, including that of
the Department of Interior. Less attention
traditionally has been given to environmental stress
on vegetation. In the past, vegetation has been
considered to be an easily regenerated and
manipulated natural resource that was relatively
insensitive to environmental stress. However, the
understanding and concern for this basic
component of the biosphere has changed.
Emerging knowledge of long-distance transport of
tropospheric ozone and the persistence of this
large-scale regional air pollutant in remote nature
leads to concern over potentially widespread
degradation of ecosystem processes and loss of
biotic diversity in terrestrial vegetation.
Two scientific questions are of particular
importance for EPA regarding ecological effects of
tropospheric ozone.
• What is the role of ozone on the rhizosphere,
and how does that affect nutrient cycling in
the terrestrial ecosystem?
• What are the best procedures for
extrapolating experiment results from
individual sites or chambers to larger scale
impacts?
4.3.2 Implementation
The exposure modeling and remediation research
in-house program in NERL and NRMRL conducts
applied research in the areas of chemical kinetic
mechanism development, advanced meteorological
4-6
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
and air quality modeling; new mobile source
emissions factor and model development (modal
mobile source models); new biogenic source
models (Biogenic Emissions Inventory System);
chemical and meteorological instrumental methods
development; and innovative, cost-effective NOX
source emissions controls. Extramural research,
through contracts and cooperative agreements, is
mainly awarded for support of the goals of the
continental NARSTO programs and assessments
and the continuing Southern Oxidants Study (SOS),
a university-led consortium studying the physical
and chemical aspects of ozone climatology in the
southeastern United States. Complementary
research projects in both fundamental and applied
ozone research are awarded through the extramural
grants program administered by NCERQA.
The ecological effects of tropospheric ozone
research program at NHEERL/WED utilize open-
top chambers, state-of-the-art environmentally
controlled sun-lit mesocosms, and field sites in the
ponderosa pine forests of eastern Oregon for
addressing ecophysiological questions of ozone
effects on forest trees and communities. Several
studies are being initiated in FY98:
1. Investigation of the role of below-ground
hyphal connections in inter-species transfer
of carbon and water and the role of these
interconnections in the response of plant
communities to ozone.
2. Ecosystem response, (i.e. carbon dynamics,
water utilization and nitrogen dynamics), in
a reconstructed ponderosa pine system to
exposure of elevated CO2 and ozone.
3. The role of age and size of trees in
response to ozone exposure: Water
utilization as a surrogate for ozone uptake
in ponderosa pine and modeling/
extrapolation of long-term effects of ozone.
4.3.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, characterization of ozone risk to
forest species using tree and stand model
simulations to account for environmental
(multiple stresses) and species interactions in
the response. (NHEERL)
• By 1999, define the role of competitive
interactions in the response of tree species to
ozone and confirm the nitrogen budget in
trees in response to ozone exposure.
(NHEERL)
By 1999, evaluation of Terracosm
performance in study of combined ozone-
carbon dioxide exposure of ponderosa
system. (NHEERL)
By 1999, provide state-of-science assessment
of tropospheric ozone issues by NARSTO.
(NERL)
By 1999, provide an enhanced understanding
of the atmospheric processes (chemistry,
meteorology, and precursor emissions)
responsible for the photochemical ozone
problem in the Middle Tennessee Region
(part of the Southern Oxidants Study).
(NERL)
By 1999, analysis of Southern Oxidants Study
data from the 1995 field program in the
Nashville/Middle Tennessee Region.
(NERL)
By 1999, develop an efficient and accurate
method for including complex chemical
reaction mechanisms in photochemical
pollution models, including EPA's third
generation model (Models-3). (NERL)
By 2000, complete the release of a new
model that will provide more exact estimates
of the wide variety of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) emitted from biogenic
(natural) sources. (NERL)
By 2000, analysis and interpretation of
Southern Oxidant Study field data using
advanced (observations-based) diagnostic
techniques and (emissions-based) air quality
simulation models. (NERL)
By 2000, report on laboratory simulations of
ozone- and paniculate matter-forming
potentials of anthropogenic and biogenic
emissions. (NERL)
By 2003, conduct model evaluation exercises
with a newly revised version of Models-3/
Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ)
Model. The evaluation will focus on urban-
and local-scale pollution problems and the
larger scale influences on those problems.
(NERL)
By 2003, produce ecological effects
information for NAAQS-related ozone risk
assessments. (NHEERL)
Ecological Research Strategy
4-7
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
4.4 Mercury Research
Substantial accumulations of mercury, in the form
of methylmercury, occur in fish, the consumption
of which provides the dominant mode of human
exposure. Similarly, ecological exposures
to mercury occur predominantly through aquatic
food chains. Although some of the first, severe
incidents of mercury contamination resulted from
direct methylmercury discharges, atmospheric
sources of mercury are believed to be responsible
for most of the contamination found in wildlife
today. The global background of atmospheric
mercury is currently triple that of the pre-industrial
era, and local sources can substantially augment
atmospheric deposition of mercury in aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems.
The current and primary focus of mercury research
in the EPA is on South Florida, due to the high
concentrations of mercury that have been reported
in fish and wildlife, including the endangered
Florida panther. Air emissions from the urbanized
eastern shore of South Florida are suspected to be a
major source of mercury. The challenging
atmospheric dynamics of the peninsula and the
enormous potential for mercury methylation and
bioaccumulation in the freshwater wetlands of the
Everglades may contribute to toxic levels of
contamination.
4.4.1 Research Questions
(see also Section 5.4)
• What are the sources of mercury to the South
Florida wetlands ecosystems? To what extent
do internal transport and transformation
dynamics influence the location and intensity
of methylmercury concentrations in water,
sediment and biota?
• What are the relative contributions of local
versus global sources of atmospheric mercury
to South Florida? What are the chemical
forms of mercury emitted from important
anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere?
What oxidation and reduction reactions of
mercury occur in the atmosphere? What are
the important aqueous phase oxidants? Are
these reactions important on local or global
scales?
• How does absorption of mercury by
paniculate matter in the atmosphere affect the
reduction-oxidation balance of mercury and
its subsequent deposition to terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems?
• What system characteristics determine the
rates of methylation and demethylation of
mercury? Which forms of mercury (organic
or inorganic complexes, mineral) are
bioavailable for uptake or transformation?
• How do methylation and demethylation of
mercury interact with other biogeochemical
cycles, including phosphorus and sulfur? How
will those interactions be modified by
Everglades restoration scenarios?
• What effect will hydrologic restoration of the
Everglades have on ecological exposures to
mercury?
4.4.2 Implementation
Although the bulk of ORD's mercury research is
currently being carried out in South Florida, several
Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (REMAP) projects are
investigating similar processes in lakes, including
lakes of northern New England and the Great Lakes
(Regions 1 and 5), and Clear Lake in Region 9.
Mercury inputs into the northern lakes are primarily
atmospheric, and research there is focussed in
orographic influences on atmospheric deposition,
internal biogeochemical cycling of mercury, and
food chain exposures. Clear Lake is a Superfund
site that receives mine tailings; the research issues
are the geochemical forms of mercury available for
biotransformation and biouptake, and food chain
controls on exposure to aquatic organisms.
Although no formal mechanisms exist for
integration of those research results with those of
South Florida, several principal investigators
conduct projects in more than one geographic area,
and models under development incorporate process
knowledge from a number of sources.
In South Florida, ORD is a member (with EPA
Region 4, the state of Florida, South Florida Water
Management District, USGS, National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
academic and industry groups) of the Interagency
Mercury Science Program, which maintains an
integrated, peer-reviewed research plan (IMSP,
1996). The principal areas of research include:
development of measurement methods, including
sampling and analyses; monitoring and modeling
for atmospheric transport and transformation;
modeling, monitoring and process studies for
mercury cycling between sediments, water and
4-8
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
biota; and food chain studies, including
bioaccumulation models. The EPA Region 4
REMAP study will continue to monitor mercury in
the sediments, water, and biota at a statistically
selected set of sites in the Everglades, as well as
intensive sampling at four sites co-located with
extramurally funded process studies. ORD is
primarily responsible for the atmospheric and
wetlands modeling components of the interagency
effort. The Mercury Cycling Model is being
modified by contract for incorporation into a linked
atmospheric/hydrologic/ecologic model being
developed by ORD scientists in conjunction with
other agencies. Process studies that address critical
model uncertainties (e.g., atmospheric chemistry
and biogeochemistry) are supported by interagency
and cooperative agreements. ORD-developed
models will function as the organizational
framework for process integration and as the basis
for evaluating the impacts of ecosystem
management on mercury contamination.
4.4.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, Provide mercury program input to
COE Restudy Draft Report to Congress.
Screening model report for mercury in the
Everglades. (NERL)
• By 1999, Develop methods for measurement
of atmospheric oxidation states of mercury.
Bioaccumulation model for mercury (BASS).
(NERL)
• By 2000, Produce a process based model for
mercury transformations in water, sediments,
biota. Atmospheric model, based on CMAQ,
with oxidant chemistry and particle
interactions. (NERL)
• By 2002, Apply atmospheric and mercury
spatial process models, for current and
restoration scenarios. (NERL)
4.5 UV-B Research
Government Performance and
Results Act Objective: Ozone
concentrations in the
stratosphere will have stopped
declining and slowly begun the
process of recovery.
The release of chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) to
the atmosphere has led to the thinning of the
stratospheric ozone layer around the globe and to
the ozone holes over the Poles. This effect is being
enhanced through cooling of the stratosphere by
increasing inputs of carbon dioxide and other
radiatively important gases derived from human
activities. The stratospheric ozone layer filters out
much of the harmful UV radiation (UV-B
radiation) before it reaches the Earth's surface; so,
as the ozone layer thins, the Earth's ecosystems and
humans are exposed to higher levels of UV-B.
Detection of increasing UV-B radiation at the
earth's surface is, however, difficult because of
considerable variability caused by such factors as
weather and atmospheric paniculate matter.
Establishing long-term trends relevant to ecological
and health effects research will require precise,
spectrally resolved monitoring of UV-B over at
least a 5-year period.
UV-B radiation can cause significant damage to
plants and animals, including humans, through such
mechanisms as impairing critical physiological
functions (e.g., photosynthesis) and larval
development of aquatic organisms, altering carbon
and nutrient cycles, causing skin cancers, and
reducing the immune response in humans.
Increased UV-B exposure in aquatic ecosystems
has also been linked to climate change that results
in increased UV-B penetration into the water.
Recent laboratory studies by ORD have
demonstrated that exposures of amphibian embryos
to UV-B radiation at less than sunlight intensities
can lead to developmental abnormalities. UV-B
radiation has also been found to increase the
toxicity of certain common sediment contaminants
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) through a
process of photoactivation. The increase in toxicity
can be several orders of magnitude and could
significantly alter estimates of ecological risk from
that previously estimated.
4.5.1 Research Questions
Evaluations of regional scale biological effects of
enhanced UV-B radiation on terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems require the development of appropriate
observational approaches and models. Resources
for UV-B will be used to enhance research in the
evaluation of the biological effects of UV-B. This
enhancement will be generated in conjunction with
the integrated long-term research network being
developed. Data collected from this network will be
used to perform trend analyses, characterize the
occurrence and distribution of UV-B, and model
the variability in irradiance resulting from
environmental factors.
Research also will focus on the effects of UV-B on
Ecological Research Strategy
4-9
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
aquatic and terrestrial systems, including the effects
of UV-B on sensitive biota (e.g., larval stages of
aquatic organisms) and phototoxic interactions
between UV and widespread aquatic pollutants
such as PAH. The indicators research will include
freshwater watershed indicators, such as (1) the
degree of shading, UV-B penetration, altered redox
state and nutrient cycles, (2) terrestrial indicators of
forest integrity and sustainability in response to
multiple stressors, and (3) estuarine indicators, such
as changes in carbon and nitrogen cycles and in
community trophic levels resulting from
interactions between enhanced UV and human and
climatic perturbations (altered basin-scale
hydrology and temperature change).
Monitoring the effects of UV-B radiation on
regional ecosystems, even to subsample within a
limited region, requires the development of spatial
tools and necessitates the incorporation of satellite
observations into the network of other
measurements. In addition to measuring
atmospheric ozone concentrations (e.g., with the
Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) data),
and using these data to estimate ecosystem
exposure to UV-B, a potentially more important
role for satellite observation is to monitor the
ecosystems to detect changes in functioning due to
UV-B effects.
At the present time, the greatest use of optical
sensors in both marine and terrestrial systems has
been to map variations in chlorophyll pigment
concentrations using spectral reflectance in the red
wavelength region or ratios of the red and
near-infrared wavelength regions.
In addition to observational approaches, models
that incorporate solar UV-B radiation as a forcing
variable are required in order to integrate, evaluate
and predict ecosystem effects and related feedbacks
on a regional scale. Further research efforts will
focus on determining which technological advances
would have the greatest incremental impact on
greenhouse gas emissions and will leverage funding
available in other federal agencies and industry to
catalyze the development and demonstration of the
most promising no- or low-global-warming
technologies.
Key questions include:
• What are the effects of UV-B on larval stages
of aquatic organisms, including amphibians?
• What factors affect UV-B exposures?
• What factors are of primary significance in
decreasing the effect of UV-B exposures to
terrestrial, freshwater, and estuarine biota?
• Do UV-B interactions with certain sediment
contaminants increase the potential ecological
risk of these chemicals?
• How are carbon and nutrient cycles altered by
enhanced UV-B exposures?
• What are the trends in UV-B at index
locations?
• How can a long-term trend in UV-B radiation
be derived from highly variable signals
recorded by ground-level monitors?
• What model is most effective for predicting
UV-B exposures at multiple spatial and
temporal scales?
• What are the biological/ecological effects of
UV-B exposure on plant phenology and
reproduction?
• What are the biological/ecological effects of
UV-B exposure on coastal estuarine systems?
• What are the biological/ecological effects of
UV-B exposure on coral systems?
4.5.2 Implementation
ORD will develop both a monitoring program to
measure regional levels of UV-B radiation and a
research program to examine the effects of UV-B
radiation on sensitive plant and animal species,
such as humans and early developmental stages of
selected organisms, including amphibians. A
monitoring network of 22 spectrophotometers will
measure spectrally resolved UV-B and UV-A on a
daily basis. Fourteen of the monitors will be at
index sites in National Parks, while the other eight
will be in urban locations, and the complete
network is expected to be operational in mid-1998.
The Demonstration Index Site Program (DISPro;
see Section 5.8), a joint EPA and National Park
Service (NFS) project, addresses long-term
monitoring of environmental stressors (air quality,
deposition, visibility, UV-B and toxic chemicals) in
14 national parks and research to link ecological
effects and exposure under field conditions
including interaction of multiple environmental
factors.
Ecological effects of UV-B research is conducted
4-10
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
through RFAs. The research proposals are currently
under peer-review. The proposals of UV-B effects
research will address a range of questions including
forests, amphibian populations, coral structure, and
the spatial variation of the stress over landscapes,
as well as development of indicators of UV-B
stress in plants and animals. Research in this area
over the next few years will be directed toward
investigating the mechanisms by which these
abnormalities occur and towards determining
whether UV-B radiation is, in fact, a contributing
factor causing malformations in amphibians under
actual field situations.
The program will also examine other biological
effects interactions between UV-B and nutrient
cycles, and enhanced UV phototoxicity that
involves PAH from fossil fuel usage. In
collaboration with efforts of other Agencies, the
UV-B monitoring program will be supplemented by
remote sensing of changes in ecosystem
components related to productivity, such as
variations in chlorophyll pigment concentrations.
Research will be conducted to investigate the
mechanisms involved, develop structure-activity
models that predict the chemicals for which this is
important, and the degree to which this interaction
influences the ecological effects of these chemicals
in real-world environments.
ORD's UV-B monitoring network and effects
research will be supported by ORD's global change
budget. The sites themselves will receive
additional funding through the EMAP program,
although the instruments for monitoring UV-B
radiation and the research examining the effects of
UV-B radiation on ecological systems and human
health fall under the regional vulnerabilities
component of the Global Change Research
Program.
4.5.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, establish monitoring systems at
National Park sites. (NERL)
• By 1999, report on sensitive populations to
UV-B in regions of high biodiversity.
(NHEERL)
• By 1999, report on the distribution of
stressors and exposures in the Mid-Atlantic,
including ozone, acid deposition, UV-B, acid
mine drainage, nitrogen, sedimentation, and
pesticides. (NERL)
• By 2000, develop community model of UV-
B, contaminant and nutrient dynamics and its
effects on coral reef assemblages. (NERL)
• By 2002, provide improved radiative transfer
models for predicting UV exposure. (NERL)
• By 2002, provide initial analysis of changes
in stratospheric ozone concentrations.
(NERL)
• By 2003, provide a trend estimation for
regional changes in UV-B. (NERL)
• By 2003, provide a summary of UV
monitoring data at urban and rural sites.
(NERL)
• By 2005, report on UV-B flux from 1998-
2004. (NERL)
• By 2005, assess global climate change risks
to coastal ecosystems in the eastern US.
(NERL)
4.6 Nitrogen Research
Government Performance and
Results Act Objectives: Restore
and protect watersheds, develop
tools to reduce loadings,
improve water quality, and
reduce ambient nitrates and
total nitrogen deposition by 5 to
10%
The amount of biologically active nitrogen
circulating in the biosphere has increased
dramatically during the last several decades.
Increasing use of industrial fertilizers, increased
cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops, animal farming
and wastes, deforestation, wastewater disposal, and
fossil fuel combustion have contributed to
increasing loads of nitrogenous compounds to the
world's ecosystems. On an annual basis,
anthropogenic sources of fixed nitrogen now
account for more than half the biologically active
nitrogen entering terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal
marine ecosystems (Mackenzie, et al., 1993;
Galloway, et al., 1995; Vitousek, et al., 1997).
Although the short-term effects of nutrient over-
enrichment (eutrophication) of lakes and some
coastal water bodies can be modeled with
reasonable fidelity, the long-term effects of altering
the ecological cycling of nitrogen — an important
Ecological Research Strategy
4-11
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
nutrient element — are not known. For example,
the roles of nitrous oxide in contributing
stratospheric ozone depletion and of sewage
nitrogen contributing to hypoxia in coastal waters
are fairly clear. However, recent findings have
implicated nitrogen over-enrichment as a causal
factor in reducing aquatic and terrestrial biological
diversity (Wedin and Tilman, 1996) and, perhaps,
in triggering noxious algal blooms in estuaries and
near coastal water (Smayda, 1989).
Further, the role of atmospheric nitrogen deposition
to nitrogen saturation of terrestrial ecosystems and
to the acidification of poorly buffered lakes and
streams is poorly known. Prior research priorities
mandated a focus on the more clearly evident
acidifying effects of sulfur deposition. ORD's
contributions to sulfur deposition research and
modeling set the stage well for continued progress
in determine the effects of nitrogen deposition.
The ability to predict the ecological benefits gained
by reducing nitrogen emissions is limited by the
absence of empirical cause-effect relationships that
link ecological — particularly biological —
responses to changes in the pathways and rates of
nitrogen inputs to major components of landscape
over a range of time frames and spatial scales.
