February, 1975
IMPLEMENTING AN ECOLOGY THEME
.V
By
The Institute of Ecology (TIE)
Post Office Box A
Logan, Utah 84321
Contract No. 68-03-0354
Project Officer
Earl Kari
National Environmental Research Center
Corval xis, Oregon 97330
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
February, 1975
IMPLEMENTING AN ECOLOGY THEME
By
The Institute of Ecology (TIE)
Post Office Box A
Logan, Utah. 84321
Contract No. 68-03-0354
Project Officer
Earl Kari
National Environmental Research Center
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
J. M. Neuhold, Director
P. O. Box A
University Hill
Logan, Utah 84321
Tel. (801) 752-0303
THE INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY
FOUNDING INSTITUTIONS
Academy of Natural Sciences
American Museum of Natural History
Arizona Sine University
Aubu'n University
Battel Memorial insiitute
Betnlce P. Bishop Mimun
California State Uni^'Sity-Chico
Case Western Rtww University
Center for ihe Environment & Man
Clemson University
Colorado Slilt University
Conservation foundation
Cornell Univertity
DalhOusie University (Canada)
Cuke University
Cttueta National de Ajricultura imexiool
Escuel* Vocac«nai de Tecnoioflia da Alimenros (nicwtQual
f ieW Mulwm ol Natural History
Florida State University Marine lab
Fundaoon Baritoche lirgentine)
Harvard University
Indiana University
InsiiiutoCentioamerieanode investipacion y
Tecnotogia industrial (Qioiemala)
imiituto de Invest igKionesde Lai Zonss Aridas y
Samiaridas (argann'nal
inftituto Interamer icano da Cienciai AgricolasOe ta QEA-
Centre Tropical de Enaa^jwua • Imestigacion i'cosu rica)
Inttiiuto Naoonal da Limnologia (argentine)
Iratiiuto Nacionel da Pesquisas da Amazonia Ibrwil)
Island Resources Foundation, Inc.
Kant State University
McGiff University (canadai
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mai Planck Irititut Kir Limnotogie
(bruilandggrmany]
Michigan State Univertity
MontanaSute Urviwiity
The Nature Conservancy
N«m> Mex-cp Ewironmenul institute
The Neav York Botanbil Garden
Now York Univertity
Oak Ridga National Laboratory
Oceanic Institute
Ohio State Unrvetity
Oregon State Univertity
Organization for Tropical Studies
Pan Pacific Intitule ol Owen Science
PcmKics Unfeersidad Caicilca del Ecuador (equator)
Rocky Mountain Center or Environment
Rutgers - The State Univertity
San Diego S'ai* University
Smithsonian Institution
Sun University of New YoHt-Stony Brook
State Univertity of New York-Syracuse
Texas A & M University
Thome EcofogjcaMrititute
Untvert&ad Auitral da Chila'lchile)
UnWeriidad Autonoma de Nu»ro Leon (rrtexlco)
Un'wertidad de Antioquta Icolombie)
UncyeftitJad de Chile (chile)
Unbertided de Lot Andes Ivenezusls)
Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (Quatemalal-
Universidad Nacionaf Autonoma de Mexico Hawaii
Unrtw&ily Of Wooston
University of Idaho
University of Illinois
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Manitoba (canada)
University of Michigan
UnikWsiiy o' Minnesota
Universiiy of Missouri-KansasCity
Univertity o1 Montana
Uniwtily of New Mexico
University of North Carolina
Unrverv'ty of North Dakota
Unfwruty of Notre Dame
Universiiy of Pennsylvania
Univertiiyol Pittsbi*gh
University of Rhode Island
Univertiiyol South Carolina
Uniwtaty o' Tennessee
Unive^jy of Texas
University of Toronio (cenedal
University ot Virginia
Univertity of Washington
University of Wisconsin
University of Wyoming
Utah Sute University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Washington State University
February 15, 1975
Dr. A. F. Bartsch
Director
NERC-Corvallis
Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis,. Oregon 97339
Dear Dr. Bartsch:
At your request last year, three TIE teams visited the
laboratories that comprise the NERC-Corvallis system.
The teams were composed of sixteen scientists who
volunteered their time to help NERC-Corvallis look at
itself and to advise how this system of laboratories
could best move towards its assigned ecology theme.
The nine laboratories with, their 300 scientists
constitute a very great national resource. Working
together in a National Environmental Research, Center,
they and other scientists can develop the objective,
scientific data to implement the environmental goals
established by the Congress.
The many knowledge gaps that relate to pollutant
effects and the urgent need to develop new environ-
mental standards constitute a mission that is at
times very satisfying and very frustrating for the
scientists. The TIE teams were impressed with the
progress that has been made in the very few years
since EPA was established and the productive output
of these laboratories.
The teams have documented the current state of this
research system and a number of concerns that impede
the fuller usefulness of this research, capability.
Based upon these concerns, TIE has prepared
recommendations to improve productivity, efficiency
and the capacity to deal with future problems.
-------
Dr. A. F. Bartsch
February 15, 1975
Page Two
We fully recognize the limitations of our study methods and the
inevitable biases we bring to our analysis.
We have come, however, to a good understanding of the strengths
of the NERC-Corvallis system which can, like any other system,
evolve to better functioning.
We have also understood the ways in which the laboratories
currently relate to the other offices of EPA: OR§D in
Washington and the EPA Regional offices. It was beyond TIE's
charge to advise on these relationships, but have clearty seen
that obstacles in the complex research planning system cause
waste, delays and inefficiencies in the laboratories. It is
very clear that.improvements in research productivity will
continue to be constrained by these factors until a simpler,
participatory, and decentralized research planning and pro-
gramming system is implemented.
If this is accomplished and if TIE'S recommendations are further
considered and refined by the scientists and the leadership in
the NERC-Corvallis system, we believe that a strengthened national
research capacity will result.
In turn, this research will better support the EPA's national
and field offices' work to safeguard and improve the quality
of the environment.
•ly yours, .
John M. Neuhold, Director
End.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. The Framework for the Study 1
The NERC-Corvallis Problem 1
The Ecology Theme. 4
System Improvements 5
II. The Current System 6
A National Perspective 6
EPA's Mission and the Role of the NERC?s 6
Research Program Planning 8
NERC-Corvallis 11
Technical Assistance Roles and Alternatives 13
The Researchers 14
III. Areas for Improvement of System Functioning 17
EPA-Related Concerns 18
NERC-Corvallis 22
Laboratory Related Concerns 24
Researcher Related Concerns 25
IV. Recommendations for NERC-Corvallis 27
A Unified Theme for NERC-Corvallis 33
Planning Issues 34
Laboratory Operations 35
Interface with Non-EPA Communities 37
Interdisciplinary Research 39
Inter-media Pollutant Transfer 40
Other Recommendations 41
Appendix 1 - An Ecology Theme for NERC-Corvallis 44
Appendix 2 - Key Features of the Laboratories 52
Appendix 3 - TIE Team Members 61
Appendix 4 - TIE Project Advisory Committee 62
i
-------
TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
1. National Environmental Research Centers 2
2. 0 R § D Program Unit Hierarchy 8a
3. Relation of Concerns to Recommendations 28-29
4. Highest Priority Recommendations 32
5. Recommendations Listed by Initiating Group 42-3
6. Sample Criteria for Program Directions 45
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is about and for the large number' of persons - scientists,
technicians, managers, and support personnel - that are the major
resource of NERC-Corvallis: the people in the nine laboratories who
together form a major environmental research resource.
They have been the major source of information and insight that the
TIE field teams used, in developing their findings and this report.
They are the people most vitally concerned with improved NERO
system functioning and they have been helpful in every possible way
in achieving our goals.
This report was initially drafted by William Milstead, based upon
the insights of the TIE field teams, as compiled by the three team
leaders:
Robert Ball
Roy Hann, Jr.
John M. Neuhold
Helpful comments and revisions were offered by members of TIE's
advisory committee, in particular Robert Metcalf and Henry Regier.
George Sprugel, Jr.
Project Manager
iii
-------
SUMMARY § HIGHLIGHTS
The Environmental Protection Agency has
assigned its Corvallis National Environ-
mental Research Center (NERC-Corvallis)
to study ecological processes and the
effects of pollutants on them. NERC-
Corvallis asked The Institute of
Ecology (TIE) to assist in amplifying
this research, theme and to recommend
changes in its system of nine
laboratories necessary to carry it out.
TIE fonned three teams of scientists
who visited the laboratories, prepared
comments and recommendations. These
recommendations were reviewed by the
laboratory directors and were revised
by an advisory committee composed of
team leaders and other ecologists.
As TIE prepared recommendations for
improving the NERC-Corvallis system,
we recognized the difficulties EPA
faced in developing a research
program capable of dealing with the
nation's myriad pollution problems
in just a few years. We also realized
the impossibility of meeting the
expectations of many groups with
varying environmental philosophies
including Congress, industries, state
government and citizen organizations
as well as the scientific community
The following four broad directions
for change are drawn from 32 more
specific recommendations.
-------
Recommendation #1, page 33
The theme includes two parts: (a)
to develop predictability in ecosystem
perturbation (caused by the addition
or elimination of pollutants), and
(b) to develop further the science
of ecosystem analysis in order to
augment theability to predict
change of natural systems (either
through empirical analysis or
simulation techniques).
Recommendation #26. page 40
The development of systems analysis
capabilities within the NTERC-
Corvallis system should be encouraged.
This can be accomplished not only
through recruitment, but by training
programs, and through standby
consultative services available to
the laboratories.
Reconniiendation "27. page 40
Ihe Modeling Task Force growing
out of the Salishnn Meeting, and
the proposed analysis and simulation
groups, should be encouraged to
review potential needs and appli-
cations for new systems analysis
programs.
1) An Ecosystems Perspective
The nation's pollution problems have been
growing for a long time. Their resolution
will require a long-term, systems
perspective.
The value of a unifying ecosystem focus
for the work of these laboratories is
exceptionally great. Today there is no
focus at all. Within an ecology theme,
predictions about pollutants, perturba-
tions, and the actions of natural systems
can be developed in order to quantify
both short and long term changes.
For NERC-Corvallis to realize its potential,
a shift of emphasis to the ecosystems'
viewpoint is essential. It will be
necessary for the researchers and the
laboratories to develop an increased
systems analysis capability. Existing
personnel can move in this direction,
but cannot lift themselves by their
bootstraps alone, however much they want
to gain the benefits of the ecology theme.
Given the constraints that exist in NERC-
Corvallis with regard to personnel, several
methods will have to be employed including
training, use of volunteer and on-site
consultants, revisions to the procedures
for enlisting the help of other labora-
tories (SRO procedures), and informal task
forces like the newly formed modeling task
force.
v
-------
Rficrnnnfmdatinn page 34
A set of criteria should be developed
and periodically reviewed, by which
the program directions and accomplish-
ments of NERC-Corvallis can be measured.
Recommendation #4, page 34
Increase effort to quantify benefits
and costs of R 5 D before deciding on
objectives and methods. Such
quantifications can use economic,
social, scientific or other objective
measures, which could best be developed
by fiejLd and headquarters staff of
EPA together.
Recommendation #31, page. 41
Integrate social ana economic research,
in certain instances, with the
biological, chemical or physical
research; generally, foster integration
with other organizations concerned
with the views of social scientists
on air and water quality issues.
The laboratory staffs are in an
excellent "take-off" position to move
from their wide mix of talents and
disciplinary strengths in engineering,
chemistry, and the life sciences to an
interdisciplinary posture. An ecosystems
perspective, coupled with augmentation
of NERC's resources by increased
cooperation with other scientists, will
better support EPA's assigned respon-
sibilities and also foster new scientific
advances. Without such advances and new
knowledge, the researchers will continue
to be involved in "quick and dirty
studies which just keep them out of saw
blades".—^
2) Tomorrow's Responsibilities arid Roles
TIE gives high priority to those recommenda-
tions which would enhance the NERC's
capability for seeing clearly what future
research needs are likely to be and how
they can be accomplished most effectively.
Criteria to measure program accomplishments,
quantification of R § D benefits, and
integration of social and economic concerns
with "hard" science are indispensible for
the sound, long-term research needed to
answer tomorrow's questions. Failure to
1/ From Reports of the Salishan meeting,
sponsored by NERC-Corvallis, March 10-14,
1974.
vi
-------
Reccoroendation #32, page 41
Review the present users of EPA research
(both ultijuate consumers and inter-
mediate consumers) and determine, in
light of Congressional mandates and
EPA regulations, what changes or
modifications in this constituency
are necessary or useful.
Recommendation #20, page 38
Establish informal advisory panels
on various research topics, to foster
interchange of views on a continuing
basis -- both at various NERC
laboratories and on a NERC-wide
basis.
Recommendation #22, page 38
Revise procedures for development
and monitoring of extra-mural
research grants and contracts,
including those sponsored by other
EPA laboratories (outside of NERC-
Corvallis) and by OR § D. Specifically,
(a) Increased face-to-face contacts
should be stimulated between EPA
staff and extra-niural researchers;
(b) Monitors of grants and contracts
should be the same individuals
designing the research or account-
able for the overall work; (c)
Grant and contract procedures should
be decentralized to the maximum
possible extent; (d) More EPA staff
time may have to be programmed to
generate and to monitor truly
beneficial extra-mural work.
Recommendation BIO, page 36
While continuing to work largely in
their usual units (or branches),
researchers can also devote substantial
amounts of time as members of ad hoc
teams for problem solving, technical
assistance and research.
do this analysis will result in continued
static,' fire-fighting operations that are
reactionary in nature and which ultimately
will dilute the productivity of these
scientific resources.
3) Reaching Outwards - Resources Outside
the Laboratory
The TIE teams found that the NERC
scientists are often isolated from the
larger community of their peers who are
concerned about identical or related
issues. Major concerns of this report
highlight the degree of laboratory and
scientist interaction (and lack of inter-
action) with non-EPA scientists and
engineers. We recommend that peer review,
advisory panels, loaned personnel,
enhanced extra-mural monitoring, and
generally lowered institutional "fences"
be implemented at the initiative of the
NERC. Intellectual isolation and "tunnel
vision" based on branch, laboratory, and
NERC structure can drain the strengths
of the NERC system.
4) Researcher Communications - Resources
Within KPA
A number of factors impede ccanmunications
among NERC scientists. They include EPA's
focus on establishing and enforcing
standards, the isolated location of many
of the laboratories and the long time
that some researchers have been together
in pre-EPA affiliations.
vii
-------
Recommendation #9, page 35
Ihe current personnel ceilings create
difficult and inefficient working
conditions; more flexibility in
staffing is needed, including: (a)
greater use of contract technical
support which can assist busy,
senior personnel: (b) use of
scientific volunteers and paid on-
site consultants to assist in
design of research, work review,
quality control and personnel
evaluation; (c) rotation of
personnel to and from the
laboratories on a temporary basis,
including use of loaned personnel
from outside of government
(sabbatical leaves) and from
other government agencies.
The Salishan conference recognized this
situation.in several of its conclusions:
. .we need to have more
workshop type meetings
including EPA personnel as
well as grantees and
contractors. . . "
". . . get the bench people
together more often . .
The TIE teams felt that a large number
of bench scientists could benefit from
vastly increased inter-actions with
their colleagues in other NERC
laboratories and sometimes within their
own laboratory. Often the NERC
researchers did not seem to value, or
even know of, the accomplishments of
their peers -- outside of their
laboratory --on topics closely related
to their current work.
A substantial increase, in time and effort
devoted to communications with others may
seem to researchers too expensive to be
undertaken by the overworked laboratory
staffs. To the TIE teams, enhanced
scientific communications are a
necessary investment over the long rim.
They will provide the indispensible
foundation for the scientific accomplish-
ments that will ultimately be the major
contribution of the laboratory system
to EPA.
viii
-------
SECTION 1 - THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY
In December, 1970, in response to mounting public concern
over the deterioration of the environment, the United States
federal government consolidated many of its environmental
programs under a new agency called the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). To develop an organization capable of
efficiently integrating its research and monitoring
activities, EPA established four national environmental research
centers (NERC's): Research Triangle Park, North Carolina;
Cincinnati, Ohio; Corvallis, Oregon; and Las Vegas, Nevada.
In an attempt to minimize duplication in research activities,
each NERC was assigned a research theme. These research theses
are shown in Figure 1.
In the Spring of 1973 NERC-Corvallis asked The Institute of
Ecology (TIE) for assistance. The nine laboratories of the
NERC-Corvallis system had been assigned ecological effects and
processes as their theme. TIE was asked to help NERC-Corvallis
look at itself and advise how to move toward the assigned
ecology theme. This assignment involved two processes:
(1) to assist in the formulation and amplification
of the assigned theme;
(2) to suggest improvements or changes in this
system of laboratories in consideration of the
theme and the continuing need to adapt to
new circumstances.
THE NERC-CORVALLIS PROBLEM
Program ecology is an expansive subject requiring an inter-
disciplinary approach on a broad basis. The Corvallis NERC
-1-
-------
Figure 1
National Environmental Research Centers
NERC
Research
Triangle
Park
NERC
Cincinnati
Health
Effects
Environmental
Pollution
Technology
Development
NERC
Las Vegas
NERC
Corvallis
Environmental
Monitoring
Ecological
Effects and
Processes
PNERL - Pacific Northwest
Environmental Research Laboratory -
NWQL - National Water Quality Laboratory —
NMWQL - National Marine Water Quality Lab —
GBERL - Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory -
AERL - Arctic Environmental Research Lab —
SERL - Southeast Environmental Research Lab
KERL - Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory —
GIL - Grosse lie Laboratory
NERL - National Ecological Research Lab
-2-
-------
laboratories undertake research and development responsibilities
in a variety of areas. The spectrum ranges from arctic ecology
to temperate ecology with strong emphasis in aquatic ecology,
both fresh-water and marine. Terrestrial ecology is also
included. Historically, the laboratories in this system,
their facilities, and their staffs were formulated to answer
questions about the effects of pollution on different environ-
ments. The historical missions of these laboratories are
still carried on to a great extent today.