Therefore, the long-term goal of ORD's research
and modeling efforts on nitrogen is to provide the
assessment methods, predictive cause-effects
models, and syntheses of environmental trend data
needed to determine the ecological risks to
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems posed by
increasing inputs of anthropogenically-fixed
nitrogen. This research will be to assist the
development of biological indicators and
management strategies needed to protect
particularly vulnerable ecosystems from the
harmful effects of nitrogen over-enrichment.
Because the biogeochemistry of nitrogen is very
complex, and potential problems traverse
atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic media, the
Program requires a balance of solid fundamental
scholarship, empirical studies, well-targeted
monitoring data, simulation modeling, and
mechanistic studies.
4.6.1 Research Questions
• How much nitrogen enters the nation's
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems?
• What are the factors affecting nitrogen
deposition, transport and fate?
• How much nitrogen entering the nation's
major watersheds ultimately reaches fresh and
marine waters?
• What are the current and predicted
biogeochemical mass balance budgets for
biologically important forms of nitrogen for
the nation's major watersheds and
biogeographic regions?
• How are terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal
marine systems likely to change as a
consequence of changing nitrogen and sulfur
loads?
• How does aquatic and terrestrial productivity
change in response to changes in annual
nitrogen loads (measured as the formation
rate of organic matter and determined at
watershed and water body scales)?
• What are the best indicators, particularly
biological indicators, of nitrogen effects from
acidification and eutrophication on terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems?
• What factors control the assimilative capacity
of terrestrial and aquatic systems with respect
to nitrogen loads?
• Which ecosystems or landscape components
are at greatest risk from nitrogen over-
enrichment/acidification?
• What would the levels of nitrogen have to be
entering watersheds of different types, below
which no detrimental effects would be likely?
4.6.2 Implementation
The primary focus of in-house research will
involve:
• Collecting, synthesizing, analyzing, and
mapping existing data to develop inventories
and budgets for nitrogen emissions and
loading rates to the atmospheric, terrestrial,
and aquatic reservoirs.
• Determining the types and locations of
watersheds, landscape components, and
ecosystems that are most susceptible to the
effects of nitrogen over-enrichment effects.
• Developing indicators of nutrient over-
enrichment as well as current and potential
future watershed nitrogen saturation and
4-12
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
surface water acidification.
• Developing and applying predictive theories
and models for effects and exposure at
regional scales.
The extramural component of the Program will
focus on using existing microcosm, mesocosm, and
field enclosure capabilities and watershed
manipulations at various academic institutions to
develop system-level dose-response relationships
for nitrogen, to explore factor interactions, and to
assist with simulation model development. The
extramural effort also will be needed to carry out
field studies in conjunction with regional
monitoring of nitrogen emissions, deposition,
effects on soils and surface waters, and intensive
data collection at index sites.
4.6.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, develop the strategy and
implementation plan for ORD-wide cross-
media research on the ecological risks posed
by anthropogenic nitrogen. (ORD)
• By 1998, complete ongoing place-based
research on coastal eutrophication.
(NHEERL)
• By 1999, complete on-going studies of
nitrogen sources, fate, and effects in targeted
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. (ORD)
• By 2000, evaluate instream, riparian, and
landscape-level controls on hydrology/
retention time, nitrogen export and processing
in tributaries to western Lake Superior.
(NHEERL)
• By 2001, complete research on the
relationship between eutrophication and
phytoplankton community dynamics.
(NHEERL)
• By 2002, complete development of a
numerical simulation model of nitrogen
effects on northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries.
(NHEERL)
4.7 Global Change Research
Human-induced factors are now formally
recognized by the international scientific
community to significantly influence climate
change, leading to unprecedented rates of warming
over the next century. In 1990 and 1995, the
multinational IPCC group summarized the
consensus state of knowledge and major
uncertainties in the science of global climate
change. The detailed impacts of climate change are
still uncertain. EPA, along with other federal
agencies coordinated through the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the
international community, has a substantial program
underway to conduct a national assessment of the
consequences of climate variability and change for
the United States.
4.7.1 Research Questions
EPA's research program is directed towards
understanding the vulnerability of regional-scale
ecosystems to climate change in the context of
other stressors. EPA plays a unique role in the
interagency global change research community
because the agency promotes environmental
protection for the benefit of human health, as well
as that of global ecosystem integrity. ORD's
Global Change Research Program will focus on
integrated assessments of the consequences of
climate change and variability to coastal,
freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems in selected
regions of the United States, and then extend the
analysis to include implications for human health.
EPA will concentrate on studying regional-scale
ecosystems with their embedded landscape mosaics
because (1) regional analyses may be more readily
linked with policy development, and (2) the
ecological mechanisms causing an observed effect
can be best identified on a regional scale.
ORD's Global Change Research Program design is
twofold: (1) to improve the scientific basis for
evaluating important ecological and human health
impacts of climate change by analyzing the regional
ecological vulnerabilities to temperature and
hydrologic changes associated with projected
climatic changes in the context of other stressors;
and (2) to develop programs to reduce the most
significant risks posed by climate change by
identifying and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of
global change mitigation and adaptation strategies
in target areas of the United States.
The questions for the research program include:
• What are the best indicators (sentinels) of
climate change at population, community, and
ecosystem levels of organization?
• What future coastal ecological vulnerabilities,
on a range of spatial scales, result from the
Ecological Research Strategy
4-13
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
joint effects of changes in climate, sea level,
and other stressors, such as pollutants and
land use?
• How do climate-induced changes in
temperature, moisture, and atmospheric
composition affect biogeochemistry of
regions or ecosystems?
• How do climate-induced changes in
biogeochemistry affect species distribution
and diversity; productivity; sustainability; and
integrity of terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal
ecosystems?
• How will climate change affect human health
directly and indirectly, via ecologically
mediated factors?
• How do the vulnerabilities of natural systems
to global climate change influence regional
economies?
• What societal and environmental
infrastructures are most likely to be impacted
by global change?
• What options are available for adapting
ecosystems to climate change?
• What technologies are most appropriate for
greenhouse gas reductions?
4.7.2 Implementation
ORD will achieve its Global Climate Change
Research Program mission through a combination
of research by the laboratories and centers,
including: (1) basic experiments focused on
understanding climate change and variability
impacts on biogeochemical cycles in a variety of
ecosystems; (2) participation in national and
regional assessments of the consequences of
climate change and variability on ecosystems; and
(3) comparisons and evaluations of greenhouse gas
reduction technologies. This research will be done
by a combination of in-house researchers and those
who are funded by EPA's extramural grants
program.
4.7.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, provide a hybrid method to classify
and label land cover pattern change using
remotely sensed processes.
(NERL)
• By 2000, contribute to the National
Assessment of the Consequences of Climate
Variability and Change for the United States.
This assessment will be conducted under the
auspices of the USGCRP. (NCEA/ORD)
• By 2001, publish significant research findings
from mesocosm experiments and field and
modeling studies. (NCERQA)
• By 2001, complete a comparison of
greenhouse gas emission reduction
alternatives. (NRMRL)
• By 2002, complete analysis of North American
Landscape Characterization (NALC) data for
change indicators. (NERL)
4.8 Contaminated Sediments
Research
Government Performance and
Results Act: Provide means to
identify, assess, and manage
aquatic stressors, including
contaminated sediments.
Aquatic sediments represent the ultimate repository
for many contaminants in surface waters.
Sediment-associated contaminants not only serve as
a source of toxicity to benthic organisms living in
contact with these sediments, but also can
reintroduce contaminants into the water column or
aquatic food chain. Recently, an EPA report on the
National Sediment Quality Survey (EPA, 1997c)
reported that 26% of the more than 21,000 sampling
stations in watersheds across the United States
associated adverse effects of contaminated sediments
on aquatic life with human health. Associated
adverse effects for an additional 49% of the sampling
stations are considered possible, but expected
infrequently. Although sediment contamination
decreases with distance from near-shore sources,
widespread, low-level contamination of deep water
sediments of Puget Sound, for example, has been
detected. Cancerous lesions and other effects have
been observed in several bottom-dwelling fish
species and approximately 1,200 state
fish-consumption advisories have been issued.
According to the NRC's 1997 report entitled
"Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways-
Cleanup Strategies and Technologies," (NRC, 1997b)
4-14
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
an estimated 5% to 10% of all sediments dredged
in the United States are contaminated, meaning that
14 to 28 million cubic yards of sediment must be
managed annually. The NRC report identifies
many current deficiencies in the cost-effective
management of contaminated sediments, ranging
from the lack of comprehensive risk assessments to
the lack of systematic performance data on
engineered and in situ remediation technologies.
Three general problems arise:
1. Determining the ecological risks from
contaminated sediments;
2. Managing risks from contaminated
sediments in aquatic ecosystems where the
sediments need not be removed for
navigational clearance; and
3. Managing risks from contaminated
sediments removed from waterways for
navigational purposes — the dredge spoil
problem.
4.8.1 Research Questions
4.8.1.1 Criteria
The Office of Water has promulgated sediment
quality criteria as an extension of water quality
criteria. Further development of such criteria and
their site-specific application will require better
understanding of the effects of contaminated
sediments for both benthic communities and
ecosystem level impacts. Research questions are:
• How can the biological effects of exposure to
contaminated sediments be measured in the
laboratory and in the field, and what are the
most cost-effective ways to use such
measurements in site-specific risk
assessments?
• How can the biological effects of exposure to
sediment contaminants be predicted, and how
are such predictions factored in risk
assessment?
• In cases where biological effects are
demonstrated, what are the causes of those
effects, and how is that information best used
to devise risk management approaches?
4.8.1.2 Exposure — Fate and Transport
Current sediment quality criteria are based on
equilibrium partitioning of hydrophobic chemicals
between the sediments and the interstitial water.
Further development of criteria will require a more
complete understanding of the interactions of
pollutants and sediments. Similarly, the
remediation of sediments and the feasibility of
natural attenuation are elucidated by knowledge of
the fate of contaminants and the transport
characteristics of both the sediments and sorbed
materials. Research questions are:
• What is the appropriate equilibrium-
partitioning model for polar organics, metals,
and zwitter ions attached to sediments?
• What are the fate processes, rate constants,
and degradation products for the array of
chemicals found on contaminated sediments?
• How are contaminated sediments factored in
the waste load allocation modeling process
for Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL)?
4.8.1.3 Remediation Technologies for In-
Place and Dredged Sediments
EPA is evaluating two stressor management
approaches for contaminated sediments: (1) natural
attenuation and (2) enhanced remediation.
Enhanced remediation includes both in situ and ex
situ techniques and employs various combinations
of biological, physical, and chemical processes.
Natural attenuation, on the other hand, is a process
where unaided, naturally occurring biotic and
abiotic mechanisms effectively restore ecosystems.
Investigations usually separate contaminated
sediment requiring treatment into two categories:
(1) dredged sediment created during navigational
waterway maintenance and (2) sediment requiring
action because of the risks posed to human or
ecosystem health. System constraints on each
category determine the solution effectiveness.
Some conditions favor in situ treatment, whereas
dredged sediment, by definition, requires ex situ
treatment. A major challenge for remediation is the
need to develop risk management approaches that
restore ecosystems to functioning levels, in addition
to reducing chemical concentrations to criteria
levels.
Questions under investigation include:
• Among existing remediation technologies,
which ones are most applicable for
contaminated media within vulnerable
ecosystems?
Ecological Research Strategy
4-15
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
• What are the most appropriate and cost-
effective technologies for in situ and ex situ
treatment of contaminated sediments?
• What sediment management systems are most
cost-effective in reducing risks?
• Under what circumstances do adaptation
measures (e.g., in-place containment and low
energy in situ treatment) for contaminated
sediments cost less and produce lower
ecological risks than alternative remediation?
4.8.2 Implementation
The work described in this problem area will be
accomplished through a combination of intramural
and extramural research conducted in all ORD
laboratories. Within the federal research
community, NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) also conduct research on selected
issues. The 1997 NRC report, "Contaminated
Sediments in Ports and Waterways — Cleanup
Strategies and Technologies," (NRC, 1997b) —
contains recommendations for a more integrated
federal research and development program. ORD
intends to establish a more coordinated effort (and
possibly a joint research strategy) with the COE to
investigate the development and demonstration of
innovative technologies for removing and
managing contaminated sediments.
4.8.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, complete pilot-scale evaluation of
three biotreatment technologies (bioslurry,
land treatment, and composting) for the
treatment of PAH contaminated sediment.
(NRMRL)1
• By 1998, complete baseline lab studies on
hydrogen and iron for dechlorinating organics
in sediments. (NRMRL)
• By 1999, develop methods for screening
aquatic systems, including sediments, for
significant chemical stressors. (NERL)
• By 1999, publish peer-reviewed journal
article on biotreatment of PAH contaminated
sediment. (NRMRL)
1 Includes specific Laboratory or Center
responsible. (See Table 2.1 for Laboratory and
Center names.)
By 1999, publish peer-reviewed journal
article on treatment of chlorinated organics in
sediments. (NRMRL)
By 2000, improve the understanding of the
kinetics of contaminant release from
sediments. (NERL)
By 2000, provide a systematic framework for
developing habitat criteria for aquatic
systems. (NHEERL)
By 2000, develop methods and models to
assess bioaccumulation of sediment
contaminants. (NHEERL)
By 2000, quantify photo-activated toxicity of
sediment-associated PAHs. (NHEERL)
By 2000, develop methods to validate and
predict lab bioavailability data for sediment
contaminants to the field. (NHEERL)
By 2000, develop methods and models to
determine effects of spatial, temporal and
other factors on toxicity of sediment
contaminants. (NHEERL)
By 2000, develop methods and indicators to
assist in setting aquatic eco-criteria.
(NHEERL)
By 2001, develop risk estimates/criteria for
specific contaminants or mixtures of
contaminants protective of aquatic life and
human health to develop assessments of
human health risks and ecological risks for
exposures to contaminants in ambient waters.
(NCEA)
By 2001, develop methods to assess the
success of remediating stream ecosystems,
including stressed riparian zones and
metal-contaminated sediments. (NERL)
By 2002, publish research methods to
develop diagnostic indicators for benthic
ecosystems to identify sensitive indicators of
toxicity to benthic communities. (NERL)
By 2002, document effects of sorption on
biotic and abiotic transformation rates in
sediments. (NERL)
By 2003, develop or evaluate promising
technologies for the ex situ and in situ risk
4-16
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
management of contaminated sediments.
(NRMRL)
• By 2003, develop methods to assess
reproductive effects of sediment
contaminants. (NHEERL)
• By 2003, develop methods and models to
predict effects of highly bioaccumulative
contaminants on wildlife and other higher
trophic-level organisms. (NHEERL)
• By 2003, determine effects of sediment
contaminants at population, community, and
ecosystem scales. (NHEERL)
• By 2005, develop technical resource
documents on the risk management of
contaminated sediments. (NRMRL)
4.9 Wet Weather Flow
Government Performance and
Results Act Subobjective: Deliver
decision support tools and
alternative, less costly wet
weather flow control
technologies for use by local
decision-makers involved in
community-based watershed
management
The urban wet weather flow (WWF) problem is
caused by untreated discharges during storm
events. Early drainage plans made no provisions to
control impacts from this type of pollution. WWF
comprises point source as well as diffuse non-point
source discharges. There are three types of urban
WWF discharges:
1. Combined sewer overflow (CSO), a
mixture of storm drainage and municipal-
industrial wastewater discharged from
combined sewers or dry weather flow
(DWF) discharged from combined sewers
resulting from clogged interceptors,
inadequate interceptor capacity, or
malfunctioning CSO regulators.
2. Stormwater from separate stormwater
collection systems in areas that are either
sewered or unsewered.
3. Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO), which
includes overflow and bypasses from
sanitary sewer systems resulting from
stormwater and groundwater infiltration or
inflow.
Pollutants in WWF discharges from many sources
remain largely uncontrolled. EPA, in both its 1992
National Water Quality Inventory and its 1995
Report to Congress, cited pollution from WWF as
the leading cause of water quality impairment.
WWF discharges is one of the greatest remaining
threats to water quality, aquatic life, and human
health that exist today. The Office of Water, in its
"National Water Program Agenda, 1997-1998,"
identifies the management of WWF dischargers as
one of the key areas still requiring attention in
order to assure clean water and safe drinking water.
Furthermore, this agenda states that, "[p]ollution
from diffuse or non-point sources during and after
rainfalls is now the single largest cause of water
pollution." These discharges can produce
widespread, short-term, high exposures to
infectious agents that result in gastrointestinal
illness and even death. In addition, there is an
increase in long-term contamination of sediments
and the aquatic food chain through the release of
persistent, bioaccumulative toxic agents.
Urbanization also creates higher stream flows,
causing bank and bottom erosion and deposition
and unacceptably high shear stresses for the benthic
community.
The NRC concluded that correction of non-point
source pollution problems is a major priority of
surface water protection and should be
implemented as a part of a large-scale, aquatic-
ecosystem program. Pollution problems stemming
from CSO, SSO, and storm water discharges are
extensive throughout the United States, with the
Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and Far West being
the principal areas of concentration. Almost 40%
of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters monitored by
states do not meet water quality goals, largely
because of urban WWF discharges. Of special
significance is the association between WWF
discharges and exposure of microbes in
recreational waters. A recent epidemiology study
in Santa Monica Bay, California, documented an
increased risk of illness associated with swimming
near storm drains.
4.9.1 Research Questions
WWF problems can be addressed in the following
three fundamentally different ways. Each of these
Ecological Research Strategy
4-17
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
potential solutions poses critical ORD research
questions.
1. Watershed management (i.e., managing
activities within the watershed in ways to
minimize or prevent the unacceptable
discharge of contaminants).
2. Control technology for drainage systems
(i.e., using engineered control systems to
treat or remove pollutants from WWFs).
3. Infrastructure improvement (i.e.,
developing new infrastructure systems that
create fewer WWF problems, applying
such concepts to existing infrastructure as it
is replaced, and incorporating new concepts
into planned development).
4.9.1.1 Watershed Management for WWF
Impacts Abatement
Solving WWF problems through watershed
management is consistent with the Office of Water
strategy on watersheds and involves a progression
of research questions and steps:
• How can effluent guidelines for WWF be
established effectively in a watershed
management strategy?
• What are the methods and data needed to
diagnose problems, identify and characterize
sources (including atmospheric deposition),
and evaluate progress toward success in
watershed management?
• Can more reliable test methods and indicators
be developed to detect and measure human
pathogenic microbes to allow local authorities
to make appropriate decisions about beach
advisories and closures?
• What are the relative risks of the various
alternative risk management options?
• What innovative and less costly watershed
management practices and WWF
management networks need to be developed?
• Are riparian zone restoration and constructed
wetlands most effective?
• What combination of best management
practices, source controls, watershed
restoration, and retrofitted technologies
provide the most cost-effective strategy for
improving water quality within the context of
watershed management?
4.9.1.2 Control Technology for Drainage
Systems
WWFs (including storm water) are increasingly
suspected as, if not directly indicated to be, the
cause of pathogenic contamination of shellfish
beds, public beaches, and drinking water supplies.
In some cases, control technologies and preventive
measures are effective in reducing the toxicity of
CSOs and other WWFs. Research
questions/directions are:
• What is the effectiveness of disinfection
techniques using measurements that account
for microorganisms occluded by particles?
• How effective are innovative, low-cost, high-
rate control/treatment technologies for
removing toxics and other pollutants from
WWF?
• How can toxic/pollutant discharges to
receiving waters of the urban watershed be
prevented and reduced effectively?
4.9.1.3 Infrastructure Improvement
A 1990 report by the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment identified environmental
infrastructure problems in the areas of wastewater,
drinking water, and municipal solid waste and
evaluated the impacts of these problems on local
communities. As is apparent, a community's
environmental infrastructure needs are varied and
interrelated. Communities may have the same
generic needs (providing safe drinking water,
protecting receiving waters, environmentally
acceptable disposal of solid waste, etc.) and
associated problems. However, the solutions to
these problems can vary greatly with community
size, because smaller communities can lack the
financial (lower per-capita income, smaller tax
base, etc.) and personnel resources (operation,
maintenance, management, etc.) of larger ones,
forcing the use of lower cost, less complex
technologies. Questions are:
• What are the best approaches to assess,
maintain, and rehabilitate existing sewer
systems and to construct new sewer systems
in urban settings?
• What are the most cost-effective approaches
to design, construct, maintain, and rehabilitate
4-18
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
storage systems for storm water and
wastewater to ensure optimum system
performance and, thus, reduce the risks
associated with the failure of such systems to
the environment?
4.9.2 Implementation
Implementation will be guided by the "Risk
Management Research Plan for Wet Weather
Flows" and conducted in concert with the Office of
Water. The research plan was peer reviewed by the
Urban Water Resources Research Council of the
American Society of Civil Engineers and the Water
Environment Research Foundation of the Water
Environment Federation. The Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Program also
includes a pilot program on urban WWF control
systems which will expedite the development of
WWF control technology and watershed
management strategies (see Section 3.3).
The Office of Water's Office of Wastewater
Management, Office of Science and Technology,
and Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
have parallel technology development and
technology transfer programs that have been
merged through joint management of projects of
common interest. A portion of the WWF research
plan's projects are being conducted collaboratively
between the Office of Water and ORD, with
funding through Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA.
4.9.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, provide data on high-rate
disinfection and use of microcarriers to
enhance WWF treatment. (NRMRL)
• By 1998, provide data on the effects of
particle breakup on stormwater disinfection.
(NRMRL)
• By 1999, develop and evaluate indicator
methods to describe toxic input to watersheds
fromWWFs. (NERL)
• By 1999, publish peer reviewed results of
WWF disinfection studies. (NRMRL)
• By 1999, publish peer reviewed results of
treatment studies. (NRMRL)
• By 2000, link urban stormwater models to a
geographic information system. (NRMRL)
• By 2000, develop methods to identify
chemical stressors in toxic environmental
mixtures. (NERL)
• By 2001, publish indicator methods to assess
stream impacts from WWFs. (NERL)
• By 2001, develop rapid (less than three
hours), specific methods for measuring the
quality of bathing beach waters. (NERL)
• By 2002, publish methods for diagnosis of
multiple stressors in watershed ecosystems.
(NERL)
• By 2002, provide guidance for optimal
monitoring of bathing beach waters and
communicating risk associated with
swimming activities to the public. (NERL)
• By 2003, use condition and diagnostic
ecological indicators to evaluate WWF
management strategies in preventing
degradation of water and sediment quality by
contaminated runoff. (NCEA)
• By 2003, evaluate publicly available water
quality simulation models to evaluate risks
associated with various control technologies
for WWFs in a watershed. (NCEA)
• By 2003, deliver selected decision support
tools and alternative, less costly WWF
control technologies to state and local
decision makers involved in community-
based watershed management. (NRMRL)
4.10 Toxic Algal Blooms Research
Toxic and otherwise harmful algal blooms (HABs)
are increasing in frequency, duration, and severity
along virtually every U.S. coastal state, yet the
causes of HAD outbreaks and their impacts on
ecosystem integrity and human health are poorly
defined. HABs, including new or previously
undescribed species such as Pfiesteria piscicida,
have caused large-scale aquatic mortalities, altered
coastal ecosystem structure and function, impacted
coastal economies, and threatened human health.
HAD outbreaks in the U.S. reflect a global trend,
yet the U.S. lags far behind many other countries in
basic research necessary to develop and implement
effective management programs to the multitude of
problems caused by HABs and their toxins.
Understanding the biological, chemical, and
physical processes and interactions facilitating
HAD development, maintenance, and decline will
Ecological Research Strategy
4-19
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
advance the national goal of preventing, managing,
controlling, and mitigating HAB outbreaks and
impacts, as well as EPA's mission to protect coastal
ecosystems and human health. Understanding the
causes of HAB s requires a determination of the
extent in which HAB outbreaks are due to natural
processes or to anthropogenic influences related to
changing coastal zone uses and eutrophication.
Research will be focused on elucidating the
environmental factors facilitating HAB
development, growth, and toxicity, on developing
unique indicators for rapid HAB identification and
monitoring, on developing a field monitoring
network and rapid response capability for HAB
monitoring and forecasting, and on elucidating the
short- and long-term fate and effects of HAB s and
their toxins on aquatic organisms, ecosystem
condition, and human health. HABs defined herein
consist of estuarine and marine eukaryotic and
prokaryotic species, including Pfiesteria piscicida
and Pfiesteria-like species.
4.10.1 Research Questions
• What are the critical environmental factors
regulating the cell division cycle, life
cycle, and toxicity of HAB species?
• What are the macro- and micronutrient
requirements and uptake kinetics for
growth and toxin production of HAB
species?
• How are HAB species' nutritional
requirements altered by physiological
acclimation to different light, temperature,
and salinity regimes?
• What is the relative role of mixotrophy in
nutrient acquisition by HABs?
• What is the role of bacterial-HAB
associations on HAB development, growth
and toxicity? Are bacterial-HAB
associations unique indicators of toxicity?
• What are the effects of increased nutrient
loading, altered nutrient ratios, and
atmospheric nutrient deposition on HAB
development, growth, and toxicity?
• What molecular, biochemical, bio-optical,
and/or other indicators are most effective
for rapid identification and monitoring of
HABs and their toxins?
• What is the relationship between HABs
and grazers in bloom development and
decline?
• What are the direct and indirect effects of
HABs and their toxins on water quality,
higher trophic level species, and
ecosystem condition? Can these effects be
predicted, and if so, what parameters or
indicators are necessary for predictive
models?
• How do HAB events affect ecosystem
biogeochemical cycling and productivity
on short- and long-time scales?
• What is the dose-response relationship for
selected aquatic organisms exposed to
HAB toxins?
• What indicators are most effective for
identifying toxin exposure in aquatic
organisms?
• What design strategies and parameters are
required for effective field monitoring of
HABs and their impacts, and for
predictive model development?
• What are the direct and indirect effects of
HABs and their toxins on laboratory
model organisms and on human health?
• What are the effects of HAB toxins on
respiratory, immune, and nervous systems
of laboratory rodents?
• What are the effects of HAB toxins, in
particular Pfiesteria toxins, on
neurocognition in laboratory rodents and
humans?
• What are the specific neuropathological
changes that occur in aquatic animals and
laboratory rodents exposed to specific
HAB toxins?
4.10.2 Implementation
ORD will develop a HAB experimental culture and
exposure facility and establish viable stock cultures
of principal HAB species and clones using
appropriate biological control techniques. This
facility will be the focal point for controlled
laboratory studies examining nutrient
ecophysiology and toxin production, developing
and evaluating molecular, biochemical, and bio-
4-20
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
optical diagnostic indicators, and examining the
effects of controlled exposures to HABs and toxins
on selected aquatic organisms. In cooperation with
other agencies and universities, ORD will seek to
develop a suite of HAB real-time monitoring
network sites in the Gulf of Mexico, making use of
advanced measurement technologies for physico-
chemical, bio-optical, and biological parameters,
such as moored platforms outfitted with unattended
sensors and satellite remote sensing. ORD will
conduct shipboard surveys and process studies in
the Gulf of Mexico to complement and extend the
range of information provided by the network sites.
With the cooperation of Gulf state agencies and
institutions, ORD will expand the Gulf of Mexico
Aquatic Mortality Response Network (GMNET) by
developing a HAB home page to include, within
the GMNET database, reports of HAB events in
the Gulf of Mexico. The expanded GMNET
database will contribute to understanding the causal
relationships between aquatic mortalities and
HABs. These research efforts will provide
information crucial to identifying and
understanding the mechanisms underlying HAB
development, maintenance, decline, and impacts in
coastal ecosystems, to developing forecasting
capabilities, and ultimately to developing
management strategies for minimizing or
preventing HAB outbreaks and impacts. It is
anticipated that this research will be a truly
interdivisional program involving several ORD
divisions focusing on both ecological and human
health consequences of HABs.
4.10.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, publish a report on histopathology
of HAB effects on fish. (NHEERL)
• By 1999, define the nutrient ecophysiology of
HABs, and identify potential diagnostic
indicators for HAB identification and
monitoring. (NHEERL)
• By 2000, publish a report on effects of HAB
toxins on selected aquatic organisms.
(NHEERL)
• By 2000, publish a report on environmental
conditions that facilitate HAB formation.
(NHEERL)
• By 2001, publish a report on efforts to
monitor the presence and extent of HABs.
(NHEERL)
• By 2001, publish a report on diagnostic
indicators for identifying toxin exposure in
selected aquatic organisms. (NHEERL)
• By 2001, publish a report on development of
a forecasting model to predict the occurrence
of HABs based on environmental conditions.
(NHEERL)
4.11 Eco-Criteria Research
GPRA Subobjactive: By 2003,
provide means to identify,
assess, and manage aquatic
stressors, including
contaminated sediments.
Scientific criteria are needed as a guide in many
decision-making processes intended to protect and
restore the environment. Criteria to protect aquatic
resources have been implemented through a wide
variety of programs such as aquatic life criteria,
wildlife criteria, wetlands criteria, sediment quality
criteria and biocriteria, each of which has produced
a series of standard practices that tend to address
site-specific issues. However, the incorporation of
many different scientific concepts and criteria into
dozens of different federal, state and tribal
regulatory processes can cause unanticipated
impacts within the regulatory programs and the
regulated community. A new perspective is needed
to achieve a sound scientific foundation for the
holistic examination of environment conditions and
an optimal approach for environmental
improvement and protection activities.
Creating that new ecological perspective and the
scientific foundation for community-based
environmental protection requires that we advance
our understanding of how aquatic communities and
foodwebs are impacted by human activities across
entire watersheds. Moreover, sound scientific
methods must be created for optimizing existing
regional financial resources for compliance and
restoration with a focus on sustainable water
quality for the region. A simple example illustrates
the dimension of new ecological criteria. NPDES
permits are used to control point-source discharges
using local water quality standards derived from
national water quality criteria. Monitoring permit
compliance and receiving water condition are
added costs of implementing these standards. The
water quality standards, however, vary with
Ecological Research Strategy
4-21
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
different local designated uses for the receiving
waters. Hydrodynamic models are used to
establish the relationship between the upstream
permits and the receiving water quality, taking non-
point sources of pollution into consideration.
Adverse impacts are determined by comparisons
with nearby reference sites.
When this process is applied to nutrient and
persistent bioaccumulative chemicals, the most
vulnerable ecosystem component and assessment
endpoints are often far removed from the stream
segments and mixing zones up in the watershed
near the discharge. Setting permits based on local
designated uses and reference conditions do not
prevent the cumulative adverse effects in the
regional-scale ecosystems. Nor does the protection
of dozens of individual stream segments in a region
necessarily lead to the development of sustainable
land use practices. In particular, the current
approach is poorly suited to address the loss of
habitat that supports balanced aquatic
populations and foodwebs.
An alternative approach is required to manage for
the more holistic needs of ecosystems which are
inextricably linked to the myriad of small
watersheds and their local economies that depend
on goods and services derived from the
environment. Ecological criteria must identify the
critical receiving waters and habitats for entire
watersheds, establish cause-effect relationships and
thresholds in those relationships that are protective
of important ecosystem processes, and quantify the
linkages between watershed uses so that the risks
that exceed those thresholds can be minimized.
Finally, holistic ecological risk assessment at later
scales should minimize the application of pollution
control measures that do not significantly improve
water quality or the sustainability of designated
uses.
4.11.1 Research Questions
The strategic direction of ecological criteria
research will be the creation of a watershed
hierarchy that identifies the critical ecosystem
components and assessment endpoints and a
common risk assessment framework for optimizing
the implementation of control measures which
result in the greatest improvement in the health of
aquatic communities. Cornerstones of this
approach are new methods for designating uses that
reflect attainable and sustainable ecological
conditions and new methods that allow pollution
control to be driven by comprehensive data of the
current conditions of streams, lakes, wetlands, and
estuaries.
The research questions that must be addressed to
design a condition-driven risk assessment process
capable of spanning community, basin and large
watershed scales and a common language for the
impacts of toxic chemicals, nutrients,
sedimentation, and loss of habitat quality include:
• Can concepts of ecological constraints ,
biogeography, and critical ecosystems give
structure to more objective use attainment
analyses for large watersheds?
• Can area-based socioeconomic indicators of
sustainability be incorporated into regional
guidelines for designating uses for aquatic
resources?
• Can a nationwide survey of biological
integrity of aquatic resources be designed to
streamline performance and compliance
monitoring as well as to identify impacted
aquatic resources in a more ecologically
meaningful manner?
• Can a single risk assessment method be
developed that harmonizes the different
approaches used to derive human health
criteria, aquatic life criteria, wildlife criteria,
and sediment quality criteria for discharges of
toxic chemicals?
• Can water quality criteria for nutrients and
clean sediments be formulated so that lakes,
wetlands and stream segments as well as other
critical ecosystems in the watershed are
protected?
• Can the relationships between habitat quality
indicators and the biological integrity of
specific communities be quantified well
enough to prescribe cost-effective restoration
actions in areas impacted by habitat loss?
• Does current expert system technology permit
the development of a decision-support system
for the diagnosis of major stressors in
watersheds based on survey data, landscape
indicators, land use patterns and data on
pollution sources?
4.11.2 Implementation
One of the greater challenges of the ORD Strategic
Plans is the refinement of the ecological risk
4-22
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
assessment process so that toxic chemicals,
nutrients, and siltation from point and non-point
sources can be integrated with other stresses such
as loss of habitat quality so that the risks of land
use changes can be managed. The Ecological
Research Strategy outlines a comprehensive ORD
plan to accept that challenge using long-term core
research and problem-driven research which
directly improves regulatory programs. The Office
of Water is at a crossroads between the traditional
point source waste load allocation and permitting
programs and the control programs needed to also
protect ecosystems from nonpoint sources and
habitat disturbances. The hurdles which must be
crossed are the development of new multimedia,
multi-scale models for watershed simulations in the
TMDL process, better landscape indicators of
condition, and new methods for unifying the many
facets of water quality criteria.
As described in other sections, multimedia
modeling and monitoring are core research
programs in ORD. Implementation of aquatic eco-
criteria research will interface with that core
research and will be closely coordinated with the
Office of Water. The research will continue the
support for the existing regulatory programs in
water quality criteria, sediment quality criteria, and
whole effluent toxicity assessment until new
holistic methods and implementation guidelines are
drafted in the next five years. Central to the entire
effort is a national stream survey which must be
initiated in 2000. The Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) will begin
testing the feasibility of large-scale survey designs
in 1999. ORD will work with water quality
monitoring programs in the Office of Water to
evaluate options of combining resources for the
national survey. The results of the national survey
of biological condition will serve as the foundation
for the design of holistic watershed risk
assessments driven by assessed conditions.
4.11.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, Produce a research plan to remove
major remaining uncertainties in existing
chemical-specific water quality criteria.
(NHEERL)
• By 1999, Produce a research plan to
determine the importance of wetland quality
and distribution of wetlands on biological
integrity in large watersheds. (NHEERL)
• By 2000, Produce a report on the new
methods for use designation and identifying
critical habitats in watershed-scale risk
assessment. (NHEERL)
• By 2001, Produce a report on methods for
identifying critical stressors in watersheds.
(NERL)
• By 2003, Produce a draft of new National
Guidelines for Water Quality Criteria to
protect aquatic life, wildlife, and human
health. (NHEERL)
• By 2004, Produce a report on optimizing
pollution prevention and ecological
restoration methods in watersheds.
(NRMRL)
4.12 Total Maximum Daily Loading
Research
The Government Performance and Results Act
Subobjectives are: (1) by 2003, to provide means to
identify, assess, and manage aquatic stressors and
(2) by 2003, to deliver decision support tools and
alternative, less costly wet weather flow control
technologies for use by local decision makers
involved in community-based watershed
management.
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process,
established within section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act, provides the States with the means of
addressing nonattainment of designated uses of
receiving water bodies in cases where
technology-based control of point sources have
been or will be implemented. These water bodies
are classified as water quality limited. The TMDL
process can have two meanings: 1) the TMDL
process is used to implement State water quality
standards — a planning process that will lead to the
goal of meeting the standards in water quality
limited receiving waters, and 2) the TMDL can be a
quantitative value that determines the maximum
load of a pollutant from point and nonpoint
sources, as well as background, to receiving bodies
such that state water quality standards will not be
exceeded.
The TMDL process provides the means to establish
a watershed-based approach to integrating the
control of point and nonpoint sources of pollutants
that are responsible for the impairment of water
bodies. The process integrates monitoring and
characterization of the States' surface waters for
designated uses, development and application water
Ecological Research Strategy
4-23
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
quality criteria for human health aquatic life and
wildlife to help identify impairment and loading
capacities for watersheds, and water quality and
hydrodynamic modeling of the fate and effects of
pollutants.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed concerning
implementation of TMDLs. The suits deal with a
variety of issues. In a broad sense, the States are
being challenged with inadequate listing and
prioritization of water bodies for TMDLs and
arbitrary and capricious TMDL development and
implementation. ORD has focused on improving
the TMDL process and many of the research
questions below are being used to guide the core
research as well.
While the States are responsible for implementing
TMDL programs, EPA's Regions are required
to review the States' efforts and provide technical
assistance. Therefore, the Regions are, at a
minimum, indirectly involved in the suits.
4.12.1 Research Questions
The highest priority research questions include the
following:
Monitoring (Landscape Characterization,
Ecological Indicators)
• What land use and land cover data are
available for forestry, vegetation (including
riparian), urbanization, agriculture? What
aquatic resource data are available for fish
(by species), macro-invertebrate assemblages,
and hydrogeographically linked water column
physical/chemical data and river/stream
physical data? What data are available on soil
properties and location of forests, roads, and
wetlands?
• What landscape characterization methods
(using GIS cartographic products and
remotely sensed imagery) are available to
efficiently use coarser-scale watershed
characteristics to predict finer-scale
characteristics?
• What methods are available to distinguish
loadings from anthropogenic sources from
other sources, particularly for sources of fecal
contamination in watersheds?
• What diagnostic indicators are available for
assessing the interactive effect of multiple
physical, biological and chemical stressors?
• What monitoring designs are available for
identifying impacted water bodies, diagnosing
cause and effect, gathering data for model
parameters and tracking ecological condition
following implementation of a TMDL?
Modeling
• What models are available for estimating
water quality conditions in non-monitored
segments and watershed subbasins?