Conceptually it is not difficult to relate the effects of
pollution on organisms, populations, or communities to ecology.
Obviously this is a special case of ecological research. However,
to understand clearly the pollution effects on organisms within
an ecosystem, the extent to which the effect on a population (or
on an organism, for that matter) is felt throughout the entire
ecosystem must be clear to the investigator. Thus, a basic
understanding of ecosystem structure and function is a pre-
requisite to clearly define, understand and predict consequences
of pollution perturbations on that ecosystem.
The rationale for giving the Corvallis NERC responsibility
in the area of ecology is a sound one. TTie experience
of the individuals, laboratory facilities, and the class of
problems that the laboratories investigate are essentially and
conceptually ecological in nature.
However, a scientifically debilitating consequence of the overall
NERC-Corvallis system is that EPA's research has become very task-
oriented. Problem solving is the primary goal. There is little
emphasis or support to the broader, long-tem goals of science.
-------
The problem for the NERC-Corvallis, then, is how to assemble and
conceptualize its various activities in a framework that will
allow researchers to measure their progress toward a short-term,
task-oriented goal, and simultaneously provide a method to take
advantage of synthesis situations (i.e., synthesis among the
various tasks that have been performed) to advance the basic
knowledge of the science of ecology and the capability to deal
with future problems.
THE ECOLOGY THEME
Given this environment and having appraised the capabilities of
the NERC-Corvallis system through visits to most of the facilities
and discussions with over one hundred of the laboratory staff,
we have developed a formulation of the ecology theme as follows:
(1) to develop predictability in ecosystem
perturbation caused by the addition or
elimination of pollutants to the environment,
and;
(2) to develop further the science of ecosystem
analysis In order to augment the ability to
predict changes of natural systems (either
through empirical analysis or through
simulation techniques).
The two aspects of this theme statement are related but have a
different focus. In the first part of the statement, the focus
-4-
-------
is on ecosystem perturbations--the kinds of changes that occur
within the ecosystem due to the influence of pollutants. This
involves an understanding of the pathways and impacts of the
pollutant, and cf the sensitive or affected subsystems or processes
of the ecosystem.
The focus of the second statement is on ecosystem analysis,
primarily analysis of natural systems. As we view the problem,
an understanding of the functioning of pollutant-free, natural
systems underpins the ability to predict the effects of
pollutants. Unless we have a better grasp of the base-line,
healthy system and its normal functioning, the predictability
of human modifications and pollutant impacts will be far harder
to achieve.
This theme implies an increase of modeling work but is not limited
to such.activities. A detailed justification for this theme is
shown in Appendix 1.
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
In the course of fonnulating this theme, the TIE
team members who visited the NERC-Corvallis laboratories developed
an understanding of the system's current potentials, obstacles
and frictions. Following a description of the state of the current
system in Section II, some forty specific concerns identified by
TIE are noted in Section III. Analysis of these concerns led
to the development of specific recommendations for improvements
to the system which are presented in Section IV.
-5-
-------
SECTION II - THE CURRENT SYSTEM
A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
A Federal Ad Hoc Committee on Ecological Research.—^in viewing the
national scene found that:
Ecological research activities are scattered
throughout many agencies of the Federal
Government with little overall coordination,
direction, or definition of priorities.
Large volumes of survey, monitoring, and
research information of ecological value
are gathered by Federal agencies, but with
limited or specialized use, primarily by the
collecting agency. These data, together with
non-Federal information, constitute resources
of enormous value if selected, focused,
analyzed, and integrated for applicability to
specific environmental problems, to strengthening
the ecological basis for regulatory actions in
land, water, air, and resource management and
to mitigation of environmental impacts.
Without a Federal focus, response to problems
which require ecological information or
capability will continue to be fragmented,
costly, redundant, and reflexive rather than
strategic, efficient, and contributory to
national goals and productivity.
EPA'S MISSION AND THE ROLE OF THE NERC'S
The EPA is, in its own words, "charged with mounting a broad
comprehensive attack on pollution, filling the need for a
strong independent agency to establish and enforce pollution
control standards."—^ The EPA has dealt primarily with the inter-
action of air and water pollutants on certain aquatic and terrestrial
organisms. In three years it has become the Federal agency with
primary responsibility for protecting the human environment.
Initially its objective was to assist the states in revising inter-
state water quality standards and developing their intrastate
standards to meet the water use objectives set forth by the Congress.
1/ Draft, 1974 unpublished
2/ National Environmental Research Centers, EPA, 1973
-6-
-------
The primary goal of the research arm of EPA is to provide answers and
new approaches for questions posed by the various acts for which EPA
has enforcement responsibility. These questions concern air and
water quality standards that are already established or must be
established before enforcement can take place. The questions
directed to NERC-Corvallis relate to minimum levels of various
pollution parameters which will allow a system to function without,
or with minimal,change. This need implies that the research of
NERC-Corvallis embrace a basic understanding of the structure and
function of aquatic and. terrestrial ecosystems before the effects
of a pollutant or mixture of pollutants can be ascertained and the
proper controls implemented. The problem area within which NERC-
Corvallis must function is clearly an ecosystem science area. To
meet the needs of the EPA, however, NERC-Corvallis and its labor-
atories must be able to predict what will happen within
and to various ecosystems with the addition or the elimination of a
host of pollutants.
In the oast, the research of NERC-Corvallis has been con-
centrated upon (1) ecological effects, (2) transport processes,
and (3) environmental studies. Most of the effort has been devoted
to studies of environmental transport paths and the fate of pollutants
with their concomitant effects on biota of importance to man. There
also has been a concentrated effort to collect scientific information
that will establish criteria upon which specific environmental quality
standards may be based. This is no small undertaking when it is
remembered that the "American way of life" leads to the production
of hundreds of new compounds (potential pollutants) per year and that
there are several thousand hazardous materials currently being used in
interstate commerce.
-7-
-------
RESEARCH PROGRAM PLANNING
A diagram of the EPA Office of Research and Development (OR§D)
Program Unit Hierarchy is shown in Figure 2. The media categorical
R 5 D programs are program categories encompassing all of the activities
within OR§D which support each of the EPA's major regulatory areas
of responsibility (e.g., air, water, etc.) plus two program units
that cut across other responsibilities. All broadly related
research activities are combined under a program area. Each of
these program areas is controlled by a program area manager (PAM)
who is also an 0R§D headquarters division director. Program areas
are subdivided into budgetary and subject sub-units known as program
elements. All activities in the specific subject area and within a
given performing organization are under common program direction by
a program element director (PED) who, in most cases, is a laboratory
director within one of the NERCs. A number of specific environmental
research objectives (EROS) may be formulated within a single program
element. These objectives may arise from many sources (legislative
mandates, specific agency needs y— etc.) but each obj ective must
define a specific identifiable goal or end point and a target date
at which that goal is to be achieved. A research objective achieve-
ment plan (ROAP) for each EROS defines a specific approach to be taken
in achieving the objective and includes specifications of interim mile-
stones and resource requirements. A ROAP is in turn divided into
tasks. A task is an activity under a single individual's direction
having a defined output goal with both a projected termination date
and a projected set of resource requirements.
1/ "It is the general consensus that the need statement concept
— is at best of limited value and in most cases counterproductive.
Consequently, the foundation of the EROS statement is subject
to serious question" (Salishan Marine Critique).
-8-
-------
ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF UNITS
t1
75
350
I
7 /
MEDIA/CATEGORICAL R & 0 PROGRAMS
/ L
ROAP
2000+
TASK
TASK
AREA
AREA
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
ELEMENT
ELEMENT
ELEMENT
ROAP
ROAP
TASK
~T~
TASK
Ik
LONG-TERM INTEGRATED PLAN!
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRUI
(OUTPUT CATEGORIES)
• OBJECTIVE DEFINITION
• DETAILED PLAN DEVELOPMEN'
• RESOURCE PROJECTIONS
• PRIORITY RANKING
• PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DECI
PLANNED WORK UNITS
Figure 2 - OR&D PROGRAM UNIT HIERACHY
-------
An EROS and its associated RQAPs become the basic units for program
decisions. The tasks within a RQAP must be all' those (and only those)
which are essential for its successful accomplishment. Thus, a RQAP
is approved as a whole and never in part and those tasks funded during
each fiscal year are all approved as a group at the time the RQAP is
approved.
Each EROS and RQAP is reexamined at the annual conference of the
program assessment group (PAG) which is composed of senior ORJ?D
officials. Prior to this conference each EROS and RQAP has been reviewed
by its PAM and the priorities are pretty well established for each
program area. At the conference, each RQAP is listed on the wall
according to its suggested priorities; in its program area, and during
the conference the priorities for research for the next fiscal year
are decided. Any RQAP that falls below the level of support for the
next fiscal year is terminated immediately. Thus, it would seem
prudent to construct a RQAP of tasks that could be completed in one
year unless the RQAP is part of an EROS that is estimated to have a
high priority across a time span of several years.