• What watershed and basin-scale models are
available to address: eutrophication (both
periphyton and macrophyton algae), sediment
loading, water temperature, and habitat
degradation, for various places over time?
• What models are available that work with
varied quantities of data and allow
incorporation of margins of safety for highly
variable non-point source loadings (e.g.,
ephemeral or intermittent flow, effluent
dependent systems, flashy systems,
wet-weather flow)?
• Have available model input data been
adequately evaluated?
• What models are available to predict
ecosystem/watershed recovery time frames in
response to implementation of BMPs and
load reductions?
Assessment
• What data systems are available and
accessible for locating environmental data
that is needed?
• What guidelines, tools and case-studies can
be used to: (1) assess pollution problems
when numeric criteria are not feasible or
available (e.g., site-specific stressor-response
profiles for sediments, nutrients, stressor
"mixtures"); (2) predict pollution problems
that can result from multiple sources (e.g.,
land use activities, point versus nonpoint
discharges); (3) incorporate a temporal
dimension to facilitate TMDLs expressed on
daily, monthly, seasonal and annual basis and
combined point versus non-point inputs; and
(4) address impacts to wildlife?
• What methods are available to compare the
risk from human versus non-human sources of
fecal contamination in watersheds?
4-24
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
• What extrapolation techniques are available
for estimating water quality conditions in non-
monitored segments and watershed
subbasins? That is to say, what watershed
indices are available to facilitate extrapolating
loading rates of key stressors (e.g., sediments,
nutrients, toxics, pathogens) from well-
studied watersheds?
Risk Management
• How can we effectively prevent and reduce
nutrient and toxic pollutant discharges to
receiving waters with different
characteristics? What combination of best
management practices, source controls,
watershed restoration, and retrofitted
technologies provide the most cost-effective
strategy for improving water quality? What is
their expected performance under different
conditions?
• What are the characteristics of WWF and its
impact on receiving-water bodies, and what
tools are available to best measure them?
What innovative and less costly watershed
management practices and WWF
management networks need to be developed?
• What methods are available for measuring
and predicting (quantitatively with estimates
of uncertainty) ecosystem restoration
effectiveness and appropriateness by using
indicators of ecosystem structure and
function? What decision tools are available
for state and community planners to evaluate
probable outcomes of completing restoration
alternatives?
• What watershed restoration goals can be met
by focusing on stream corridors and riparian
zones?
• What are the most appropriate and
cost-effective technologies for in situ and ex
situ treatment of contaminated sediments?
Under what circumstances are adaptation
measures (e.g., in-place containment and low-
energy in situ treatment) for contaminated
sediments less costly and produce lower
ecological risks than alternative remediation?
4.12.2 Implementation
Implementation of this work will be guided by
Office of Water needs and the short- and long-term
strategies to improve the TMDL process. This
work is being implemented in close coordination
with the Office of Water's Office of Science and
Technology and the Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds, and with the ORD Regional
Scientists.
4.12.3 Anticipated Products
At the time of printing, the specific products were
still being discussed with the Program Office and
Regions.
4.13 Endocrine Disrupters
Research
Government Performance and
Results Act Subobjective:
Identify and evaluate strategies
to manage risks from exposures
to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals capable of inducing
adverse reproductive and other
effects in wildlife.
It has been suggested that humans and domestic
and wildlife species have suffered adverse health
consequences resulting from exposure to
environmental chemicals that interact with the
endocrine system. Collectively, these chemicals are
referred to as endocrine-disrupting chemicals
(EDCs). EDCs have been defined as exogenous
agents that interfere with the production, release,
transport, metabolism, binding, action, or
elimination of the natural hormones in the body
responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis and
the regulation of developmental processes.
Despite reported adverse reproductive and
immunological health effects, little is known about
their causes and the concentrations of EDCs that
would induce effects in various populations.
Nevertheless, it is known that the normal functions
of all organ systems are regulated by endocrine
factors, and small disturbances in endocrine
function, especially during certain stages of the life
cycle, such as development, pregnancy, and
lactation, can lead to profound and lasting adverse
health effects. Based on recognition of the
potential scope of the problem, the possibility of
serious effects on the health of populations, and the
persistence of some endocrine-disrupting agents in
the environment, research on endocrine disrupters
was identified as one of the high-priority topics
identified in the ORD strategic plan (EPA, 1997a).
Ecological Research Strategy
4-25
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
If future health effects and exposure studies
conclude that humans and the ecosystem are at
significant risk because of exposure to EDCs,
research will be needed on how best to lower or
eliminate the risk.
The broad objectives of the strategy to evaluate the
ecological risk of EDCs are twofold:
1. Determine EDC risk relative to risk from
other stressors on populations and
communities, both prospectively and
retrospectively
2. Develop or modify methods for testing and
evaluating chemicals and environmental
samples to ensure that those exerting
toxicity through specific endocrine axes
will be characterized.
Both objectives require a reduction in uncertainty
in prediction of risk across levels of biological
organization, including better linkage of
measurement and assessment endpoints. More
detailed information on the research priorities and
the Program are available in the ORD Research
Plan for Endocrine Disrupters (EPA, 1998b).
4.13.1 Research Questions
For the ecological research program, the key
scientific questions that are of highest priority
include:
• What effects are occurring in exposed wildlife
populations?
• What are the chemical classes of interest and
their potencies?
• Do current testing guidelines adequately
evaluate potential endocrine-mediated
effects?
• What extrapolation tools are needed?
• What are the effects of exposure to multiple
EDCs?
• How, and to what degree, are wildlife
populations exposed to EDCs?
• What are the major sources and
environmental fates of EDCs?
• How can unreasonable risks be managed?
4.13.2 Implementation
In defining the specific role of ORD in endocrine
disrupter research, it is important to note that there
are clearly important areas for which other federal
agencies have the research lead. This coordination
occurs through the Committee on the Environment
and Natural Resources (CENR). Topics most
appropriate to assign to the intramural program
include dose-response and mode-of-action studies
on the development of the reproductive tract,
central nervous system, and immune system in
laboratory species; establishing a framework for
multi-laboratory EDC studies to identify priority
chemicals and exposure pathways, characterizing
EDC exposures and action at selected near-
laboratory sites; determination of EDC fate and
transformation in sediments; and developing risk
management tools for risk reduction or prevention.
Therefore, ecological effects research will focus
on:
1. Better development of a comparative
endocrinology/toxicology database for
organisms like amphibians, nonteleost fish,
and passerine birds.
2. Better definition of baseline conditions for
general processes and specific endocrine
function.
Exposure research will emphasize the development
of methods and models to measure and predict
exposure to these substances. Three primary areas
will receive the most attention:
1. Better physico-chemical characterization of
a few known or highly suspect EDCs.
2. Developing pathway models (e.g.,
compartmental transport, fate, or
transformation) for chemicals that are likely
to be endocrine disrupters.
3. Reducing uncertainties in the flux of EDCs.
More information on the Program at the following
two web sites:
• The Endocrine Dismptor Research Initiative
websit eof the NSTC Committee on the
Environment and Natural Resources:
www.epa.gov/endocrine/edrifact.html
• EPA's Endocrine Dismptor Screening and
Testing Advisory Committee website:
www.epa.gov/opptintr/opptendo/index.htm
4-26
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
4.13.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, explore molecular and genetic
methods to detect compounds that interact
with the endocrine system. (NHEERL)
• By 1999, complete a risk management
assessment for EDCs. (NRMRL)
• By 2000, initiate an environmental scenarios
project to draw implications from selected
environmental trends. (NCEA)
• By 2000, develop a preliminary EDC fate and
transport model. (NERL)
• By 2001, develop and apply indicator
methods to detect exposures of wildlife to
compounds that interact with the endocrine
system. (NHEERL)
• By 2001, evaluate indicator methods for
endocrine disrupters at a local "source-based"
scale. (NHEERL and NERL)
• By 2003, construct QSAR models of steroid
receptor interaction and laboratory animal
models of endocrine-disruptor-induced
diseases. (NHEERL)
• By 2003, define modes of action for EDC
classes on critical target organs. (NHEERL)
• By 2003, apply ecological indicator methods
for endocrine disrupters at regional scales.
(NERL)
• By 2003, develop an EDC model that
includes exposure and effects linkages.
(NERL)
4.14 Pesticides and Toxics
Government Performance and
Results Act Subobjective:
Provide state-of-the-science
measurements, methods, and
models for development of
ecological effects, exposure, and
risk assessment tools, protocols,
and guidelines and strategies
and provide the scientific basis
for credible ecological
vulnerability assessments and
evaluations of the impacts of
environmental stressors
The study of the deliberate release of toxic
chemicals to control plant and animal pests always
has been one of EPA's most important research
programs. Thousands of pounds of pesticides are
sprayed each year on crops and other components
of the ecosystem to control the pests associated
with agricultural production. The sophistication of
the agricultural crop protection industry has
produced an agricultural production system that is
the envy of the world. The United States produces
more goods in less "space" than any other country
in the world, in part because of the extensive use of
pesticides. Recognizing the significant risks posed
by the deliberate release of "poisons," an elaborate
registration and evaluation process is required
before any pesticide can be used.
Research under this area focuses on individual
chemicals/toxics, classes of chemicals/toxics, and
other issues that may pose serious risks to both
human health or ecosystems, are expected to
require a shorter term, concentrated effort, and are
of special concern to EPA or the administration. In
1998 and beyond, research efforts will be
broadened to incorporate effects, exposure, and
assessment questions for determining the
reliabilities, uncertainties, and impacts of broad
classes of environmental agents; the evaluation of
methods and models for determining the impacts
resulting from cumulative exposures; and effects of
multiple chemicals within ecosystems and at
various scales of ecological organization.
4.14.1 Research Questions
4.14.1.1 Test Methods
ORD will work with the Program Office to develop
test methods that do a better job of screening for
chemicals that cause effects on the endocrine
system. As the role of endocrine-disrupting
chemicals becomes more apparent, the need to
develop more precise test methods is needed.
These test methods, to be developed within
NHEERL, will undergo field validation and
verification so they can be used in the risk
assessment process.
Additional research is needed to better understand
and interpret higher tier test data such as full field
tests for avian effects and mesocosm data used to
assess the risks to aquatic systems. Analysis of
these complex data sets will be important in
understanding the limitations of extrapolating from
simple single-species tests to complex ecosystem-
level responses.
Ecological Research Strategy
4-27
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
Research questions include the following:
• Are screening tests reliable and available to
identify and characterize the exposure and
effects of pesticides and other toxic chemicals
(inorganic and organic)?
• What is the reliability of current test methods
for assessing the acute and chronic toxicities
of sediment-bound pesticides and other toxic
chemicals?
• What refinements of existing fate, transport,
and exposure models are needed?
• How and where are probabilistic assessments
needed to predict distributions of exposure
rather than point estimates?
• What are the uncertainties of scaling
(watershed to regional) on current risk
assessments of the impact of pesticides and
toxic chemicals?
• Are current exposure-assessment models
adequate for assessing larger regional-scale
impacts?
• What are the uncertainties and variabilities of
indicator and biomarker measurements and
methods of exposure and effects?
• How are indicator and biomarker methods of
exposure and effects to be incorporated into
regional-scale assessments and other
multimedia exposure and effects assessment
models?
• What is the next level of multimedia
assessment models needed for determining
the impacts and risks posed by environmental
agents?
4.14.1.2 Indirect Effects
Methods are needed to characterize and assess the
indirect risks associated with pesticide use. For
example, the synthetic pyrethroids (potent
insecticides) are so powerfully toxic that they can
wipe out all of the aquatic insects in nearby streams
and lakes. Although they are not very toxic to fish,
pyrethroids eliminate the food source of the fish
and cause mortality by starvation (an indirect
effect). Also, an entire field of insects can be
eliminated with just one spraying, thus reducing or
eliminating insect food for migratory birds.
Herbicides have become so nontoxic to fish and
wildlife, they usually pose little or no direct effects.
However, they can drift into nearby riparian and
fence row habitats and significantly reduce the
ground cover of vegetation that is so important for
wildlife species. These types of indirect effects
now must be considered in pesticide regulatory
decisions, and ORD will work cooperatively with
the Program Office to develop the tools to
adequately monitor and assess these indirect
effects.
Research questions include:
• What indirect risks to ecosystems are
associated with use, exposure, and effects of
toxic chemicals?
• How can the indirect risks associated with
pesticide use be characterized and assessed?
• What new exposure and effects methods and
modeling needs can be identified for
assessing cumulative and aggregate exposures
and effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals
within ecosystems for incorporation into
regional-scale assessments?
4.14.1.3 Place-Based Methods
The emphasis on place-based assessment methods
is a clearly stated, new direction in this research
strategy. Although the Program usually does not
regulate toxic chemicals in this context, assessing
the risks of chemicals at a biogeographical setting
like a watershed will enable the Program to add a
"real world" component to their risk assessments.
The emergency exemption provisions in the
pesticide program are based in part on the place
where the pesticide is to be used, and pesticide
labels can be written to account for special places
where use is prohibited, such as endangered species
habitats.
Research questions include:
• Are new hazard tests needed for conducting
place-based risk assessment?
• How can data be extrapolated from one place
to another?
• How will the stakeholders be affected by a
place-based approach?
4.14.2 Implementation
ORD's role is to develop the tools to conduct
4-28
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
ecological risk assessments for toxic chemicals and
pesticides. This is primarily an intramural
program. The intramural program will expand to
incorporate new methods and modeling
frameworks for assessing the cumulative impacts of
multiple stressors (pesticides and toxic chemicals)
into site- to regional-scale assessments to support
regulatory and policy decisions associated with
potential impacts of pesticides and toxics to
ecosystems and evaluations of the vulnerabilities of
major geographic ecosystems resulting from the
cumulative and aggregate exposures to pesticide
and toxic chemicals. The extramural program will
concentrate on new monitoring methods and
quantitative tools for linking multimedia
assessments.
4.14.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, develop and evaluate methods
(indicators, biomarkers) for assessing
population exposure and vulnerability to
pesticides. (NERL)
• By 2000, develop improved capability to
assess the presence and risks of pesticides in
watershed ecosystems. (NERL)
• By 2000, publish methods at several levels of
biological organization with specificity and
sensitivity to diagnose the exposure of aquatic
biota to individual pesticides and classes of
pesticides. (NERL)
• By 2001, complete development of ecological
models for regional vulnerability assessments.
(NERL)
• By 2001, complete analysis of presence and
physiological impacts of pesticides in aquatic
biota. (NERL)
• By 2001, publish indicator and biomarker
methods for vulnerability of aquatic systems
to pesticide exposure. (NERL)
• By 2002, complete exposure assessment of
ecosystem vulnerability to pesticide
contaminants over regional scales. (NERL)
• By 2002, publish molecular methods to
analyze exposure to single and multiple
pesticide stressors. (NERL)
• By 2003, publish guidance for assessing
ecological risks of pesticides and develop a
landscape approach to assess ecosystem risk
from pesticides and toxic substances. (NERL)
• By 2004, provide indicator data to support
pesticide exposure modeling on a large scale.
(NERL)
• By 2005, complete regional application of
indicators for pesticides. (NERL)
4.15 Landcover Change Research
Conversion from natural to anthropogenic
(agriculture and urban) land cover may be the most
important factor threatening ecological attributes
valued by society (Ojima et al. 1994). Conversion
of forest to anthropogenic land cover not only
reduces forest species, but also increases soil loss,
sediment loads to streams, and flooding risks
(Hunsaker and Levine 1995). Loss of riparian
forest borders along fields also increase the amount
of nutrients, sediment, and pesticide inputs into
streams (Peterjohn and Correll 1984). Despite its
importance, we lack both information on the
magnitude and spatial distribution of land cover
change at watershed and regional scales, and
adequate methods and/or indicators to quantify the
consequences with known accuracy and precision,
including how the functional importance of
landscape features (e.g., riparian zones versus land
cover) relative to water quality may change in
different environmental settings, or when moving
from one spatial scale to another. We also lack
socioeconomic models to project the pattern and
magnitude of land cover conversions over the next
50 years. Such models will be important in
projecting how human behavior will influence
future risk to ecological resources.
4.15.1 Research Questions
What proportion of the variation in water
quality parameters, stream biological
integrity parameters, and terrestrial habitat
and productivity parameters is explained by
land cover conversion on watersheds?
How does the explanatory power (above)
vary by the total amount of anthropogenic
cover in a watershed? By the type of
biophysical setting?
What is the distribution and magnitude of
land cover conversions since pre-European
settlement? What have been the
consequences of these changes on water,
habitat, and terrestrial resources?
How are the distribution and magnitude of
Ecological Research Strategy
4-29
-------
High Priority Environmental Research Issues
land cover conversions likely to change
over the next 50 years? What will be the
consequences of different change scenarios
on water, habitat, and terrestrial resources?
Do certain locales (e.g., geographic areas,
stream junctions, ecosystem types (e.g.,
wetlands and riparian areas), or landscape
features (e.g., habitat connectivity and
complexity) play a particularly important
role in sustaining the condition of water,
habitat, and terrestrial resources, or in the
sensitivity of these resources to land cover
conversions or management actions?
What kinds of restoration and/or protection
activities reduce the impact of historical
land cover conversions the most, and in
what locales or ecosystem types?
What kinds of restoration and/or protection
activities reduce the impact of projected
land cover conversions the most, and in
what locales or ecosystem types?
4.15.2 Implementation
The primary focus of in-house research will be:
• Developing indicators and change detection
methods that relate to land cover conversion
across scales ranging from watersheds to
regions.
• Quantifying relationships between land cover
conversion and water quality, stream
biological integrity, habitat, and terrestrial
condition parameters.
• Quantifying land cover conversions since pre-
European settlement.
• Evaluating the consequences of historical, as
well as future land cover conversion on
aquatic and terrestrial resources.
The primary purpose of the extramural component
of the Program will be in developing socio-
economic models that help project the future
distribution and magnitude of land cover
conversions.
4.15.3 Anticipated Products (1999-2004)
• By 1999, provide a set of landscape
indicators and methods that document land
cover conversion at watershed and regional
scales. (NERL)
• An assessment of the ecological consequences
of land cover conversion on aquatic and
terrestrial resources in the Mid-Atlantic
Region. (NERL)
• An assessment of the ecological consequences
of alternative future landscapes in the
Willamette River Basin, Oregon. (NHEERL)
• Socioeconomic models to project future land
cover conversion magnitude and distribution.
(NERL and NHEERL)
• An assessment of the consequences of
projected land cover conversion on aquatic
and terrestrial resources in the Mid-Atlantic
Region of the U.S. over the next 50 years.
(NERL)
• A set of landscape management alternatives
to reduce detrimental land cover conversions.
(NERL)
4-30
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
SECTION 5
High Priority
Geographic
Studies
Conducting research in real places
with real problems for Regional
and other customers.
5.1 Introduction
Previous sections have provided an overview
of the core capabilities and the problem
focused research for the Ecological Research
Program. Another, but not independent, way of
looking at the Program is from the perspective of
where the work is being done. With the increased
emphasis in the Agency on community-based or
place-based decision making, it is important that
ORD conduct studies, at multiple scales, in places
where decisions are to be made. Long standing
"geographic initiatives" have been underway for
many years in the Agency. Among them are the
Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, South Florida,
the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico (see
Figure 5-1). These are not the only areas being
studied but are among those that have received
much of the attention. ORD has therefore focused
on these areas whenever possible to conduct
research.
The benefits of conducting research at these areas
include:
• Access to data collected by multiple parties.
• Support from State and Regional staff.
• Access to user needs surveys.
• Diverse problems and scales of interest for
conducting research.
• Common locations for ORD scientists
encourage coordination and cross
organizational research opportunities.
Therefore, the Program has adopted these for
coordinated studies. While Program Offices have
interest in the research being conducted in these
areas, it is the Regional Offices that serve as the
primary customers guiding these geographic
research efforts.
As with the problem-focused research, it is
unrealistic to separate all work in any single set of
categories when they are so interdependent
(Figure 5-2). Therefore, the information that
follows describes the research underway in each of
the geographic areas without regard to how it may
or may not overlap with other research. These areas
will likely change over time, but it is expected that
for the next three to five years, the commitment
will remain to conduct work in these locations and
on the scientific questions listed in the description
of research in each section to follow.
There are three additional "locational" studies
discussed that have been selected specifically by
ORD. First are the Near Laboratory Ecological
Research Areas. These sites are near ORD
facilities and offer opportunities to work with local
scientists, encourage EPA staff to move to the field
incurring minimal travel costs, and for cross-
organizational interactions. Secondly, the Index
Site Research has been implemented consistent
with recommendations of the National Research
Council in their review of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program for
multiagency, coordinated, long-term research
(Section 5.8). Finally, much of the work that needs
to be done should address a national perspective.
To this end, there has been some progress at the
national scale, in both modeling and monitoring,
that will be continued for the next 3 to 5 years,
minimally, to further advance the science of
environmental management at larger scales.
Ecological Research Strategy
5-1
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
Great Lakes
Research Area
Pacific
Northwe
Research Area
Gulf of Mexico
Research Area
Mid-Atlantic
Research Area
South Florida
Research Area
Figure 5-1.
High priority regional research areas.
Figure 5-2.
Interdependency of core capabilities, multiple customers and locations where research is conducted
(only examples of customers and locations shown in the cube above).
5-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
5.2 Mid-Atlantic Research
The Mid-Atlantic Region provides a fertile testing
ground for ORD to partner with an EPA Regional
Office in order to demonstrate and evaluate the
monitoring, modeling, assessments and restoration
research being conducted within EPA. This
geographic area encompasses all of EPA Region 3
and parts of Regions 2 and 4 (see Figure 5-1). The
region encompasses the Chesapeake Bay, the
largest estuary in the world, and the uplands area is
among the most diverse biological regions in the
conterminous U.S. The Mid-Atlantic is also among
those most affected by increasing population
pressures and urbanization.
EPA Region 3 and the States within it have been
some of the most progressive with respect to using
environmental data to drive the strategic planning
and decision making. Given ORD's research
interest in improved environmental monitoring and
ecological assessments, the partnership has been
symbiotic. ORD, through EMAP, has made a long-
term commitment to determine the condition of the
ecological resources in this area beginning as early
as 1989. The commitment, in addition to the work
of the states, has lead to the wealth of data on
ecological systems in this area. ORD will now
bring all of its ecological research to bear on the
issue of strategic planning in this area to determine
the most effective approaches for determining how
a Region could most effectively target its
restoration, mitigation and regulatory efforts.
Currently, the Mid-Atlantic is also the location of a
pilot study being conducted by federal and state
agencies (including ORD, Region 3 and the
Chesapeake Bay Program) under the auspices of
the CENR. Several years ago the CENR
established an interagency group to develop an
improved framework for environmental monitoring
and research. The developed framework endorsed
the original EMAP framework for monitoring
developed by ORD. The CENR pilot in the
Mid-Atlantic is an effort to have the federal and
state agencies come together in one region and test
the concepts and applicability of the framework to
real regional problems.
5.2.1 Research Direction
Given the historical work within the Mid-Atlantic
on environmental monitoring, assessment and
restoration, this region serves as a test bed for new
research and environmental management concepts.
If these concepts prove effective here in improving
our environmental protection efforts, the likelihood
is much greater that they will also work elsewhere.
Some of the proposed activities during the first
three years focus on integration of ongoing
programs at a subregional scale. The four
sub-regions are defined by the three large
watersheds of Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds, and the Highlands,
which is the major ecosystem containing the
headwaters of these watersheds. Monitoring and
related research activities within the four
sub-regions vary in their extent and degree of
coordination and focus. For example, the
Chesapeake Bay Program includes an extensive
monitoring program focused on the tidal Bay water
quality and living resources with links and
mechanisms to access other environmental
monitoring data relevant to the Bay Program's
restoration and protection goals. The Bay
Monitoring Program operates through a formal
committee management structure through which the
Regional Pilot must work directly with in order to
be effective. Integrated monitoring in other
sub-regions is less formalized and mature in
development. Regional Pilot efforts within the
sub-regions are designed to accommodate the
different degrees of development; in some
sub-regions, the Regional Pilot will initiate or lead
efforts for integrated monitoring, while in others
the Regional Pilot will play a supporting and
catalytic role for well-established strategic efforts
already underway.
Within the CENR pilot activities, each Agency is
providing the resources necessary to accomplish
their part of the effort. Because of the broad
environmental mandate of EPA, ORD and
Region 3 are involved in each of the activities of
the CENR pilot. We are conducting the inventory
of existing monitoring programs and making that
information available for public access through the
Internet. EPA is partnering with USGS in the
Highlands and Delaware Basins to demonstrate the
linkage between sample surveys of aquatic systems and
intensive monitoring of limited locations on aquatic
systems. EPA has spearheaded the interagency
effort to combine sampling efforts across estuaries
using a common design and core indicators. EPA
also initiated the interagency effort to develop the
landcover data distributed through the
Multi-Resolution Landscape Characterization
Project. Finally, EPA has sponsored the
production of a series of "state of the region"
reports. These are being produced for estuaries,
Ecological Research Strategy
5-3
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
landscapes, streams/rivers, forests, groundwater,
and agricultural systems. Research which is just
beginning in ORD focuses on improving
assessments, modeling futures, and developing
restoration strategies.
5.2.2 Research Questions
The scientific questions driving ORD's research in
the Mid-Atlantic are:
• How does one define and measure the
condition of ecological resources within a
region for streams/rivers, estuaries, forests,
agricultural systems, and landscapes?
• What monitoring design will allow for these
conditions to be estimated regionally and
subregionally with known confidence and
tracked for trends?
• How does one monitor the relative
importance of stressors impacting this region
and these ecological resources?
• How does one model the distribution of
stressors over a region?
• How does one model the relative exposure of
biological receptors to these stressors?
• How does one use management scenarios,
demographics and socioeconomic information
to model future changes in these
environmental exposures?
• Given the information above, how does one
conduct a regional ecological risk
assessment?
• What are the most cost-effective restoration,
mitigation and regulatory strategies for
addressing the most severe ecological threats
within the region?
5.2.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, Publish the State of the Estuaries
Report.
• By 1998, Publish the Mid-Atlantic Landscape
Atlas.
• By 1998, Publish the State of Highland
Streams Report.
• By 1999, Publish the Stressor Profiles for
Mid-Atlantic.
• By 1999, Publish the State of Forests Report.
• By 2000, Publish the Multiple Ecological
Resource Assessment.
• By 2000, Publish the Integrated Relative Risk
Assessment for Mid-Atlantic.
5.3 Pacific Northwest Research
President Clinton convened the Northwest Forest
Conference in 1993 to deal with the conflict in the
region between protection of endangered species
and timber production on federal lands. To resolve
the conflict, the President created several
interagency work groups charged with evaluating
management alternatives using an "ecosystem
approach to forest management."
Key elements of this approach include "working
collaboratively with state, tribal, and local
governments, community groups, private
landowners, and other interested parties to develop
a vision of desired future ecosystem conditions"
and "using the best science available" to define
management options that deal not just with the
immediate crisis but also long-term solutions to
"restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems and
their functions" (Questions and Answers on the
Interagency Ecosystem Management Initiative,
memorandum from W. Stelle, White House Office
on Environmental Policy, 4 May 1994). The
President's Forest Plan applied these principles to
federally owned forest land in the Pacific
Northwest.
The Regional Interagency Executive Committee
oversees the implementation of this plan and
coordinates research and monitoring activities
designed to evaluate its effectiveness and improve
the scientific underpinnings.
EPA's Pacific Northwest Geographic Initiative is
part of the follow-up to the President's Forest Plan.
Consistent with its broad authorities, EPA's
research role complements those of other federal
agencies by centering on non-forested lands and
state, tribal, and privately owned lands and waters
and by integrating ecological understanding across
multiple land uses and all boundaries of ownership.
The fundamental goal of EPA's research program
is to provide the ecological understanding and
technical tools that federal, state, tribal, and local
governments will need to implement an ecosystem
approach to environmental management in the
5-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
Pacific Northwest (Baker, et al, 1995). The
research design resulted from numerous meetings
with state and tribal governments and local
stakeholders to identify the major problems and
areas of concern and types of scientific information
most critically needed. The research evaluates the
overall ecological effects of human activities and
human use of land, water, and other natural
resources at watershed to regional scales. The
primary objective is to develop and demonstrate
place-based ecological assessment approaches that
provide the scientific basis needed to (1) evaluate
and compare the ecological consequences of
societal decisions and alternative management
strategies regarding land, water, and resource use
(alternative futures analysis) and (2) target
geographic areas, ecosystem types, and landscape
features that are particularly important for
sustaining ecosystem condition, and thus most
important to protect or restore (geographic
prioritization).
5.3.1 Research Direction
EPA's Pacific Northwest Geographic Initiative was
designed to include two case studies at the
watershed/ecoregion scale and two at the
state/regional scale. The watershed/ecoregion case
study areas were selected by the States of Oregon
and Washington as areas where the planned
research would be of particular benefit to state and
local decision makers: the Willamette River Basin
in Oregon and Washington Coastal Ecoregion. In
the Willamette Valley, major concerns are the
effects of urbanization and agricultural on aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems. Lands in the
Washington Coastal Ecoregion are largely privately
owned forests. Major concerns are the impacts of
forestry and other watershed activities on salmon
habitat in streams and the productivity of coastal
estuaries. In both areas, particular attention is
being given to the ecological importance of riparian
areas. These areas exert a strong influence on the
quality of stream environments and provide
important habitat for a large number of terrestrial
animals.
An integrated alternative futures analysis will be
completed only for the Willamette River Basin in
Oregon. The Willamette Valley Livability Forum
(WVLF) was established by the Governor's Office
to "work with communities to build a vision to
shape the Valley's growth for the next fifty years;
and enable Valley leaders and citizens to work
together to implement this vision." Working with
the Forum, a series of alternative future landscapes
will be defined for the basin for the year 2050,
reflecting a realistic range of policy and
management options. Models are being developed
that will evaluate and compare the likely effects of
these alternative futures on terrestrial vertebrate
biodiversity, fish and benthic communities in
streams, riparian areas and channel structure in the
Willamette River, and selected economic
endpoints. Future projections will be compared to
present-day conditions as well as available
information on historic and recent trajectories of
change. EPA research complements ongoing
research and analyses by the U.S. Forest Service in
the forested upland areas of the Willamette Basin.
The alternative futures analysis will be closely
coordinated with analyses by the Corps of
Engineers and Oregon Department of Water
Resources to re-evaluate dam operations in the
basin. The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and U.S. Geological Survey are also
conducting major studies of water quality in the
basin, in particular the distribution and sources of
toxic contaminants and nonpoint source loadings of
nutrients.
At the state/regional scale, EPA research focuses
on identifying high priority areas for sustaining the
overall diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species in
the region. Analyses for terrestrial vertebrates in
the State of Oregon are largely complete. Work is
continuing on similar analyses for the state of
Washington and focused analyses on aquatic and
aquatic-dependent species for the two-state region.
5.3.2 Research Questions
EPA research under the PNW Geographic Initiative
will answer the following major scientific questions
over the next three to five years:
• How can we effectively characterize
ecosystem condition and trajectories of
landscape change over relatively large
geographic areas (large
watersheds/ecoregions) and long time periods
(50-100 years)?
• What are the major anthropogenic and non-
anthropogenic processes affecting ecosystems
in western Oregon and Washington and the
consequences of their interaction?
• What are the likely ecological consequences
of a range of options for managing future
land, water, and resource use?
Ecological Research Strategy
5-5
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
• Do certain locales, ecosystem types, or
landscape features play particularly important
roles in sustaining ecosystem condition or in
the sensitivity of ecosystems to human-
induced landscape change or management
actions?
• What characteristics of riparian areas are
most important to improve water quality and
sustain aquatic and terrestrial biota?
5.3.3 Anticipated Products
Two major, integrative products are planned:
• By 2001, complete an analysis of the
Ecological Consequences of Alternative
Futures in the Willamette Basin, Oregon.
• In 2002, complete a report on Regional
Priorities for Protection of Biodiversity in
Oregon and Washington. Findings from
individual projects and model applications
will be published in preceding years.
5.4 South Florida Research
South Florida is simultaneously a unique national
resource and one of the most intensively managed
ecosystems in the U.S. Over the past one hundred
years, about 50% of the historic Everglades has
been drained, canals have been dug, and a complex
water-management has been constructed. These
human alterations in the hydrologic system have
created water quality and quantity problems for
South Florida's natural systems, including the
Everglades and the estuaries. Nutrient enrichment,
habitat fragmentation, contamination, introduction
of invasive non-native plants and animals, altered
fire regimes, and declines in estuarine and reef
resources have taken their toll. Populations of
wading birds have decreased by almost 95%.
Mercury contamination has resulted in a ban on the
consumption offish and has been implicated in the
death of a Florida panther, an endangered species.
Florida Bay is experiencing massive seagrass
dieoffs, noxious algal blooms and coral reef
deterioration.
The need to preserve and restore South Florida led
to a Memorandum of Understanding among six
federal agencies. The Interagency Task Force for
the Restoration of South Florida (ITFRSF) was
expanded to include state, local and tribal entities
and codified into law by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996. In 1994, the Everglades
Forever Act outlined a restoration plan for South
Florida.
5.4.1 Research Direction
The Science Subgroup of the ITFRSF (1995)
outlined a regional research approach to support
the restoration goals, that is, to maintain viable
populations of all native species in situ, to represent
within protected areas all native ecosystem types,
to maintain evolutionary and ecological processes
(e.g., disturbance regimes, hydrologic processes,
nutrient cycling), to manage over long enough
periods of time to maintain the evolutionary
potential of species and ecosystems, and to
accommodate human use and occupancy within
those constraints.
Numerous state and federal agencies and their
academic partners have developed coordinated
research programs, many of which are well
documented on internet websites:
EPA
www.epa.gov/gumpo/florida bay
uses
sflwww.er.usgs.gov/sfep
South Florida Water Management District
www. sfwmd. gov
National Park Service
www.nps.gov/ever/eco/
NOAA
www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/flbay aoml.html
Fish and Wildlife Service
www. fws. gov/~r9ecosys/r4 wshp .html
US Army Corps Engineers
http://flabay.saj.usace.army.mil
www.restudy.org
In addition to its roles on the Interagency Task
Force and the Science Subgroup, ORD supports a
number of coordinated research initiatives to
address identified research needs in a few focused
areas. Specifically, EPA supports modeling,
process studies, and monitoring of atmospheric
deposition of mercury, internal transport and
transformation of mercury and endocrine disrupter
compounds leading to ecological exposures, and
nutrient dynamics in wetlands, estuarine and
coastal ecosystems. These research programs are
designed to address the questions listed below.
5.4.2 Research Questions
• What levels of nutrient inputs into the
ecosystem are consistent with natural
vegetation and food chains?
• What combinations of hydrologic design and
management practices will achieve desired
nutrient levels?
5-6
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
• What is the extent of mercury and pesticide
contamination in the terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems of South Florida?
• Which populations are at risk?
• What are the relative contributions of local
versus global sources of atmospheric mercury
to the Everglades?
• What is the relative importance of external or
internal sources of mercury versus
transformation reactions that make mercury
bioavailable?
• Can mercury exposures be modified by
management of sulfur or phosphorus?
• What are the implications of hydrologic
restoration for mercury exposures?
• What is the condition of ecosystem resources
in South Florida?
• What are the impacts of habitat loss and
contaminants, including endocrine disrupters,
on the reproductive success offish,
amphibians, reptiles and wading birds?
• What is the extent of coral decline?
• What are the potential mechanisms for
observed declines?
5.4.3 Anticipated Products
In addition to research in support of legislatively
mandated restoration efforts, such as the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Restudy Plan and water quality standards based on
ecosystem endpoints, ORD expects to produce the
following research outputs:
• By 1998, publish a screening model for
distribution of mercury and methylmercury in
marshes. Simulation analysis of mercury and
pesticide bioaccumulation in Everglades fish.
Condition of Estuarine Resources in West
Indian Province including Florida Bay. Flux
of Selected Contaminants and Nutrients from
Taylor River Everglades Ecosystem
Assessment.
• Byl999, confirm methylmercury distributions
as a response to spatial environmental
conditions. Frequency and Trends in Disease
Patterns in Coral Ecosystems in South
Florida.
• By 2000, complete modeling of atmospheric
deposition of mercury at local scales.
Wading bird exposure study under current
conditions and restoration scenarios.
5.5 Great Lakes Research
The St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes are
the largest system of fresh, surface water on earth,
containing roughly 18 % of the world supply.
These Lakes and associated drainage basins have
been subjected to a wide array of human-induced
stressors for several centuries. While unmistakable
and documented improvements have occurred
during the past two decades, environmental
alterations, ecological problems, and impaired
beneficial uses remain. The governments of the
U.S. and Canada, who provide joint oversight of
the Lakes, cite four general issues which
encompass abroad array of problems and outline
the major stresses on these systems:
1. The loss of biodiversity and integrity.
2. Degradation and loss of habitat including
tributary, near shore and coastal wetland
areas.
3. Impacts of persistent toxic contaminants.
4. Eutrophication in certain areas of the
Lakes.
Regulatory authority for the environmental
management of the Great Lakes are found in
various sections of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, and the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the
U.S. and Canada. In recognition of the
international nature of the Great Lakes, the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established the
International Joint Commission to assist in helping
to prevent and resolve disputes concerning water
quantity and quality. ORD's research effort in the
Great Lakes, conducted in partnership with
numerous governmental and academic institutions,
is focused on addressing scientific questions related
to methods and models for predicting the causes
and/or effects of the stresses outlined above for use
in improved environmental management.
5.5.1 Research Direction
Due to their size and international importance, a
wide variety of organizations from both the U. S.
and Canada have significant ecosystem research
activities in the Great Lakes. This research ranges
from studies on physical processes such as water
Ecological Research Strategy
5-7
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
and ice movement, to predicting whole lake
ecosystem responses. As part of an effort to
coordinate these efforts and to increase
collaborations and efficient use of research
resources, the Council of Great Lakes Research
Managers of the International Joint Commission,
representing the major research organizations from
both countries, maintains an exhaustive inventory
of Great Lakes research on the Internet
(www.ijc.org/cglrm/ri97home.html). This
inventory provides information on current research
from government agencies and academic
institutions across the spectrum of biological,
chemical and physical research. There are about
300 research projects listed for 1997. The
inventory also provides a link to the Great Lakes
Commission's Inventory of Aquatic Nuisance
Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes.