The system as designed is a highly logical and rational system, but
unfortunately, in reality, it does not work this way. PAMs, and
even higher echelon officials, attempt to "play games" with the
system. They have their own prejudices and pet projects, promises
that they have made, bargains that they must keep, and there are
the politics in the system.
The result is a highly capricious system that has evolved out of what
was intended to be a highly rational system. Part of the problem
stems from the fact that the PAMs have no discretionary funds for their
own projects or for new, highly experimental and high risk projects
-------
that they consider useful. The effect of such a capricious system
on the work and morale of the bench level researcher is obvious, and
it is magnified by the fact that there are no phase-out funds. A
bench-level researcher may have been working on a project for two or
three years, may be highly excited about it, and very near completion,
but if the RQAP containing that task receives a low priority rating,
then the researcher must shut the project down immediately. Loss of
priority may result in a year or more of delay before a project may
be reactivated, if at all. The bench-level.researchers' only input
into the PAG conference is through his PED and PAM, or the NERC
Director.
Analysis of the work of scientists has demonstrated that there is a
high correlation between the productivity of scientific researchers
and their involvement in the major decisions about their work.
"Scientists who are given a genuine share in the decision-making
process . . . thereby become more involved in, and committed to, the
technical goals . . . ^ This is'virtually the opposite of the
situation that the EPA bench-researcher confronts within NERC-
Corvallis.
—Scientists in Organizations, Donald C. Pelz
and Frank M. Andrews, Survey Research Center,
University of Michigan, John Wiley § Sons,
1966, pg. 88.
-10-
-------
NERC-CORVALLIS
The history of most of the laboratories — in the Corvallis NERC is
essentially the same. Almost all of them were authorized under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1961 and were set up as a part
of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Roughly a decade
ago, in the mid '60's, the laboratories moved into their present
quarters and their scientific staffs were hired. In 1966 they were
transferred to the Department of Interior along with the rest of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Agency and in December 1970 they were
transferred to the EPA. The attrition of key personnel in the
laboratories has continued to be quite low through time and through
the various organizational transfers. The laboratories have adapted
to new opportunities and new programs, but each one continues to do
largely what it has done since its.inception.
Each laboratory in the Corvallis-NERC has- been given a separate
assignment so that there is very littles competition between them.
The competition that does occur is:mostly in a few overlap areas.
The TIE teams found that there is little cooperation between the
laboratories even when they are working on related projects. There
is no newsletter to outline the tasks included in a particular RiQAP
or the methods being used to approach that task. Except for the
1/ Each laboratory has its separate and individual
characteristics, however, and all of our generaliza-
tions about "the laboratories" have their exceptions.
A brief summary of each laboratory's key
characteristics is shown in Appendix 2 and the
report's references to common features refers to
elements that were frequently noted by TIE's
teams. They may not be applicable to each of
the nine laboratories.
-11-
-------
quarterly meetings of the laboratory directors, there are few inter-
laboratory meetings, conferences, or workshops to bring people in
related fields together—^ A person starting, on a task makes virtually
no effort to find out if any other laboratory within EPA or elsewhere
is engaged in the same task or a similar task and how that task was
approached or what.has been done. From a comnunications
standpoint and, therefore, from a research standpoint each laboratory
is virtually isolated—I
The Salishan Conference convened in 1974 by the
NERC-Corvallis Director was a conspicuous
exception to this generalization. Key
laboratory personnel were involved and a large
number of suggestions and recommendations were
developed which agreed in detail with the
findings of the TIE teams.
Salishan reports repeatedly affirmed the value of
breaking this isolation:
"We need to have more workshop type
meetings including EPA personnel as
well as grantees and contractees"
"Get the bench level people together
more often. We need a vehicle developed
to do this more efficiently. Perhaps
another meeting such as the meeting at
Narragansett last year would be
appropriate".
-12-
-------
The laboratories in NERC-Corvallis, having been subsumed by the
Environmental Protection Agency, necessarily find themselves
responding to the goals of the EPA. One of these primary goals is
for the research arm of the EPA to be attuned to questions deemed
to be important and urgent. Thus, one finds the planning of research
taking place at a level far removed from the research itself.
The intention is to make the researchers responsive to the
various problems faced by the enforcement arm of the EPA and
promoted by the questions asked by the Congress, other federal and
public agencies. It is not an unreasonable approach, except that
it does not take into consideration the interests or the
competencies of the people involved at the researcher level.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ROLES AND ALTERNATIVES
The TIE teams found that the attitudes toward and requests for technical
assistance (T/A) varied with the individual laboratories. The type of
assistance requested ranged from appearing as witnesses in court
cases to investigation of the long range effect of a pollutant being
added to local waters. The time involved varied from the time of one
man for two or three days to an extensive use of laboratory
capabilities for a long period of time. The average time spent on
technical assistance in the first quarter of FY 1974 for NERC-
Corvallis as a whole was six percent, with the extremes being 24
percent at GIL and one percent at NMWQL during this period. Bench
researchers often regarded technical assistance as interference with
their normal research duties and were of the opinion that the requests
frequently came at an inopportune time. Laboratory directors varied
from the extreme of a director saying that he would like to get his
people entirely out of technical assistance to another director who
felt that technical assistance was very useful and contributed to
EPA's goals in an important way.
-13-
-------
Several alternatives to the present system of "ad hoc" consultation
were brought to the attention of the TIE teams. Some EPA regional
offices are developing their own T/A capabilities and creating their
own laboratories. If this pattern were encouraged, there would be
a lessening of demands on the other EPA research laboratories. This
would foster a separation between a system of T/A oriented
researchers who could also undertake routine monitoring functions and
the research laboratories which would focus on longer-range needs.
Still another alternative procedure was suggested in which EPA would
recruit and train an elite corps of scientifically competent
individuals to act as witnesses in court cases. They would function
somewhat like circuit riders on behalf of the regional offices and
serve EPA's legal interests. The research laboratories, in this
model, would undertake only the research aspects of technical
assistance and the professional witnesses would actually appear in
court. Such individuals already exist within the NERC-Corvallis system,
but they have accommodated to this role because of necessity, not
design. If a specially trained cadre did exist, the court appearance
role could be developed into art that blends elements of science with
important legal procedures.
Any of these alternatives to the present laboratory support of
regional offices would not entirely eliminate the need for some
interaction between the research and enforcement functions, but could
reduce the stresses when several high priority needs have to be
reconciled.
THE RESEARCHERS
There are about 350 scientists within the NERC-Corvallis system.
Generalizations drawn from the visits of the TIE teams need to be
-14-
-------
understood in light of the great diversity among this number of
researchers. Morale generally seemed to be good, and
positive feelings were often expressed about the leadership at the \
laboratories and the NERC-Corvallis administration. Individuals
and teams were well-informed about their own particular assignment,'
but often were quite uninformed about related work underway at other
NERC-Corvallis laboratories or in other organizations.
The TIE teams commented that researchers displayed less initiative
or imagination in discussing their work, compared to other scientists
of comparable age or responsibilities. The lack of competition in
the system, the capriciousness with which priorities are assigned /
to RQAPs, the insecurity of not knowing whether a task is to /
be finished, or of being able to best use his initiative in /
completing the task seemed very frustrating. On the other
hand, the security of the government job and the knowledge
that he may have to adapt to new goals if the laboratory is shifted
to a new agency have produced a scientist who functions differently
from his colleagues in academic, state,or industrial settings.
Many of the NERC-Corvallis researchers have lost contact with the
scientists on the outside because there is little inducement for them
to attend conferences or to publish in peer review journals.
Although the individual laboratories have library holdings thought to
be adequate in their own speciality, they lack many of the journals
that would keep their researchers in tune with what the rest of the
scientific community is thinking. There is also a tendency for
some EPA researchers to feel that they are doing the research in
their speciality. They tend to view other scientists,
particularly those from other laboratories, with a certain amount
of hostility. It sometimes seemed as if the laboratory staffs viewed
-15-
-------
other researchers as interested exclusively in extra-mural grants.
The possibility of visits, exchange of ideas, and development of
cross-communication for its own sake seemed foreign to them.
There were conspicuous exceptions to this set of attitudes and.
in seme cases very intimate teamwork seems to have developed
with a particular research group in an industrial or university
laboratory. But these instances were all the more noteworthy
because of their infrequency and the underlying isolation of the
researchers from'their, peers.
The insecurity induced by the program plaining system and the
pressures for task accomplishment have tended to foster an emphasis
upon short-term goals and an attitude characterized by "let's get
the job done"^-j/The long-term goals of research and the broader
questions of science cannot easily find a place in this environment,,
which tends to further isolate NERC-Corvallis researchers -from:
scientists in other situations. From the• point- of view of the' TIE
teams,. this isolation is most unfortunate*. There* are- enormous
benefits to both" groups of scientists' if interactions could be
fostered and: it seems unlikely that either.the EPA researchers alone
or their counterparts in cither groups can achieve the -research
breakthroughs separately that are necessary for long tern pollution
abatement-.