5.5.2 Research Questions
The principal scientific questions being addressed
by ORD's ecological research on the Great Lakes
are organized around understanding the effects of
toxic chemicals on aquatic life and wildlife,
improving our understanding of the significance of
coastal wetlands and the near shore environment to
maintaining the integrity of the Lakes, and
understanding and predicting the role of watershed
characteristics and land use practices on tributary
water quality and fish communities.
• What are the effects of toxic chemicals and
nutrients on Great Lakes ecosystems?
• What are the ecological functions of Great
Lakes coastal wetlands? What are the factors
that influence and/or these functions?
• How do land use practices in Great Lakes
watersheds influence the sustainability of
freshwater ecosystems in the basin?
• What are ecologically significant indicators of
the condition of the Great Lakes?
Research directed toward predicting the effects of
toxic chemicals on Great Lakes ecosystems is being
addressed primarily through a multi-agency effort
to develop mass balance models for specific lake
systems and chemicals. Current efforts are focused
on Lake Michigan and PCBs, mercury, trans-
nonachlor, and atrazine. Much of the scientific
activity is engaged in collecting and analyzing
samples needed to develop and validate the models.
At the same time, research is being conducted to
improve our understanding of key environmental
processes that govern the cycling, movement and
effects of these chemicals. A eutrophication model
previously developed for the Great Lakes is being
enhanced to predict changes in phytoplankton
community structure in response to changes in
nutrient levels. Similarly, research is being
conducted to develop tools for estimating
bioaccumulation factors for a large array of organic
chemicals from both water and sediments.
In addition to stresses from toxic chemicals, the
impact of habitat alterations and land use practices
are important questions associated with protection
of the Great Lakes ecosystems. ORD is studying
coastal wetland and nearshore systems to determine
their role in maintaining the integrity and
sustainability offish communities in the Lakes and
the factors which constrain the community
composition and processes of these ecosystems.
The results of this research should provide a
foundation for the development of scientifically
sound indicators of ecological condition. The
impact of forestry practices and the extent and
location of wetlands within the surrounding
watersheds on the water quality and fish
community structure of tributaries are being
investigated in an array of watersheds in the Lake
Superior basin.
5.5.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, develop a screening level mass
balance model for atrazine in Lake Michigan.
• By 1999, develop a screening level mass
balance model for mercury in Lake Michigan.
• By 1999, publish a report on bioaccumulation
factors from water and sediments for selected
chemicals.
• By 2000, publish a report on influences of
landscape characteristics and in-stream
habitat on fish communities.
• By 2000, publish a report on the factors
influencing ecological processes in coastal
wetlands.
• By 2000, publish a report on relationships
between near shore benthic processes and
forage fish populations.
• By 2002, develop a mass balance framework
for PCBs in Lake Michigan.
5-8
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
5.6 Gulf of Mexico Research
The Gulf of Mexico and its coastal watersheds are
collectively a complex ecosystem that is being
adversely impacted from human activities in both
the Gulf and its watersheds. Its coastal wetlands
serve as essential habitat for migrating waterfowl
and its estuaries serve as a nursery for commercial
and recreational fisheries. Millions of people
depend upon the Gulf of Mexico to earn a living;
millions more flock to its shores and waters for
recreation and the region is showing the
symptoms of a stressed ecosystem including:
• Fish kills and toxic algal blooms are an
increasing problem.
• Hypoxia is a growing problem.
• Over half of the shellfish-producing areas are
permanently or conditionally closed.
• Valuable coastal wetlands are being lost at
alarming rates.
• Fisheries are being threatened by both
pollution and over-exploitation.
Public concern about these problems prompted
creation of the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP).
GMP, as a multi-agency effort, is working with
federal agencies, the Gulf states, citizens, and
private sector to protect, conserve and preserve the
ecosystem. The environmental issues have been
characterized and GMP is now focusing its
limited resources to address specific problems that
have emerged.
5.6.1 Research Direction
The current research will focus on nutrient
enrichment, public health, critical habitat, and
introduction of non-indigenous species. The
research for the first issue will focus on
understanding the impacts of nutrient enrichment
on the coastal ecosystem, specifically its
relationship to problems such as coastal algal
blooms and a very large zone of hypoxia (dissolved
oxygen concentrations of less than two parts per
million) along the Louisiana coast. The public
health research focus will be on monitoring
approaches to identify shellfish habitat and for
characterization of the impact of human pathogens
in coastal waters, especially recreational waters.
The critical habitat research focus will be on
identification of critical habitat and understanding
human impacts on that habitat. Finally, the non-
indigenous species research will concentrate on
understanding the impact of introduction of non-
indigenous species on important fisheries and
critical habitat (e.g., shrimp virus from agriculture,
biologicals from ship ballast, zebra mussel).
The ORD research activities will focus on:
• Characterization of ecological conditions in
Gulf estuaries and coastal waters.
• Assessment of the threats of failed septic
systems, overloaded sewage treatment
facilities, and storm waters to public health as
it relates to swimmable beaches and the
viable production of the shellfish industry.
• Characterization of critical habitat in the Gulf
ecosystem.
• Assessment of the causes and effects of
hypoxia in coastal ecosystems and its
relationship to nutrient enrichment in waters
received from Gulf watersheds.
• Evaluation of landscape assessment and
modeling approaches for understanding
nutrient enrichment in Gulf watersheds.
• Characterization of the impact of non-
indigenous species on the coastal ecosystem.
• Development of remote sensing approaches
for monitoring algal blooms and condition of
the coastal ecosystems.
• Determination of the natural and
anthropogenic factors that lead to
development of HABs in order to both
control and forecast occurrence.
• Determination of the health and ecological
effects of HABs and their toxins.
• Development of indicators of the condition of
the coastal ecosystem.
• Development of an approach for an integrated
coastal monitoring program.
5.6.2 Research Questions
• What are best measures or indicators of
estuarine conditions?
• What are the causes and ecological or
economic effects of the hypoxia zone along
Ecological Research Strategy
5-9
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
the Louisiana coast? How is this hypoxia
zone related to nutrient enrichment from the
watershed and what and where are the sources
of nutrients that cause the hypoxia?
• What do we model (and how) in the
ecosystem to predict changes in nutrient
loadings as a result of management actions to
control nutrient enrichment?
• What is the best monitoring approach for
tracking red tides and minimizing impacts on
fisheries and public health?
• What can the overall incidence of aquatic
mortality and the spatial/temporal scale of
harmful algal blooms tell us about the
condition of the Gulf ecosystem?
• What are the critical uses of habitat in the
ecosystem and where are the critical habitats
located? How much of each habitat is
required to sustain a healthy aquatic system?
• How do we monitor and assess the impact of
non-indigenous species on the ecosystem?
What are the problems associated with exotic
species in the Gulf ecosystem? What are the
risks associated with these problems? What
actions should be taken to reduce the risks?
• How do we integrate state and local
monitoring data to assess the overall
condition of the Gulf ecosystem?
5.6.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1998, publish the Region 6 Regional
Applied Research Effort (RARE) Project
report on evaluation of a landscape
assessment approach to help characterize and
model the impact of land use/cover on water
quality of a low-relief watershed, part of a
collaborative project in the Tensas River
Basin of Louisiana.
• By 1999, as a participant in a coordinated
effort through the Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources, provide an integrated
scientific assessment of the state of
knowledge of the extent, characteristics,
causes, and effects (both ecological and
economic), of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of
Mexico.
• By 1999, publish a report on a collaborative
project among Texas A & M University,
Naval Research Laboratory, USGS, and the
GMP on the use of stable isotopes for
identification of the sources of nitrogenous
nutrients and of oxygen demand in the
Mississippi River System and in the hypoxic
region of the Mississippi River plume in the
Gulf of Mexico.
By 1999, publish a report describing the
effects of ten typical Gulf of Mexico
wastewaters on sediment quality in the
receiving water.
By 1999, publish a report on microbiological
and chemical methods to enumerate bacteria
associated with roots and seagrasses endemic
to the Gulf of Mexico.
By 2000, complete the BMP ACT Project
report on a remote sensing approach for
characterization of the spatial and temporal
occurrence of algal blooms in estuaries within
the New Orleans metropolitan area.
By 2000, publish a report on first pilot in the
development of an integrated coastal
monitoring program for the Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem.
By 2000, publish a report on fish and
contaminant indicators of condition of
estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.
By 2000, publish a report on the state of the
Gulf of Mexico Estuaries.
By 2000, publish a report on spatial and
temporal variation in periphyton biometrics
for three urbanized estuaries in the Gulf of
Mexico.
By 2000, publish a report on effects of
changing sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico and
southeastern United States on condition and
distribution of benthic communities.
By 2000, complete the merged GIS aquatic
mortality database for five Gulf of Mexico
states for interpretation and public access.
By 2000, (BMPACT Project) complete the
report of data and an assessment of the
conditions of the immediately accessible
waters along the public bathing beaches of the
state of Mississippi and within the Bay of St.
Louis.
By 2001, publish a report on identification of
5-10
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
sensitive benthic species to determine
sediment toxicity in the Gulf of Mexico.
• By 2001, publish a report on comparative
phytotoxicity of contaminated sediments
collected from urbanized bayous of the Gulf
of Mexico.
5.7 Near Laboratory Ecological
Research Areas Research
The ORD has selected case study sites (Figure 5-3;
see also Section 3.4.2.1) and field laboratories as
another way for Divisions and Centers to work
together at field sites close to their physical
location. Under this new "Near Laboratory
Ecological Research Area" (NLERA) Program,
ecological scientists from four ORD facilities
(Research Triangle Park, Cincinnati, Las Vegas,
and Athens) have each selected a nearby watershed
(shown in Figure 5-3) to serve as a focal point for
their respective ecological field research.
NLERAs will provide a field research area that is
well characterized (e.g., in terms of geology,
physiography, hydrology, and ecology) and, at the
same time, is near enough to facilitate cost-
effective logistics for field-based efforts in
ecosystem research. Under this concept, each
NLERA becomes a platform from which the
respective facility can stage field-based ecological
research projects for their specific research
missions (e.g., method/indicator development,
model development/verification, development of,
and ground-truthing activities for, various remotely
sensed data sets), or other activities that are part of
the core research programs. In the course of
conducting their own field research, the Divisions
will participate in ongoing efforts to find solutions
to the recognized problems in these watersheds by
collaborating with other watershed researchers
from all governmental, academic, and corporate
organizations. Collaborative arrangements will help
leverage resources and to provide more
comprehensive approaches to dealing with
watershed problems on a basin-wide scale.
Having enhanced data sets and information on the
NLERA (e.g., the types, spatial distribution, and
intensity of the key stressor elements and receptors)
a priori, will facilitate planning efforts for field
research efforts for ecologists as the considerable
amount of time routinely utilized in the collection
of site description and background information can
be focused directly on the planning of
experimentation. Having a pre-described field site
will likely encourage intra-
Division/Laboratory/Center cooperation by
providing investigators from disparate disciplines
with a geographic focus, exposing the advantages
of collaborative efforts. In addition, at least four
NLERA, representing distinct ecosystems, will be
developed. Thus the approach offers an opportunity
for ORD scientists to more easily examine the
applicability (or robustness) of methods or models
developed in one ecosystem to another dissimilar
system.
The four NLERA sites are:
1. Shoal Creek (Savannah River) Watershed
in South Carolina and Georgia; Ecosystems
Research Division, Athens, Georgia.
2. Lower Colorado River Watershed in
Nevada, California, Arizona, Utah, and
New Mexico; Characterization Division,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
3. Little Miami River Watershed in Ohio;
Ecological Exposure Research Division,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
4. Neuse River Watershed in North Carolina,
Air Measurements Research Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
5.7.1 Research Direction
The specific NLERA research projects proposed by
the various Divisions (and the constellation of other
federal and local collaborating agencies) and the
important ecological problems vary across the four
watersheds. However, in each case the research is
in collaboration with the existing combination of
local, state, and federal agencies. The research will
compile existing data in order to characterize, over
space and time and on a basin-wide scale, the
existing resources and identify the most important
environmental stressor elements. The spatial and
temporal overlapping of stressors and resources are
assumed to represent points of ecosystem
vulnerability to impacts, either on water quality, on
biological integrity, or on both. As an example of
this process, USGS is conducting, through its
National Water Quality Assessment Program, a
detailed analysis of the physiography, hydrology,
and water quality, as well as those human and
natural processes effecting them, in the Little
Miami River (Ohio) watershed. Similarly, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency will conduct
detailed surveys of the biological resources and
stream habitat in the watershed as part of its on-
going water quality monitoring program. Finally,
Ecological Research Strategy
5-11
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
the various municipal water treatment facilities
(POTWs) in the Little Miami area have funded a
study at the University of Cincinnati to characterize
the nutrient budgets as a function of source, season,
climate, and, location over the watershed. Under
NLERA, ORD will work with these organizations
in planning complementary research:
1. Developing methods for assessing the quality
and quantity of riparian vegetation at a
watershed scale.
2. Elucidating critical features of that vegetation
which most effectively ameliorate non-point
source stressor impacts (e.g., nutrients) and its
role in the carbon cycling.
3. Determining approaches to evaluate the
effectiveness of efforts at restoration of
stream and riparian areas.
By providing linkages between riparian resources
and biological integrity/water quality, the role of
the riparian zone can be documented, and its
rational use in watershed restoration can be
suggested.
5.7.2 Research Questions
The scientific questions being asked differ at each
of the four NLERA watersheds. However, a set of
generic scientific questions being applied at each
site include:
• Can gaps, disparities, and uncertainties in
existing ecological data bases be identified?
• Where data are found to be inadequate, can
new, improved indicators of watershed
condition be developed to address the
deficiencies?
• Can innovative approaches to the utilization
of these data sets be employed to identify and
display the vulnerabilities of indigenous
ecosystems?
• Can these new data and displays be utilized in
next-generation, multimedia models which
permit the extensions of trends over time and
space?
• Can these models be utilized to rank the
various development and/or remedial options
to assure that the watershed attains the
stakeholders goals?
LEGEND
Near Laboratory Ecological
Research Areas (4)
• Index Sites (14)
O Watershed Case Studies (5)
Big Darby Creek I V
/ j J3
(^ / /-^y\ y*Acadia
f ^f7^ / ML0
SavannanSy \
ateChedr( CtocftVa/tey
OA5^
•\ Waquoit Bay
J>
\^
Everglades
V Hawaii Volcanoes
Virgin
(~—i Islands
Figure 5-3.
Near Laboratory Ecological Research Areas and Index Sites
5-12
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
5.7.3 Anticipated Products
Due to the nature of the site (i.e., as field
laboratories) the products are generally listed
elsewhere.
5.8 Index Sites Research
The development and demonstration of the utility
of a network of intensively monitored index sites is
one of the four major components of EPA's next
phase of EMAP. A review by the National
Research Council suggested that the EMAP
approach could benefit from the strategic
placement of long-term monitoring sites that were
intensively monitored to establish linkages between
observed changes in environmental stressors and
concomitant changes in ecological resources. This
approach was incorporated into EMAP-Phase II
planning in 1994 and resulted in the establishment
of an Interagency agreement with the National Park
Service/Air Resources Division (NPS/ARD) to
establish DISPro (Demonstration Intensive Site
Project) in 1996.
DISPro has three objectives:
1. To develop a sound scientific basis for
understanding ecological responses to
anthropogenic stresses including the
interaction of exposure,
environment/climate, and
biological/ecological factors in the
response, and the spatial and temporal
nature of these interactions.
2. To demonstrate the usefulness of a set of
intensively monitored sites for examining
short-term variability in long-term trend
behavior in the relationships between
changes in environmental stressors,
including anthropogenic and natural
stresses, and ecological response.
3. To provide intensively monitored sites for
development and evaluation of indicators
of change in terrestrial systems.
5.8.1 Research Direction
DISPro has been developed as a network of
long-term trend monitoring sites where research
would be supported to examine the interactions of
environmental stressors, climate factors, and
environmental effects in a well characterized field
setting. The research will focus on ecological
effects of air or water pollution known or
determined for the sites (i.e., specific relationships
between stressors and effects), as well as the
broader regional- and national-scale ecological
effects research issues (e.g., air deposition patterns
and their effects of terrestrial/aquatic ecosystems),
and indicators of change/condition in natural
resources. Indicators are measures that effectively
integrate the environmental condition and response.
The index sites were not selected as representative
of national trends in ecological behavior, but rather
the sites could be used as a network of "outdoor
laboratories" to examine realistically relationships
between changes in environmental stressors and
ecological response. Many of the DISPro parks
offered gradients of environmental stressors (e.g.,
water and nutrient), and a few parks had
demonstrated gradients of anthropogenic stressors
(e.g., troporpheric ozone). In addition, the DISPro
parks offered varied landscape factors that could be
utilized in studying the spatial/temporal issues of
environmental stresses.
The 14 National Parks included in the DISPro
Intensive Site Network were selected because they
are readily accessible, have a history of monitoring
environmental stresses, represent a broad,
sometimes unique, spectrum of ecological
communities and landscapes across the U.S. The
sites are listed here and their locations are shown in
Figure 5-3.
1 . Big Bend National Park, TX— arid and
multiple elevations.
2. Everglades National Park, FL — tropical
wetlands and lagoon coral reefs.
3 . Virgin Islands National Park, VI — coral
reefs, tropical estuaries, and tropical
forests.
4. Sequoia National Park, CA
multiple-elevation forests and unique
species.
5. Rocky Mountain National Park, CO —
high-elevation forests and lakes.
6. Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
NC — multiple-elevation forests, lakes, and
streams.
7. Shenandoah National Park, VA — multiple
elevation forests, lakes, and streams.
8. Acadia National Park, ME — rocky fjord
9.
estuaries and northeastern coastlines.
Denali National Park, AK — arctic
Ecological Research Strategy
5-13
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
ecosystems, high-elevation forests, glaciers,
and tundra.
10. Olympic National Park, WA—Pacific
Northwest, humid ecosystems, multiple-
elevation forests and streams.
11. Glacier National Park, MT—high-elevation
forests, lakes, and streams and glaciers.
12. Canyonlands National Park, UT—multiple
elevations and arid ecosystems.
13. Theodore Roosevelt National Park, ND—
grasslands.
14. Volcanoes National Park, HI—volcanoes.
Atmospheric monitoring at these sites includes
tropospheric ozone, SO2, NOX, VOC, wet and dry
deposition, visibility and (at some sites) UV-B
(multiple bands), and meteorological data. EMAP,
through DISPro, is examining whether a "network"
of sites existing within the parks can be used to
address monitoring issues for global-scale
environmental stressors (e.g., air deposition) as
well as locale-specific stressors (e.g., air
deposition, water quality, toxics and pesticides) and
coordinated with cause-effect, issue-based research
related to these environmental stressors.