Vf This feel?Lhgi-was also Teflectedj^in' the following-
comments , from.the..Salishan Jiieeting:
"There are two-bases on which we could meet*
legislative objectives:
a") conducting.rdetailed and sophisticated
scientific research to obtain a data base
from twhich :thesec;obj;eetiyesr; could be
defended.from a scientific and legal
point of view;
b) the other way is a quick and dirty catch-up
study which just keeps us out of saw blades."
-16-
-------
SECTION III - AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM FUNCTIONING
In general, the TIE teams "were favorably impressed with what they found
in their laboratory visits, especially when one considers their age and
the limitations placed on them in terms of obtaining key personnel and
facilities. Concern was expressed, for example, that the EPA is
currently studying less than a dozen of the many pesticides now in
use in this country, but from a more positive viewpoint, the TIE
observers were pleased to find that those pesticides are being studied
and the EPA does have plans for studying others.
The TIE participants, however, did uncover a number of issues which at
this early stage in the life of EPA we would prefer to call "concerns."
Some of the more important concerns have been singled out in foregoing
pages. In most cases these concerns were raised in the course of the
TIE team visits by the laboratory personnel. In some cases, they were
generated by a team member's questions or by the comments of a member
of TIE's advisory committee. In almost every case, the concerns were
perceived, either by the TIE teams or by the laboratory personnel as
obstacles which prevented the full potential of the researchers and the
laboratories from realization.
This section presents an annotated list of all the concerns. The
next section presents some suggestions for improvement. The concerns
are listed in no particular order except that a rough attempt has been
made to divide the concerns into those at the EPA level, at the NERC-
Corvallis level, at the laboratory level, and at the researcher level.
This division is somewhat arbitrary since there is necessary inter-
action between each of these levels. The reader is asked to keep an
open mind and apply the suggestions where they are most useful.
-17-
-------
A. EPA-Related Concerns
1. Since its inception EPA has been concerned with brushfire
type campaigns. These crash programs have placed a
terrible strain on our bank of fundamental knowledge. This
may be the reason for one observation of the TIE participants
that some researchers have turned more and more toward pure
research, especially in the biological sciences.
2. The TIE observers noted a high level pf contacts between
the laboratories and the regional EPA offices although
there is no official direct communication line between them,
NERC-Corvallis encourages this type of communication, but
official EPA procedures have not recognized this user-
researcher relationship. Hence, there are conflicting
views about the legitimacy of these "horizontal" relation-
ships .
3. Several different Washington program managers (PAMs) are
often involved in the activities of a laboratory. Project
leaders, at the laboratory level who are accountable to the
same laboratory director, also try to be responsive to
different PAMS. These organizational relationships tend to
fractionate programs, confuse lines of accountability } and
decrease laboratory unity.
4. The funding of the laboratories is not predictable or
congruent with their missions. Senior laboratory staff
invest considerable time to negotiate or re-plan fiscal
authorizations that stem from several Federal laws, in order
to maintain continuity at the bench level.
-18-
-------
5- A corapartmentalization of research programs into EROS,
RQAPs and Tasks develop "tunnel vision" in researchers.
The researcher's viewpoint may become so narrow as a
result that he may not have the breadth of vision of
other scientists who work on several proj ects at the
same time.
6. Particular RQAPs or Tasks may be assigned to a laboratory
that exceed the breadth of-competence, disciplinary mix, or
interests of the available personnel.
7. The technical competence of some Washington research \
staff leaders is not respected in the field. Some of the \
PAM's who direct research are young with no actual bench /
experience. '
8. The time allocated for planned research did not always
seem to be related to the complexity of the subject or to
considerations of continuity or efficiency. Some projects
appeared to be established for a certain length of time
and certain amounts of money and may be discontinued when
either time or money are expended.
9. There seems to be a tendency to oversimplify problems and
assume that meager resources are enough to solve them.—'1
This seems to be a question of planning and the competence of
those who do the planning. One of the concerns expressed
to the TIE visitors by several of the researchers was the
frustration felt after funding was discontinued on a major
program after heavy investment in both people and hardware
had already been made.
1/ The Salishan critique suggested that
"our research programs should be
realistically attuned to the available
manpower and resources."
-19-
-------
10. Another factor contributing to the frustration encountered with
a project's loss of priority is the absence of phase-out funds
for discontinued projects. Knowledge and data from such
programs is often lost to EPA> due to lack of time even for
documentation.
11. Restriction of themes or subthemes to particular laboratories
may waste good people and good programs doing the same sort of
work at other laboratories. Productive programs may be
eliminated and the people put on other projects that they are
not as well qualified to do. This helps to promote the
"tunnel vision" in both laboratories and researchers by
limiting their latitude.
12. Within the present program planning system the laboratories do
not have much flexibility to pursue creative ideas of their
staff concerning regional problems or new research areas. By
the time a new RQAP can be developed and "sold", the time-
liness of the research or the interest in it may have passed.
13. There is little capability to pursue "projects of
opportunity" not included in the annual plans. The
utility and value of some discretionary resources was often
suggested to the TIE teams.
14. Program justification and paperwork management now consumes
a large amount of the time of bench scientists.
15. Personnel ceilings, both in numbers of personnel and GS ratings,
coupled with the inability to change the work force, cause
hardships and reduce staff quality. It is difficult to re-
place a good staff member at his level when he leaves and to
discharge a poor staff member.
-20-
-------
16. Many of the dollars needed for research are drawn away by
short-term, high-cost, low-productivity Washington RFP's.
A number of researchers expressed the belief that more
effective use of these funds could be made.
17. According to many people, some EPA staff act as if their agency
was the only one concerned with environmental research.
Though its research programs are larger than those of any
other agency, EPA research dollars constitute only about
20% of Federal environmental research. Failure to
recognize this wider interest serves to polarize EPA
scientists and researchers from scientists and engineers in
other organizations.
18. Non-EPA scientists have difficulty understanding the public
roles that are sometimes required of EPA researchers in
connection with court cases.. From these same "outside"
scientists comes the concern that the mission of EPA
laboratories had become the "routing of enemies" rather
than a search for facts or new theories. Nor can these scientists
understand why some laboratories accept the responsibility
for materials testing on behalf of private industries.
These examples highlight the communications gaps that
exist between outside scientists and EPA researchers and tend to
prevent their effective collaboration.
19. The 0R§D Planning System is so awkward administratively that
it is amazing that it works, particularly in view of the
continual re-organization and the Washington power struggles.
This situation also applies to the RQAP priority planning
sessions (PAG1s) and to the administrative organization
linking the laboratories to EPA's Washington staffs, (see
following)
-21-
-------
B. NERC Corvallis
20. The multiple accountability of some of the program leaders
within each laboratory is of some concern. Some of them
seem to be more closely tuned to Washington and to the
PAM's than to their actual day-to-day supervisors at the
laboratories and to NERC-Corvallis.
21. Laboratory staffs expressed varied attitudes toward technical
assistance functions. The NERC-Corvallis policies on this
subject were not uniformly understood or given full support.
22. Future modes of relating to EPA regional offices were
frequently discussed. There was. wide recognition that
regional office needs and opportunities are not effectively
exploited now but there was not evidence that alternative
plans were being developed.
23. Separation of laboratory responsibilities has led to the
condition of virtual laboratory isolation. There is little
cooperation between staffs of different laboratories (if
Ada is assigned a problem, Athens can't help with it)
and also little competition between laboratories. The
concept of useful redundancy and healthful competition to
improve the quest of knowledge or excellence seems to be
absent in the NERC-Corvallis system.
24. In order to get necessary research funds, the laboratories
sometimes seem to be overselling their programs. The
programs are described as panaceas when they are only
important steps in the problem-solving process. This
circumstance can adversely influence research productivity
in a number of ways.
1/ See page 13 for further discussion on this
subject.
-22-
-------
(a) Individual researchers sometimes gain a broader
view of research problems than is specified in
the RQAP or the task on which they are working.
Because this broader view was not included in
the RQAP, and it is difficult to make a "course
correction" within the present planning system,
the researcher's full contributions are lost,
(b) Complex questions may be reduced to ones that
are too simple to be useful,
(c) It is difficult to mount really effective approaches
because "quick" answers are the only ones that
matter.
25. The current research emphasis of NERC-Corvallis is built on
process or species viewpoints. TIE's observers felt
there were instances where an ecosystem viewpoint could be
more useful and helpful.
26. Persons within the laboratories and outside of them
expressed the view that NERC-Corvallis is not getting good
value in its extra-mural research in all cases. There may
be several reasons for this, if true, including the
absence of a shared, high regard between researchers within
EPA and those in other groups. Some outside researchers
expressed to TIE teams a reluctance to approach EPA
with research proposals because:
(a) a research idea may lose its identity;
(b) designated extra-mural funds may be awarded
capriciously or diverted;
(c) support may be withdrawn before termination dates;
(d) there is inadequate review of research proposals.
-23-
-------
C. Laboratory Related Concerns
27. There was a considerable variety of views concerning the role of
the laboratories within EPA's overall structure. What can the
laboratories really do best? Long-term continuity studies?