5.8.2 Research Questions
The research conducted in the parks will be
accomplished by extramural scientists as well as
NFS and EPA scientists and will be selected
through a scientific peer review and agency
relevancy review process. The selected research
complements ongoing research programs in ORD
laboratories and is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the ecologically based monitoring
programs in NPS's Air Resources Division. ORD's
in-house program is focused on:
Determination of ecological effects of
anthropogenic pollutants such as
tropospheric ozone and the effects of the
elements of global climate change.
Development of indicators of ecosystem
integrity and sustainability.
Development of an interrelated set of
intensive monitoring/research sites to
examine dose-response and stressor effects
on ecosystem/community/population/
organism function.
Improvement of our ability to characterize
environmental stressors and exposure.
Establishment of extrapolative linkages
between information at various spatial and
temporal scales.
The NPS's research and monitoring strategy seeks
to characterize the frequency, duration, and extent
of air stressors within park boundaries and
understand through interactive, interagency
activities the relationships between changing air
quality and ecological resources.
Extramural proposals were solicited through an
RFA to do fundamental research on important
scientific principles related to ecological response
and/or exposure, and encouraged a diversity of
research approaches in the following research
areas:
UV-B effects on aquatic and terrestrial
systems. Ecological resources of most
concern are coral ecosystems, near-coastal
plankton communities and amphibian/
reptile populations.
Nitrogen effects on upland aquatic and
terrestrial systems. Examination of the
effects of air deposition of nitrogen on the
biogeochemical cycles in forest, lakes,
streams, and coastal waters.
Tropospheric Ozone effects on terrestrial
systems. This research would focus on the
interaction of ozone and the natural and
anthropogenic gradients within a park in
affecting ecological resources. Examples
of these gradients might be age-structure in
forests, elevation gradients or precipitation
gradients. Studies may be designed to
address questions at population, community
or landscape level.
Problems of temporal and spatial variability
in environmental measurements. This
research would focus on assessing and
quantifying gradients of environmental
exposure in complex terrain within the
selected parks. Characterization of the
gradients and modeling the "exposure
surfaces" for a park based on multiple sites
will increase the ability to extrapolate
stressor effects across a landscape or
region. Important anthropogenic stressors
include ozone concentrations, UV-B,
deposition of contaminants and nutrients,
and paniculate air concentrations.
5-14
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
Important natural stressors include water
availability, elevation, microclimates, frost
zones and landscape aspect.
In addition to the solicited research, other ORD
projects are planned for DISPro parks. These
projects have been or will be peer reviewed before
implementation:
Development of a chemical monitoring
protocol for toxic chemicals. Initial pilot
studies will focus on all DISPro parks
sampling top predator fish in selected
streams within a park.
Verification of General Ecosystem Model
(GEM) parameterized for Oregon Cascade
Forests in several western DISPro parks.
This model provides a means to predict
sensitivity or vulnerability of ecosystems to
carbon dynamics, water, and nitrogen.
Additional modules currently under
development will add tropospheric ozone.
This model is also being developed as a
potential indicator for forests status.
Spatial characterization of DISPro parks
and integration of research results
regarding spatial/temporal distribution of
atmospheric stresses, landscape factors,
distribution of experimental plots, and
ecological response to stresses.
Evaluation of amphibian survey
techniques and statistical robustness of
designs. This study will contribute
directly to evaluation of possible
amphibian monitoring as a measure of
status and change in these parks, and to
what extent this information can be
extended beyond the parks. This is a
project conducted by USGS through an
Interagency Agreement (TAG) with the
NPS. This project will be peer reviewed
and reconciled before funding and
implementation.
5.9 National Studies
Many of the policy questions that face EPA arise at
the national level. They are questions that require
decisions about prioritization of personnel and
financial resources either geographically (e.g., what
ecological resources or regions are at greatest risk)
or by topic (e.g., are contaminated sediments of
frequent enough occurrence to be a national,
regional, or local concern). EPA currently
produces several national assessments, the
National Water Quality Inventory and Index of
Watershed Indicators, which provide excellent
frameworks for assessment but currently lack the
environmental data to fully support and further
develop them. With the advent of GPRA (see
Section 1), the Agency has increased its attention
on how best the Agency and various Program
Offices can measure real environmental progress
toward the goals that have been set. To do so in a
cost effective and efficient manner will require a
critical look at strategic monitoring within the
Agency as a whole and, in some instances, a
continuing shift from administrative measures of
success (the number of permits issued, the number
of pesticides registered, etc.) to measures that more
directly evaluate the desired outcome (for example,
improved fisheries, better water quality, cleaner air,
healthy estuaries, productive bird populations).
Currently, the Agency-wide Environmental
Monitoring and Management Council (EMMC) has
established a panel to address the question of the
Agency's strategic monitoring needs as they relate
to the GPRA goals and objectives.
ORD has been conducting research for the past
several years on better measures of environmental
quality and methods for monitoring at multiple
scales as part of the core research program in
monitoring. Most of this work has been, and
continues to be, conducted through EMAP and one
of its subcomponents, R-EMAP (the Regional
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program). Most monitoring is not easily
extrapolated (directly or indirectly) to provide
information of known quality at multiple scales.
The approach on how best to make national
assessments of the environment remains a scientific
as well as philosophical debate. The original intent
of EMAP in 1990 was to conduct the research
necessary to determine how to monitor the
condition of the Nation's ecological resources
(Messer, 1991). This goal has lead to a focused
research program and, therefore, to significant
advancements in cost effective, statistically based
monitoring designs and measurements for forests,
surface waters, wetlands, arid systems, and
agricultural systems. These advances in the core
program are now influencing the approach needed
to solve some of the more immediate needs of the
Agency, specifically at the national and regional
scales.
5.9.1 Research Direction
Under the auspices of CENR, an interagency group
was tasked to develop an improved framework for
Ecological Research Strategy
5-15
-------
High Priority Geographic Studies
environmental monitoring and research in the U.S.
The developed framework endorsed the original
EMAP framework for monitoring developed by
ORD (Messer, et al., 1991). The CENR is now
conducting a regional pilot in the Mid-Atlantic to
test the framework concepts. No agency, however,
is conducting a national pilot of any of the
framework elements, including the original EMAP
framework.
Working with the Regions, the Program Offices,
the states, and to the degree interested, other
Agencies, ORD will continue studies on the
development of effects and exposure measures and
monitoring designs that best determine if
ecosystems are degrading or improving nationally,
and what rate and where. The goal over the next
three to five years is to do field collection pilots at
a national scale to evaluate the value added of the
EMAP like framework in estuaries and streams for
conducting national assessments. In addition, using
remotely sensed data, studies will also include what
can be done to improve watershed level
assessments to allow an improved understanding of
the influence of landscape changes as they affect
water quality — one of the goals of the core
program. Thus, this research has not only the
Agency Program Offices as a customer but also
ORD itself.
5.9.2 Research Questions
The scientific questions driving ORD's national
pilots are the following:
• What are the best measures of the condition
of ecological resources, regionally and
nationally, for streams/rivers, estuaries, and
landscapes/watersheds?
• What monitoring design will allow for these
conditions to be estimated nationally and
regionally with known confidence, and
followed cost effectively for changes, and
ultimately, detection of trends in the condition
of these resources?
• How does one assess monitoring and survey
information to define the relative extent of
environmental hazards and the comparative
risk of those hazards at both regional and
national scales?
5.9.3 Anticipated Products
• By 1999, provide a draft of a State of the
Nation's Estuaries Study.
• By 2000, complete a National Landcover
map.
• By 2000, complete a State of the Nation's
Estuaries report.
• By 2001, complete a National Landscape
Atlas.
• By 2002, complete a State of the Nation's
Streams and Rivers report.
5-16
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Planning and Management
SECTION 6
Planning and
Management
The goals of the planning and
management process will be to
maintain ORD capabilities and to
ensure that this limited capability
and capacity is applied to projects
that meet both ORD's Ecological
Research Program goals and the
highest priority needs of the regions
and Program Offices.
6.1 Introduction
In the last few years, both the capability and capacity
of the laboratories and centers within ORD have
declined as resources available directly to the
laboratories and centers have shifted to grants. While
the capability and capacity for the in-house program
has changed only slightly, the ability to expand the
capability and capacity by purchasing it through
contracts has decreased significantly in the new
organization. As a result, the Ecological Research
Program has made a strategic decision to focus the in-
house program on a limited number of research areas
where it has the opportunity to be a scientific leader.
These areas of primary interest are presented in
Sections 3 and 4.
The challenge for the ecological research planning
process is to maintain core capability or competencies
and apply them to the greatest environmental threats,
to meet the needs of the customers, and to continue to
maintain a perspective on future environmental issues
that have yet to become immediate threats or
customer concerns. To this end, the first step in the
process has been to concentrate on a common goal
for the core Ecological Research Program. That is,
the core program will be designed to:
"...measure, model, maintain and/or restore
ecosystem sustainability at multiple scales, as
influenced by multiple stressors acting alone
and in combination, and with consideration of
both multiple receptors and endpoints. "
Consequently, ORD ideally will undertake those
projects that meet the following criteria:
• The project is related to improving the ability to
measure, model, and restore ecosystem sustain-
ability.
• The project reduces uncertainty in a high-
priority environmental problem area.
• The project is consistent with a short- or long-
term need of the customer office.
• The project allows ORD to maintain a compact
core competency and to look ahead to future
needs.
Not everything that needs to be done will fit the
planning paradigm described above. Those research
projects that are consistent with ORD's unique
capabilities but do not meet all of the above criteria
will be considered "special projects." The fewer
there are of such projects, the stronger the research
program is expected to be. This overall concept
might best be understood diagrammatically as shown
in Figure 6-1. For the planning process to be
successful, ORD and the customer offices will need
to seek areas of common interest.
Because much of the research needed by Program
will come from those outside ORD, the Program will
maintain a close interaction with both the grants
program and those outside EPA who are interested in
similar research. Coordination between the grants
program and the in-house research is done in several
ways:
• Topics are selected to complement ORD's in-
house research to expand either capability or
capacity.
• All grantees attend at least one meeting
conducted annually by ORD to bring in-house
Ecological Research Strategy
6-1
-------
Planning and Management
jQPFTll
)r*J \—I
ISWFR1
Special
Projects
Sustainability -
Vulnerability
Restoration
Figure 6-1.
Ecological Research Program planning strategy.
scientists and grantees together. These
meetings are often set up at ORD
Laboratories or national meetings.
• ORD scientists are provided annually with a
list of awards and are encouraged to interact
with those investigators of common interest.
• Should a true cooperative program between
ORD scientists and grantees develop,
mechanisms are in place for a principal
investigator to convert a grant to a
cooperative agreement.
6.2 Coordination and Management
The research program is organized with
consideration given to the need for core research,
new scientific challenges, and Program Office
needs (Table 6-1). In addition, there are several
opportunities for coordination across laboratories
and centers in the Ecological Research Program.
These opportunities include a common core
research theme, common (limited) high priority
research topics, and common locations. Through
active planning and these three natural coordination
elements, the interaction among laboratories and
centers has been significantly improved. In
addition, the common research issues and
locational research facilitates interactions between
ORD, the Program Offices, the Regions, and many
local stakeholders.
Management of the Program is by laboratory and
center. The Associate Directors for Ecology
Research work as a team, meeting four times a year
to discuss current research, new directions, and
common needs. The largest, most fully integrated
study, a test for the joint planning process and the
research goals will be in the Mid-Atlantic Region
(see Section 5.2).
6-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Planning and Management
Table 6-1.
Elements to be considered in the development of the Ecological Research Program
Core Research
Area
Monitoring and
Monitoring
Research
Processes and
Modeling Research
Risk Assessment
Research
Risk Management
and Risk Restoration
Research
New
Ecological
Research
Challenges
Multiple Stressors
Multiple Receptors
and Endpoints
Multiple Media
Multiple Scales
High-Priority
Ecological
Research Issues
Acid Deposition
Ozone
Mercury
UVB
Nitrogen
Global Change
Contaminated
Sediments
Wet Weather flows
Toxic Algal Blooms
Eco-Criteria
Total Maximum
Daily Loading
Endocrine
Disrupters
Pesticides
Landcover Change
Common Interests
Across
Laboratories and
Centers
Common Core
Strategy
Common High
Priority Research
Areas
Common Locations
6.3 The Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment
Among the challenges facing ORD's ecological
program is the demonstration that its research does in
fact provide the scientific underpinnings for
ecological risk assessments and relevant risk
management decisions. This challenge suggests that
a test of ORD's Program is to select a region of the
country, conduct the monitoring and modeling
activities necessary, produce a regional comparative
risk assessment, and engage the regional managers in
relevant risk management decisions. The
Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States has been
chosen by ORD for this purpose. It encompasses the
states within EPA Region 3 (Delaware, Maryland,
District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia) and portions of New York, New
Jersey, and North Carolina necessary to provide
coverage of the entire Chesapeake Bay, Delaware
Bay, and much of Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
watersheds. Region 3 and the encompassed states
have been progressive in their application of
comparative risk assessments in decision-making and
in improvements to their approaches for monitoring
and managing the environment, and they provide
eager partners in this endeavor. Early EMAP studies
provided extensive monitoring coverage and
assessments for terrestrial and aquatic systems and
landscapes and, thus, are a rich data source for
assessment. The added concern for ORD's regional
vulnerability activities, risk management research,
and ecological assessments will significantly expand
these efforts. Additionally, the Mid-Atlantic Region
has become the pilot area for the CENR federal
monitoring framework.
EPA managers in the Mid-Atlantic Region have
adopted a comparative risk perspective for setting
their priorities. To enhance their ability to effectively
embrace comparative risk assessments, they are
Ecological Research Strategy
6-3
-------
Planning and Management
willing to try improved approaches to monitoring,
including new designs and real indicators of
environmental progress, which will lead to
geographic targeting and prioritization of problems.
There is also clearly an interest in enhancing the
capability of modeling exposure to stressors and
predicting alternative futures under multiple
management scenarios. These interests and needs are
consistent with the strategic direction of ORD's
ecological research and provide fertile ground for
testing the applicability of results.
ORD will bring to bear the best of its research from
NERL, NHEERL, and NRMRL, as well as the work
performed at NCEA and under the grants awarded
under NCERQA. The intended outcome of ORD's
research is:
• Improved monitoring and assessment of the
conditions of estuaries, streams/rivers, wetlands,
and landscapes within the Mid-Atlantic Region
and analysis of the relative magnitude of
existing stressors.
• Modeling of stressor profiles across the Region
juxtaposed with the presence of potential
receptors to evaluate the relative vulnerability in
the Region to the prevailing stressors.
• Predictive modeling of alternative futures under
multiple management options.
• Comparative risk assessment for ecological
systems within the Mid-Atlantic Region.
• Priorities among risk management options.
Working across the ORD laboratories and centers and
in conjunction with Region 3, the states and other
federal agencies, ORD's research will be subjected to
the litmus tests of relevancy and applicability in
real-life situations. ORD and Region 3 have begun to
plan this process to ensure that it meets the
expectations of all participants.
The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)
must, however, be understood not as a snapshot of
coordinated field studies by EPA, but rather as a
sequence of long-term commitments which is guided
by the ecological risk assessment process itself.
Identifying the major environmental problems and
vulnerabilities cannot proceed without some
description of the condition of the resources
throughout the Region. Describing the condition of
resources in a meaningful way requires ecological
indicators and monitoring designs specifically
tailored to answer the assessment questions of the
local, state and national resource managers, and to
serve as performance measures in measuring
environmental gains in the future. Developing
assessment questions is part of problem formulation
in ecological risk assessment which is heavily
dependent on creating a forum for stakeholders and
scientists to discuss goals and frame the scope of the
regional problems. Forging stakeholder consensus on
assessment questions generally requires local
leadership.
Experience in the Mid-Atlantic pilot suggests that,
after the initial problem formulation phase, about
three years are needed to gather existing data on
sources of stressors in the Region, establish the
necessary land cover and geographic information, and
make measurements of the biological conditions of
the natural resources in the Region with an unbiased
design. A significant part of the three-year pilot effort
refines the ecological indicators used to measure the
condition of resources and permits adjustment of the
scales used to associate and integrate data. After the
initial three-year effort to describe the condition of
the Region, the Ecological Research Program will
devote an additional three years to the synthesis of the
data into a "state of the region" report, which includes
a regional assessment of the vulnerabilities of natural
resources to various stressors, associations of losses
of biological integrity with possible stressors, and a
ranking of the spatial extent of each resource is
diminished by anthropogenic influences in the
Region. These assessments, conducted with the
Regional Office and all stakeholders, sets the stage
for environmental protection and ecological
restoration research in the Region.
6.4 Information Management
From a research perspective, there are six challenges
facing ecologists in dealing with environmental issues
at the regional and global scales addressed in this
strategy. These are: (1) developing non-experimental
methods to conduct large-scale research;
(2) incorporating information from new data sources
and other disciplines; (3) standardizing and
controlling the quality of data; (4) developing new
statistical tools; (5) integrating, synthesizing and
modeling knowledge about ecological systems; and
(6) incorporating humans and their activities
explicitly into ecological studies (Brown, 1994).
Broadly viewed, these challenges can be considered
requirements that will influence significantly the
development of ORD environmental information
management systems needed to successfully
implement the ecological strategy.
6-4
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Planning and Management
Historically, most environmental analyses have been
small in spatial scale, relatively short in duration, and
performed by small, collocated teams of
investigators. Consequently, the practice of
environmental information management has been
geared largely to provide databases and systems
commensurate with this scope of activity. However,
as evidenced in this strategy, the discipline of
environmental science is changing. Issues of
increased scale, availability of large volumes of
remotely sensed data augmenting the overwhelming
volume of data from traditional sources, inadequacy
of commercially available software packages
designed to handle these types of data, and an
increased emphasis on multiple investigator research,
requiring shared access to data, are driving changes in
the way environmental information is managed.
A fundamental objective of the information
management activities needed to support the
ecological research strategies outlined is to capture,
preserve, and enhance the exchange of use of data
and information within ORD, and between ORD,
regional stakeholders, and the public. ORD's
information management resources must also reflect
the flow of information between organizational units
within ORD and meet the needs of the primary
generators and the secondary users of environmental
data. Figure 2-3 provides insight on information flow
and the mapping of information resource management
related functions among NCEA, NHEERL, and
NERL. However, no one system is expected to meet
the needs of ORD scientists.
ORD management recognizes that environmental
information resources (data sets, databases, models,
documents) represent and should be managed as
corporate resources. ORD data systems, policies,
procedures, and guidelines need to support this
concept. Managing the network of environmental
information management systems, and the
development of the appropriate policies, procedures
and guidelines, is being coordinated by the ORD
Science Information Management Coordination
Board (SIMCorB). This board contains individuals
representing each ORD laboratory and center and is
responsible for coordinating information management
activities within ORD, and coordinating activities
identified in the implementation plan being prepared
by SIMCorB as the follow-on step to the Information
Management Component of the ORD Strategic Plan
(EPA, 1997d).
The ecological associate directors of ORD have
endorsed a coordinated effort to bring the data
management of scientific data into a uniform system
paradigm. Progress in support of a coherent strategy
to manage ecological data within ORD is underway
and is being coordinated by the members of
SIMCorB. This strategy will concentrate on
developing technical and management solutions to the
challenges outlined above, focusing specifically on
improving ORD's ability to share data resources and
increase the inter-operability of component systems.