Interface studies with other federal agencies? Testing of
hazardous or toxic substances on standardized species? The
question of an optimum role for the laboratories was frequently
mentioned, but did not appear to the TIE teams to have been
given sufficient attention.
28. The imperious attitude of some EPA staff causes lack of
recognition toward other agencies and outside groups and tends
to create hostility instead of collaboration. TIE's teams
were concerned about the failure (in some laboratories) to
recognize that other agencies and groups contain many
environmental scientists and engineers as do the EPA labs
and that this potential resource is not being optimumly
used in research design and conduct.
29. Communications between some laboratories and other federal
agencies, state agencies, universities,and private environ-
mental consulting firms are inadequate. There is little
effort or receptivity for cooperation with others through
exchange of personnel, visits, seminars, workshops, or
exchanges of literature. (A notable exception is the
excellent series of research newsletters being circulated by
the NERC-Corvallis laboratories).
30. It appeared that some program leaders viewed themselves as
the "master builders" and relegated to others only the
"crank-turning" activities. It seemed to the TIE observers
that some EPA scientists had the attitude that they alone are
the theoreticians and that others cannot contribute to
research planning.
-24-
-------
31. Though the researchers have sound programs and extensive
data, some of the laboratory staffs appear to have poor
publication records, both in professional journals and in
in-house publications of the EPA.
32. Because of its emphasis on in-house reporting and its lack
of student or apprenticeship programs, the laboratories do
not have the transfer mechanisms for new knowledge that are
inherent in the programs of many other agencies.
33. The laboratories' current staffing methods often invest
sole responsibility for a research program in one man.
Success for the project hinges exclusively upon him, in
the absence of greater collaboration and communications
among individuals, teams and branches.
34. The laboratories appear to be lavishly equipped but under-
utilized. In all probability this is a problem of budget
lines and allocations. if money cannot be easily transferred
from one budget line to another, the laboratories mav he
forced into buying expensive equinment when what they
really need is another consultant, another secretary, ^
or additional library.funds.
D. Re3earcher-Related Concerns
35. Some of the program coordinators in the laboratories are
frustrated by their work load and the lack of opportunity to
pursue research projects of their own.
36. Most of the research activities involved persons from a single
discipline. There was little interdisciplinary or multi-
disciplinary team work in evidence.
-25-
-------
37. What is a necessary "critical mass" within the EPA
laboratories? Is it numbers of researchers or is it a
leader or teacher? The TIE observers felt that the most
productive laboratories had a certain number of people
trained in various research areas, but that the most important
element was a leader who gave a cohesive spirit and
challenge to the group.
38. The TIE teams did not expect to find, nor did they find,
the same kind of motivation or commitment that is present
among researchers in other settings. In several instances
the teams were concerned that the work pressures were so
strong that a researcher's scientific commitment had been
displaced by the needs of the job. This circumstance
resulted in marked declines of both productivity and an
objective, scientific attitude among the affected personnel.
39. The laboratories reflect a dichotomy that has resulted
between task and science philosophies, so that many
researchers have a short-term task outlook rather than a
long-term, scientific outlook.
40. The TIE teams were concerned with how much this inertia of
the past, that is, the drag of past history, has to do with
the current outlook of the researchers. (The researchers
constitute an "old" group in many ways due to the long
period of time together and the low turnover rate.)
This situation may contribute to the degree of specialization
that was found, the reduced productivity in some instances, —
and the inability of some groups to come to grips with the
potential benefits of the NERC-Corvallis ecology theme.
1/ " . . .we noticed a general decline in scientific
contributions as group age increased . . .
older groups were more specialized ..."
Scientists in Organizations, pg. 241, op.cit.
-26-
-------
SECTION IV - RECGMMENQATIDNS FOR NERC-CORVALLIS
In the preceding section, TIE presented an annotated list of concerns.
NERC-Corvallis and the EPA as a whole are not unaware of these problems,
and they have taken some.initial steps necessary to correct them.
Many of the concerns that we have listed in the preceding section were
also voiced by people within NERC-Corvallis at the Salishan Conference.
The EPA as a whole is currently engaged in restructuring its organiza-
tional plan for research and the research planning process. Reports
from a task force of the National Academy of Sciences and an internal
EPA review group have highlighted current problems and recommended
necessary changes. TIE has been asked to participate in this NAS
task force and strongly endorses its findings.
In this section of the report, TIE has documented specific recom-
mendations for changes in the NERC-Corvallis system. Although there
are indications that many improvements at the national EPA level can
assist NERC and laboratory functioning and theme implementation, TIE
teams neither had first-hand knowledge or the mandate to address such
issues, although they are included in the listing of concerns.
The recommendations were prepared by TIE team leaders, with the
assistance of the TIE advisory committee to the project, based upon
the listing of concerns. There is no direct, one-to-one correspondence
between concerns and recommendations, but a table of relationships is
shown as Figure 3.
NERC-Corvallis circulated the initial draft of these recommendations
to the laboratory directors. During the quarterly laboratory directors
meeting in September, 1974, each of these items was reviewed and
questions and comments offered by the directors. This feedback was
-27-
-------
Figure 3
RELATION OF CONCERNS TO RECCMENDATIONS
Recommendation Short Concern
Number Title Numbers
#1 NERC Theme Review 25,39,40
#2 Analysis and Simulation Groups — 23,25,30
#3 Criteria for Program Evaluation 19,27
#4 R § D Benefits Evaluation 16,27,34
#5 Research Priorities 4,6,7,8,9,19
#6 Discretionary Research 5,12,13,35
#7 Spreading T/A Workload 21,22,27
#8 Regional Office Liaison 2,22
#9 Personnel Augmentation 6,15,23,29,30,40
#10 Ad Hoc Teams 3,5,6,11,19,23,33
#11 Training 6,15,25,36
#12 Peer Review Processes 29,31,32
#13 Geographic Specialization 12,13,23,27,28
#14 Collaboration with Federal Researchers 15,17,28,29,30
#15 Innovative Rewards 12,13,35,38
#16 Joint Appointments 15,17,18,29,30
#17 Publication in Open Literature 29,31,39
#18 "Outside" Ideas 18,26,29,30,40
#19 Library Augmentation 29,32
#20 Research Advisory Panels (lab level) 19,29,40
#21 Short Term Staff Travel 11,23,29,40
#22 Extra-Mural Monitoring 18,26,29
#23 "State-of-the Art" Meetings 7,11,18,26,28,29,30
#24 Sponsoring Symposia 11,18,22,23,25,29
#25 Lab Mix of Disciplines 36,27
#26 Systems Analysis Capability — 24,25
#27 Modeling Task Force — 25,39
1/ Related recommendations with integrative potential.
-28-
-------
Recommendation Short Concern
Number Title Numbers
#28 Inter-Media Pollutant Transfer 3,24,40
#29 "Paperwork" Management 4,19,20
#30 Phase Down Planning 8,9,10
#31 Social and Economic Research Integration 5,27,29,36
#32 EPA Research Consumer Review 1,2,3,17,22,27,29
-29-
-------
circulated to the TIE Advisory Committee and to the laboratory
directors following the meeting and additional comments and
suggestions solicited.
The TIE team leaders and advisory committee subsequently revised
the initial statements in consideration of this feedback and to
clarify or improve them.
The following 32 recommendations are grouped in seven general areas,
in the following order:
A. Unified Theme for NERC-Corvallis
B. Planning Issues
C. Laboratory Operations
D. Interface with non-EPA Communities
E. Interdisciplinary Research
F. Inter-media Pollutant Transfer
G. Other Recommendations-
Several cautionary notes apply to both the Findings and the
Recommendations:
1) In many instances, what is being suggested is
already begun or in regular practice at NERC-
Corvallis. When this is the case, the recom-
mendation is made to increase the level of
activity.
2) In some instances, the recommendation applies only
to one or a few of the laboratories or personnel
in the NERC system. It does not apply or is not
needed in all laboratories.
3) Some may require approval of EPA or 0MB.
Based on these recommendations, two cross-reference tables have
been provided:
-30-
-------
1) Priority Listing: The eleven recommendations which, are felt to
have the highest priority are shown in Figure 4 (page 32). They
are also identified with an asterisk in the text.
2) Initiating Action: For any recommendation, there may be shared
interest or responsibility by different groups within NERC-Corvallis.
The group that seemed to TIE likely to have the best success in
initiating a recommendation is identified on Figure 5, page 42 .
-31-
-------
Figure 4
HIGHEST PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Number Page Short Title
1 33 NERC-Corvallis Theme Review
3 34 Criteria for Program Evaluation
4 34 R § D Benefits Evaluation
9 35 Personnel Augmentation
10 36 Ad-Hoc Teams and Lowered Fences
20 38 Research Advisory Panels
22 38 Extra-Mural Monitoring
26 40 Systems Analysis Capability
27 40 Systems Analysis Programs
31 41 Social and Economic Research Integration
32 41 EPA Research Consumer -Review
-32-
-------
A. A Unified Theme for NERC-Corvallis
Findings: Since the system of laboratories took on a broader
objective several years ago, there has been little significant
realignment of programs. To utilize better the unique and
complementary resources of NERC-Corvallis, individuals and
groups should subscribe to some unifying direction.
Recommendations:
* 1. The theme that is feasible, and consistent with legislative
program directions includes two parts;
(a) to develop predictability in ecosystem
perturbation (caused by the addition or
elimination of pollutants), and
(b) to develop further the science of
ecosystem analysis in order to augment
the ability to predict change of natural
systems (either through empirical analysis
or simulation techniques).
2. There should be an opportunity to develop informal analysis
and simulation groups at each laboratory, and also one at the
NERC level. These groups should perform four functions:
(a) pointing out opportunities for research
at an ecosystem level;
(b) providing analysis and simulation services
to all branches within the laboratory;
(c) measuring progress towards the overall
NERC-Corvallis theme;
(d) fostering advances in theory and the
synthesis of research, activities.—^
1/ See also recommendations 26 and 27.
-33-
-------
*3. A set of criteria should be developed and periodically revised,
by which the program directions and accomplishments of NERC-
Corvallis can be measured. ~
B. Planning Issues
Findings: The planning process within EPA appears to us to be the
weakest link in the many steps necessary for research to support
EPA's statutory functions. The following recommendations for
possible improvements in the planning process at the laboratory
or NERC level appear to us to merit consideration. We do not
include here any suggestions for changes at the EPA level, since
these are the objects of study of other groups. We do subscribe
completely to the NAS Task Force which has recommended simplifi-
cation, decentralization and extensive revision of the current
planning and programming system
Recommendations:
*4. Increased effort to quantify benefits and costs of R § D
work, before deciding on objectives and methods. Such
quantification can use economic, social, scientific or other
objective measures, which could best be developed by field and
headquarters staff of EPA together.
5. Increased participation of bench scientists in the design
of research and the determination of research priorities.
6. Authorization of specific discretionary research appropriations
to each laboratory for the development of ideas that cannot be
fully justified by immediate needs within EPA.
7. Taking account of the periodic needs for short-term
consultations and support to EPA regional offices (or head-
quarters), and building this "unexpected" demand into work
schedules at each laboratory. This implies more equitable
distribution of the overall technical assistance function among
1/ See page 45 for illustration.
-34-
-------
many more researchers than are presently involved, or development
of a cadre of specialists who focus their attention on this work.
8. Providing routine and regular communication, including
personnel interchange, with EPA regional offices. This may
imply establishment of a special unit or responsibility for
regional office liaison, as in the "extension worker" model.
It also entails useful work roles for rotating personnel, not
merely a visitor's role.
C. Laboratory Operations
Findings: The productivity of the laboratories varies widely;
even within a laboratory there is enormous variability among
the units. There are widespread differences (again between
laboratories and within some of them) in orientation: the task
and problem solving outlook is favored by some and the long-
term goal outlook by others. There is also some coupe1ling
evidence that many individuals have been "riding" on the
momentum in their laboratories and have not helped to build a
dynamic, cohesive system that moves with or ahead of the times.
The effectiveness of each laboratory and the group of
laboratories can be increased. The following specific measures
are suggested:
Recommendations:
* 9. The current personnel ceilings create difficult and inefficient
working conditions; more flexibility in staffing is needed,
including:
(a) greater use of contract technical support
to assist busy, senior personnel;
Cb) use of scientific volunteers and paid on-
site consultants to assist in design of
research, work review, quality control
and personnel evaluation;
-35-
-------
(c) rotation of personnel to and from the
laboratories on a temporary basis, including
use of loaned personnel from outside of
government (sabbatical leaves) and from
other government agencies.
(d) Revision of ineffective SRO procedures to
get help from other EPA laboratories.
* 10. While continuing to work largely in their usual units (or
branches), researchers can also devote substantial amounts of
time to serving on ad hoc teams for problem solving, technical
assistance, and research. Continued efforts are needed to
"lower fences" between the laboratories ( as in the Salishan
meeting), between working groups within a laboratory, and
between the researchers and the user community in EPA regional
offices.
11. Institution of a planned training and education
program for those individuals desiring to broaden their
capacities and a series of ecology seminars for all persons.
Personnel should be encouraged to get away from their
laboratories for a time and work with a different group or
take advantage of educational programs.
12. Increased utilization of •'peer review" processes both for
internal EPA reports and for other kinds of publications and
reports,
13. In addition to special competencies they now possess,
certain laboratories could develop regional or other geographic
specialization to deal with the problems associated with, specific
ecosystems.
14. Further initiatives to collaborate with other Federal
researchers and user agencies, both in the role of research
sponsor and research performer.
-36-
-------
15. Development of new kinds of reward mechanisms for innovative
actions and the stimulation of some (mild) competitive behavior.
This might include authorizations for important continuing
research under the direction of the selected individual.
D. Interface with Non-EPA Communities
Findings: With some notable exceptions, a large proportion of
the personnel seem to be very distant from their colleagues in
the science and engineering communities. One liability of this
isolation is that outstanding younger scientists and engineers
are not being fed into the system of laboratories by their
teachers and their respective interest communities. There
are clearly other benefits from increased interactions with
peers.
Recommendations:
16. Seek the opportunities for joint appointments of an
individual, by EPA laboratories and other organizations. The
individual would share his work time between the two organiza-
tions.
17. Increase the inducements within the NERCrCorvallis system
for publication within the open literature. This implies that
responsibilities and resources should be tied more closely to
this measure of performance.
18. Develop more responsive mechanisms to react to "outside"
ideas and proposals, not only with the view to sponsoring them,
but of sharing insights on common problems.
19. Establish an effective inter-library loan service and a
means whereby researchers can easily be apprised of technical
reports of other groups.
37-
-------
*20. Establish informal advisory panels on various research
topics, to foster interchange of views on a continuing basis -
both at various NERC laboratories and on a NERC-wide basis.
21. Encourage increase in short-term travel, both to visit
groups working on similar issues and to the periodic meetings
of professional organizations in relevant fields.
*22. Revise procedures for development and monitoring of extra-
mural research grants and contracts, including those sponsored
by other EPA laboratories (outside of NERC-Corvallis) and by
0 R § D. Current procedures sometimes result in little genuine
interest by the individual assigned as monitor, and little
fruitful interchange between the grantee and EPA. Specifically,
(a) Increased face-to-face contacts should
be stimulated between EPA staff and
extra-mural researchers;
(b) Monitors of grants and contracts should
be the same individuals designing the
research or accountable for the
overall work;
(c) Grant and contract procedures should be
decentralized to the maximum possible
extent;
(d) More EPA staff time may have to be
programmed to generate and to monitor
truly beneficial extra-mural work.
23. Annual meetings — should be considered by each laboratory, to
V These could be followed up by monthly seminars, if the annual
meeting uncovers interested and helpful resource persons.
-38-
-------
which other Federal and state researchers, industry or university
researchers and private research/engineering firms are invited.
The purpose of this meeting would be to inform the other groups
of laboratory directions and to leam from the other groups about
their interests and capabilities. Afterwards, tasks should be
assigned. The information gained from these diverse sources
should be funneled back to the EPA as part of a revised research
needs system.
24. Increase the number and variety of useful symposia or work-
shops sponsored by the laboratories, in which other EPA researchers
and "outsiders" focus their attention on specific questions or
topics. The excellent series of research bibliographies and
periodic research newsletters are warmly endorsed. The mailing
lists of these publications can be used to determine invitees
to these suggested workshops.
E. Interdisciplinary Research
Findings: The NERC-Corvallis laboratories are in an unusually
good position to undertake interdisciplinary research. This
finding stems from the charters or missions that they individually
carry and which NERC-Corvallis carries and from the varied skills
represented in their staffs. The successful research laboratories
of the future will be characterized by this approach. In
anticipation of this changing mode of research conduct, there are
a number of specific initiatives that can be considered by the
laboratories.
Recommendations:
25. The existing wide mix of disciplines working within the NERC-
Corvallis laboratories should be continued. Periodic review of the
-39-
-------
competencies needed or authorized should take account of the need to
continue and increase this broad range of talents.
*26. The development of systems analysis capability within the
NERC-Corvallis system should be encouraged. This can be accom-
plished not only through recruitment, but by training programs,
and standby consultative services available to the laboratories.
*27. The Modeling Task Force growing out of the Salishan ^Meeting
and the proposed analysis and simulation groups, should be
encouraged to review potential needs and applications for new
systems analysis programs.
F. Inter-media Pollutant Transfer
Findings: There is a need to differentiate problems and research
strategies beyond the general categories "water pollution," "air
pollution," "industrial pollution," etc. A set of sub-categories
that identifies the likely subject of the pollutant's impacts
(water chemistry, water temperature, species composition, soils,
plant effects) could perhaps be used in conjunction with the
medium (air, water) which initially carries the pollutants. At
the same time, it is necessary to view the cycling of pollutants
holistically, to avoid the simple transfer of a problem area
from one subject or medium to another (burning a residual or land
disposal instead of "disposing" of it in surface waters).