In developing this strategy, SIMCorB will build upon
the progress made with existing information
management systems by identifying common user
requirements reflected in those systems, and defining
requirements that are not being met by currently
available systems.
Ecological Research Strategy
6-5
-------
References
References
Anderson,! (1991). A conceptual framework for
quantifying naturalness. Conservation Biology 5:348.
Baker, DJ. (1996). What do ecosystem management
and the current budget mean for federally supported
environmental research? Ecological Applications,
vol. 6, no. 3:712-715.
Baker, J.P., D.H. Landers, H. Lee II, P.L. Ringold,
R.R. Sumner, P.J. Wigington, Jr., R.S. Bennett, E.M.
Preston, W.E. Frick, A.C. Sigleo, D.T. Specht, and
D.R. Young. (1995). Ecosystem Management
Research in the Pacific Northwest: Five-Year
Research Strategy. EPA/600/R-95/069, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Barber, M.C. (ed.) (1994). Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program Indicator
Development Strategy. EPA/620/R-94/022.
Washington, D.C.
Bormann, F. H. and G. E. Likens. (1979). Pattern
and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer
Verlag, New York.
Brown, J.H. (1994). Grand challenges in scaling up
environmental research. Environmental Information
Management and Analysis: Ecosystem to Global
Scales. W.K. Michener, J.W. Brunt, and S.G.
Stafford (eds.). Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA. pp.
21-26.
Browner, C. andF. Hansen. (1997). EPA
Reorganization Memorandum.
Cairns, J. Jr. (1982). Restoration of damaged
ecosystems. Research on Fish and Wildlife Habitat,
EPA-600/8-82-022. W.T. Mason and S. Iker (Eds.).
EPA, Washington, DC: pp. 220-239.
Carpenter, S.R. and J.F. Kitchell, eds. (1993). The
Trophic Cascade in Lakes. Cambridge University
Press, London, England.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston, MA.
Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S.
Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J.F. Franklin,
J.A. MacMahon, R.F. Noss, D.J. Parsons, C.H.
Peterson, M.G.Turner, and R.G Woodmansee.
(1996). The Report of the Ecological Society of
America Committee on the Scientific Basis for
Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications,
vol. 6, no. 3: pp. 665-691.
Church, M.R. (1997). Hydrochemistry of Forested
Catchments. Annual Review of Earth Planetary
Sciences, Volume 25, pp. 23-59, Annual Reviews
Inc., pp. 518.
Connell, J.H. and R.O. Slater. (1977). Mechanisms
of succession in natural communities and their role in
community stability and organization. American
Naturalist 111:1119-1144.
EPA (1985). Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.
EPA/822/R-85-100. Office of Water. Washington,
DC.
EPA (1986). Hazard Evaluation Division Standard
Evaluation Procedures: Ecological Risk Assessment.
Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA-540/9-85-001.
Washington, DC.
EPA (1987). Unfinished Business: A Comparative
Assessment of Environmental Problems. Appendix 3.
Ecological Risk Workgroup. Office of Policy
Planning and Evaluation. EPA/230/2/2-87/025D.
Washington, DC.
EPA (1988). Future Risk: Research Strategies for the
1990s. EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington,
DC.
EPA (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Environmental Evaluation Manual.
Volume 2. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. EPA/540/1-89/001.
EPA (1992). Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001, Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA (1996). Proposed Guidelines for Ecological
Risk Assessment. Federal Register 61: 47552-47631.
Ecological Research Strategy
R-1
-------
References
EPA (1997a). 1997 Update to ORD's Strategic Plan.
EPA/600/R-97/015. Washington, DC.
EPA (1997b). Priorities for Ecological Protection:
An Initial List and Discussion Document for EPA.
EPA/600/S-97/002. Washington, DC.
EPA (1997c). The Incidence and Severity of
Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the
United States, Volume 1: National Sediment Quality
Survey, September, 1997 (EPA/823/R-97/006).
EPA (1997d). Strategic Plan for the Office of
Research and Development: Information
Management Component. EPA/600/R-97/086.
Washington, DC.
EPA (1998a). Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Washington, DC.
EPA (1998b). Endocrine Disrupters Plan. In press.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (1997).
Content standard for digital geospatial metadata
(revised April, 1997) Federal Geographic Data
Committee. Washington, DC.
Galloway, J.N.; W.H. Schlesinger; H. Levy II; A.
Michaels; and J.L. Schnoor (1995). Nitrogen
fixation: anthropogenic enhancement—environmental
response. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9:253-252.
Haeuber, R. and J. Franklin. (1996). Perspectives on
ecosystem management. Ecological Applications,
vol. 6, no. 3:692-694.
Hunsaker, C.T., and D.A. Levine. (1995).
Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality
inrivers. BioScience 45:193-203.
Interagency Mercury Science Program (1996). South
Florida Mercury Science Program Research Plan.
Working Draft.
Karr, J.R. (1991). Biological Integrity: A
Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource
Management. Ecol. Appl. 1: 66-84.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant
and L.J. Schlosser (1986). Assessment of Biological
Integrity in Running Water: A Method and Its
Rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural
History Survey. Champaign, IL.
Lachman, B. (1997). Linking Sustainable Community
Activities to Pollution Prevention: A Sourcebook,
MR-855-OSTP. Washington, DC, Critical
Technologies Institute, RAND.
Larsen, D.P., N.S. Urquhart, and D.L. Kugler.
(1995). Regional Scale Trend Monitoring of
Indicators of Trophic Condition of Lakes. Waters
Resources Bulletin. 31: 117-140.
Lubchenco, J., A. M. Olson, L. B. Brubaker, S. R.
Carpenter, M. M. Holland, S. P. Hubbell, S. A.
Levin, J. A. MacMahon, P. A. Matson, J. M. Melillo,
H.A. Mooney, C. H. Peterson, H. R. Pulliam, L. A.
Real, P. J. Regal and P. G. Risser. (1991). The
Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: an ecological
research agenda. Ecology 72:371-412.
Mackenzie F.T., L.M. Ver, C. Sabine, M. Lane, and
A. Lerman. (1993). CNPS global biogeochemical
cycles and modeling of global change. NATO ASI
Series Vol. 14. In Wollast R., Mackenzie FT, and
Chou L, eds. Interactions of CNP & S
Biogeochemical Cycles and Global Change. Pp 1-61.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Magnuson, J. Jr., H.A. Regier, W.J. Christie, and
W.C. Sonzogi. (1980). "To rehabilitate and restore
Great Lakes ecosystems." The Recovery Process in
Damaged Ecosystems. J. Cairns, Jr. (Ed.). Ann Arbon
MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, pp. 95-112.
Messer, J., R. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. (1991).
"EPA program for monitoring ecological status and
trends." Environ. Monitor. Assess. 17: 67-78.
Morrissey, W.A. (1996). Science policy and federal
ecosystem-based management. Ecological
Applications, vol. 6, no. 3: 717-720.
NRC (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. National
Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
NRC (1991). Solving the global change puzzle: A
U.S. Strategy for managing data and information. A
report by the Committee on Geophysical Data,
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and
Resources, National Research Council. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (1997a). Building a Foundation for Sound
Environmental Decisions. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
R-2
Ecological Research Strategy
-------
References
NRC (1997b). "Contaminated Sediments in Ports
and Waterways—Cleanup Strategies and
Technologies." Washington, DC.
Ojima, D.S., K.A. Galvin, and B.L. Turner II (1994).
The global impact of land-use change. BioScience
44:300-304.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith (1991). Ecological
regions versus hydrologic units: Frameworks for
Managing Water Quality. J. Soil and Water
Conservation. 46: 334-340.
O'Neill, R. V., D. L. DeAngelis, J. B. Waide, and
T.F.H. Allen (1986). A hierarchical concept of
ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
Peterjohn, W. T. andD. L. Correll (1984). Nutrient
dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations
on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:
1466-1475.
Pickett, S. T. A. and P. S. White, editors. (1985).
The ecology of natural disturbance and patch
dynamics. Academic Press, New York.
Risk Assessment. Federal Register 61: 47552-47631.
Science Sub-Group. (1995). South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: Scientific Information Needs.
Interagency Task Force for the Restoration of South
Florida.
Smayda, T.J. (1989). Primary production and the
global epidemic of phytoplankton blooms in the sea:
a linkage? In: Novel Phytoplankton Blooms. Cosper,
E.M., Bricelj, andEJ. Carpenter (Eds.), pp. 449-481.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Steedman, RJ. (1994). Ecosystem Health as a
Management Goal. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 13:
605-610.
Turner, M. G., ed. (1987). Landscape Heterogeneity
and Disturbance. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Vitousek, P.M., J.D. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E.
Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H.
Schlesinger, and G.D. Tilman (1997). Human
alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: causes and
consequences. Ecological Applications 7:737-750.
Wedin, D.A. and D. Tilman, (1996). Influence of
nitrogen loading and species composition on the
carbon balance of grasslands. Science 274:1720-
1723.
Yoder, CO. (1989). The Development and Use of
Biological Criteria in Ohio Surface Waters.
Proceedings, Water Quality Standards for the 21st
Century, Dallas, TX. March 1-3. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
pp. 139-146.
Ecological Research Strategy
R-3
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A
Agency Goals/Objectives (OBJ)/Sub-Objectives (S-O) that Relate to ORD
As of August 20, 1998
Goal 1: Clean Air
GOAL 1- Clean Air: The air in every American community will be safe and healthy to breathe. In particular, children, the
elderly, and people with respiratory ailments will be protected from health risks of breathing polluted air. Reducing air
pollution will also protect the environment, resulting in many benefits, such as restoring life in damaged ecosystems and
reducing health risks to those whose subsistence depends directly on those ecosystems.
OBJ 1 (OAR, ORD): By 2010, improve air quality for Americans living in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM).
S-O 1.4 (ORD): By 2001, develop tropospheric ozone precursor measurements, modeling, source emissions, and control
information to guide cost effective risk management options; and by 2003, produce health and ecological effects information for
NAAQS related ozone risk assessments.
S-O 1.5 (ORD): By 2001, provide measurements, modeling, source emissions, and control information for PM by species and
size to guide risk assessment and PM risk management; and by 2003, develop a biologically plausible, quantitative health risk
model for particulate matter based on epidemiological, toxicological, and mechanistic studies.
OBJ 2 (OAR, ORD): By 2010, reduce air toxic emissions by 75 percent from 1993 levels to significantly reduce the risk
Americans of cancer and other serious adverse health effects caused by airborne toxics.
S-O 2.1 (ORD): By 2002, characterize emissions and attendant risks associated with new fuels and fuel additives; and by
2003, identify key pollutants responsible for urban air toxics risks and develop regional-specific, cost effective risk management
strategies.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
GOAL 2- Clean and Safe Water: All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to drink. Effective protection of
America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish, plants, and wildlife, as well as
recreational, subsistence, and economic activities. Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and protected
to improve human health, enhance water quality, reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
OBJ 1 (OW, ORD): By 2005, protect public health so that 95% of the population served by community water systems will
receive water that meets drinking water standards, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and
exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
S-O 1.7 (ORD): By 2003, provide a stronger scientific basis for future implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
OBJ 2 (OW, ORD): By 2005, conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation's (state, interstate, and tribal)
waters and aquatic ecosystems - rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and ground
waters - so that 75 % of waters will support healthy aquatic communities.
S-O 2.3 (ORD): By 2003, provide means to identify, assess, and manage aquatic stressors, including contaminated
sediments.
OBJ 3 (OW, ORD): By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point sources and nonpoint source runoff will be reduced by
at least 20% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants impacting water bodies will be reduced.
S-O 3.3 (ORD): By 2005, deliver decision support tools and alternative, less costly wet weather flow control technologies for
use by local decision makers involved in community-based watershed management.
Goal 3: Safe Food
GOAL 3- Safe Food: The foods Americans eat will be free from unsafe pesticide residues. Children especially will be
protected from the health threats posed by pesticide residues because they are among the most vulnerable groups in our
society.
OBJ 2 (OPPTS, ORD): By 2005, use on food of current pesticides that do not meet the new statutory standard of
"reasonable certainty of no harm" will be substantially eliminated.
S-O 2.4 (ORD): By 2005, provide problem-driven research results to support the new FQPA regulatory standard of
"reasonable certainty of no harm" for pesticides used on food.
Ecological Research Strategy A-1
-------
Appendix A
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk
GOAL 4 - Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems: Pollution
prevention and risk management strategies aimed at cost-effectively eliminating, reducing, or minimizing emissions and
contamination will result in cleaner and safer environments in which all Americans can reside, work and enjoy life. EPA will
safeguard ecosystems and promote the health of natural communities that are integral to the quality of life in this nation.
OBJ 2 (OPPTS, ORD): By 2005, the number of young children with high levels of lead in their blood will be significantly
reduced from the early 1990's.
OBJ 3 (OPPTS, ORD): By 2005, of the approximately 2,000 chemicals and 40 genetically engineered microorganisms
expected to enter commerce each year, we will significantly increase the introduction by industry of safer or "greener"
chemicals which will decrease the need for regulatory management by EPA.
S-O 3.4 (ORD): By 2008, provide the scientific basis for support of Agency efforts to ensure safe communities, homes,
workplaces, and ecosystems: improved methods, models, measurements and tools will be developed for use in guidelines,
protocols, and risk assessment/risk management strategies covering the full range of ecosystem stressors and protecting
human health.
OBJ 4 (OAR, ORD): By 2005, fifteen million more Americans will live or work in homes, schools, or office buildings with
healthier indoor air than in 1994.
S-O 4.2 (ORD): By 2005, produce technical reports, methods, models, and other scientific information to improve the
understanding of the effects of indoor contaminants on human health, the concentrations of these contaminants in micro
environments, their sources, and risk management options to reduce exposure.
Goal 5: Better Waste Management
GOAL 5 - Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response: America's
wastes will be stored, treated and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and to the natural environment. EPA will
work to clean up previously polluted sites, restore them to uses appropriate for surrounding communities, and respond to
and prevent waste-related or industrial accidents.
OBJ 1 (OSWER, OECA, ORD, OAR, OP): By 2005, EPA and its partners will reduce or control the risk to human health
and the environment at over 375,000 contaminated Superfund, RCRA, UST and brownfield sites.
S-O 1.6 (ORD): By 2008, provide improved methods and dose-response models for estimating risks from complex mixtures
contaminating soils and groundwater; provide improved methods for measuring, monitoring, and characterizing complex
wastes in soils and ground water; and develop more cost-effective and reliable technologies for clean-up of contaminated soils,
sediments, and ground water. Also, by 2008, demonstrate/verify, via Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program, more cost-effective technologies for remediation and characterization of contaminated soils, sediments, and
groundwater, and more cost-effective restoration/rehabilitation of ecosystems impacted by these sources.
OBJ 2 (OSWER, OECA, ORD, OAR): By 2005, over 282,000 facilities will be managed according to the practices that prevent
releases to the environment, and EPA and its partners will have the capabilities to successfully respond to all known
emergencies to reduce the risk to human health and the environment.
S-O 2.6 (ORD): By 2008, provide multimedia, multipathway exposure and risk models for estimating the risk from waste
facilities; develop methods and models for predicting human exposures via indirect or non-inhalation pathways associated with
waste facilities; and provide improved techniques to control or prevent releases during waste management.
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Risks
GOAL 6 - Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks: The United States will lead other nations in
successful, multilateral efforts to reduce significant risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change,
stratospheric ozone depletion, and other hazards of international concern.
OBJ 2 (OAR, OP, ORD, OGC): By 2000 and beyond, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to levels consistent
with international commitments agreed upon under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, building on initial
efforts under the Climate Change Action Plan.
S-O 2.3 (ORD): By 2000 and beyond, ORD will provide the capability to assess ecological and associated human health
vulnerability to climate-induced stressors at the regional scale and assess mitigation and adaptation strategies.
A-2 Ecological Research Strategy
-------
Appendix A
Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' Right to Know
GOAL 7 - Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About their Environment: Easy access to a wealth of information about
the state of their local environment will expand citizen involvement and give people tools to protect their families and their
communities as they see fit. Increased information exchange between scientists, public health officials, businesses, citizens
and all levels of government will foster greater knowledge about the environment and what can be done to protect it.
OBJ 3 (OA, ORD, OP): By 2005, EPA will meet or exceed the Agency's customer service standards in providing sound
environmental information to federal, state, local, and tribal partners to enhance their ability to protect human health and
the environment.
S-O 3.2 (ORD): By 2005, implement a system to deliver ORD research results, tools and databases, manuals, guidance, and
technical information to internal and external users to assist in decision making; by 2007, implement system to deliver reliable,
timely, and consistent environmental monitoring and measurement information to the public and communities.
Goal 8: Sound Science
GOAL 8 - Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk and Greater Innovation to Address Environmental
Problems: EPA will develop and apply the best available science for addressing current and future environmental hazards,
as well as new approaches toward improving environmental protection.
OBJ 1 (ORD): By 2008, provide the scientific understanding to measure, model, maintain, or restore, at multiple scales,
the integrity and sustainability of ecosystems now and in the future - the primary focus will be on streams, rivers, and
estuaries as assessment endpoints; specifically, fish and shellfish.
S-O 1.1 (ORD): By 2008, provide the scientific understanding to measure, model, maintain, or restore, at multiple scales, the
integrity and sustainability of ecosystems now and in the future - the primary focus will be on streams, rivers, and estuaries as
assessment endpoints; specifically, fish and shellfish.
OBJ 2 (ORD): Provide the scientific basis for responding to a wide range of environmentally-driven human health
problems by developing methods, models, and data that have, by design, broad applicability.
S-O 2.1 (ORD): By 2008, reduce reliance on default human health risk assessment assumptions by providing mechanistically-based
understanding of toxicity and susceptibilities, and models to account for exposure scenarios that differ in media, pathway, temporal
dimensions and other complexities.
OBJ 3 (ORD): By 2008, establish capability and mechanisms within EPA to anticipate and identify environmental or
other changes that may portend future risk, integrate futures planning into ongoing programs, and promote coordinated
preparation for and response to change.
S-O 3.1 (ORD): Priority research areas include: by 2008, developing strategies for managing risks of exposures to endocrine
disrupting chemicals, and, by 2005, developing a strong scientific basis for understanding the health and ecological effects of
air pollution mixtures under the One Atmosphere program.
OBJ 4 (ORD): By 2006, develop and verify improved tools, methodologies, and technologies for modeling, measuring,
characterizing, preventing, controlling, and cleaning up contaminants associated with high priority human health and
environmental problems.
S-O 4.1 (ORD): By 2006, develop and verify improved tools, methodologies, and technologies for modeling, measuring,
characterizing, preventing, controlling, and cleaning up contaminants associated with high priority human health and
environmental problems.
OBJ 5 (ORD): Provide services and capabilities, including appropriate equipment, expertise, and intramural support
necessary to enable ORD to research innovative approaches to current and future environmental problems and improve
understanding of environmental risks.
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent
GOAL 9 - A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law: EPA will ensure full compliance with laws
intended to protect public health and the environment.
Goal 10: Effective Management
GOAL 10 - Effective Management: EPA will establish a management infrastructure that will set and implement the highest
quality standards for effective internal management and fiscal responsibility.
Ecological Research Strategy A-3
------- |