Recommendation:
28. A national committee, assisted by groups at each of the
laboratories, should focus on inter-media pollutant transfer and
the integration of research topics within an overall systems
concept.
-40-
-------
G. Other Recommendations:
29. Development of methods to reduce the very large amount of
time now being spent in program justification'and paperwork
management.
30. Review of the manner in which research is phased down, to
assure that accomplishments are not lost. This suggests the need
to provide phase-out funds to document what has been accomplished
in terminated programs.
*31. Integration of social and economic research, in certain
instances, with the biological, chemical or physical research;
generally, fostering integration with other organizations
concerned with the views of social scientists on air and water
quality issues.
*32. Review of the present users of EPA research (both ultimate
consumers and intermediate consumers) and determining in light
of Congressional mandates and EPA regulations what changes or
modifications in this constituency are necessary or useful.
-41-
-------
Figure 5
RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED BY INITIATING GROUP
A. Bench Researchers
# 5 - research priorities
8 - regional office liaison
10 - ad hoc teams and lowered fences
11 - training
B. Branch Supervisors
# 7 - spreading T/A workload
18 - "outside" ideas
21 - short term staff travel
24 - sponsoring symposia
30 - phase down planning
C. Senior Laboratory Staff
#13 - geographic specialization
17 - publication in open literature
19 - library augmentation
20 - research advisory panels (laboratory level)
22 - extra-mural monitoring
25 - laboratory mixture of disciplines
D. Laboratory Directors - individuals (see also item G below)
# 9 - personnel augmentation
12 - peer review processes
15 - innovative rewards
16 - joint appointments
23 - "state of the art" meetings
E. NERC-Corvallis Staff
# 4 - R § D benefits evaluation
14 - collaboration with federal researchers
20 - research advisory panels (NERC level)
26 - systems analysis capability
29 - "paperwork" management
31 - social and economic research integration
-42-
-------
F. NERC Director
# 3 - criteria for program evaluation
6 - discretionary research
28 - inter-media pollutant transfer
G. Laboratory Directors jointly with NERC Director
# 1 - NERC theme review
2 - analysis and simulation group(s) (see item #27)
27 - systems analysis programs
32 - EPA research consumer review
-43-
-------
APPENDIX 1
An Ecology Theme for NERC-Corvallis
What is an Ecology Theme?
Perhaps the clearest way to begin to specify a theme for NERC-
Corvallis is to identify what is meant by a theme and how such, a
theme might be related to the NERC's current and future modes of
operation. An operational theme, in our view, must meet six
tests: (1) A theme must embody definable subject matter area,
which in this case is ecology; (2) the subject matter area must
be reasonably well constrained based on the NERC's capability in
terms of personnel, facilities and research history; (3) the theme
must be such that progress within a time framework can be measured;
(4) the theme must identify an output towards which progress can
also be measured; (5) the theme must be sufficiently broad to
encompass EPA goals or objectives as set forth by the EROS
statements (or other planning documents); (6) the theme must
provide a rationale or a framework to encompass specific research
plans (RQAPs or other units) and also provide for progress towards
longer-term scientific understanding.
Criteria for Program Directions
Even apart from the ecology theme, it is possible to establish a
set of criteria for any program, by which accomplishments can be
measured. On the research project level, such measurements are
familiar to scientists in the NERC-Corvallis system. On the NERC-
Program level, and perhaps within each laboratory also, it may be
helpful to establish such criteria, periodically review and revise
them and use this frame of reference for self-evaluation.
The construction of such criteria can best be accomplished by
persons within NERC-Corvallis and the nine-points shown on Figure 6
are only illustrative of the kinds of criteria we are suggesting.
-44-
-------
Figure 6
SAMPLE CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM DIRECTIONS
1. Conformity to existing statutory research directions
for EPA, either directly stated or implied.
2. Support to current or future EPA regulatory or
monitoring missions.
3. Anticipation of future knowledge requirements to
support future implementation of (1) and (2) above.
4. Ability to forecast and plan for large scale changes
in stress-generating or stress alleviating aspects of
society or technology.
5. Optimizing personnel/facilities/equipment/extant data
with reference to:
a) an individual laboratory;
b) the set of all NERC-Corvallis laboratories;
c) the set of EPA NERCs;
d) the set of Federal environmental laboratories
e) total ecological effects research capability
(public and private).
6. High ratio of (documented) economic, social or environmental
benefits as determined by quantified benefits over research
investment.
7. Capacity to swiftly allocate resources to new problem areas
or research directions as they are identified.
8. Capacity to describe and predict increasingly complex
pollutant-ecosystem interactions and effects, ranging
upwards on a scale from discrete abiotic reactions to
ecosystem interactions.
9. Capability to swiftly transfer scientific methodology
and/or findings to the various user communities.
-45-
-------
How Can the Corvallis NERC Relate to a Theme?
Inasmuch as a theme implies a long-term commitment to an area of
science, it also infers that production in that science is mandatory.
It is important, therefore, that the scientists and technicians of the
various laboratories be dedicated to the philosophy of the theme.
The theme, thus, dictates that a philosophy or an attitude of science
prevail with all of its workers; that a commitment be made by
individual scientists and technicians, branch chiefs, laboratory
directors, and the Corvallis NERC staff that goes beyond short term
problem solution based on EROS's and RQAP's. This philosophy implies
that the EROS's and RQAP's are merely steps toward the achievement
of an overall goal and not ends in themselves.—^ The NERC becomes
the primary coordinating point with the responsibility for keeping
the philosophy of the theme foremost in the minds of its laboratories'
personnel. In this way NERC-Corvallis becomes the organizational focal
point for an ecology theme while its laboratories are more clearly
and explicitly responsible for progress toward goals or subgoals
within that theme.
Achievement Within an Ecology Theme
What was alluded to in the foregoing sections was that requirements
for achievement within a theme should be all pervasive in the
organization. This includes everything from the attitude of individuals
through the organizational apparatus that facilities progress towards
goals and objectives. Obviously if one is dealing in a field of
science constrained by a theme, it is necessary that the competence
1/ "Although we must be responsive to the needs of the Agency, we
also should have long-term planning rather than reactionary
research" (Salishan report)
-46-
-------
of key staff be of a broad enough distribution to account for all
contingencies that are posed within that scientific field, or that
the facility exists that the competence may be, supplemented by other
resources where it is lacking on the staff of the laboratories. The
facilities must, of course, be adequate to serve the scientists within
the program. The environment, which is, in this context, largely
an attitudinal environment, must be one that will foster accomplish-
ment. in both the problem/solution area (as posed by the RQAPs and the
EROS's) as well as in the overall scientific field, where new know-
ledge is the chief measure. Last, but not least, communications must
be adequate. That includes communications between individuals within
a given branch, communication between branches, communication between
laboratories, communications between laboratories and the NERC, and
above all communication with the scientific community. If NERC-
Corvallis is to continue to be a significant organization in terms
of making scientific advances, its scientists must have frequent
interchange of ideas with their peers both inside and outside of the
EPA.
What are the Obstacles to Achievement Within an Ecology Theme?
There currently exists an official dichotomy between the planning
function and the research function. Planning largely takes place
at the Washington level of EPA in the formulation of EROS's. The
EROS's in turn are responded to by the scientists within the
laboratory through the mechanism of RQAPs. Opportunity for unofficial
liaison with planning officers does exist. However, it is burden-
some for people to work in an unofficial capacity within a bureaucracy
since personal involvement and contribution of ideas are important
elements of a successful research organization.
-47-
-------
At a very minimum, the planning process needs to involve the action-
level scientist, who can contribute best an understanding of the
practical limitations of research objectives.
Presumably the "ecological effects and processes'* theme is broad
enough to encompass any goals that are ecological in nature, but
the NERC-Corvallis must take care not to dissipate its effectiveness
by allowing EROS's to be assigned to it that are beyond the
capacity of the organization. Sometimes, it is best to say "no"
to an assignment, where another group can better manage it.
The second area that seems important as a possible obstacle to
achievements within the ecology theme is the personal philosophies
of laboratory directors, branch leaders, and individual scientists.
TIE's teams were impressed by "what appeared to be a predominance of
a task and problem solving orientation where achievement of problem
solutions is the major goal in mind. To be sure, this was not all
pervasive, and is understandable in light of the dominant pressures
within EPA. There also was a more long-term goal orientation in the
laboratories, reflecting an understanding that problem solutions need
new knowledge, as well as available knowledge.
These constrasting orientations are probably a valuable asset to a
research program. The important point we wish to make is that there
should be a balance between an engineering and a scientific approach
if a long-term effort is to be sustained. If a research group only
uses existing information and a short-term approach, it cannot make
a continuing contribution in the research field. Therefore, all of
the responsibilities attendant to a science philosophy should be
recognized and encouraged. These include: CI) independent and
synthesizing thought, (2) exchange of ideas within and beyond the
boundaries of the laboratory, (3) scrutiny of ideas by peers in and
out o£ EPA, and (4) the responsibility to publish, so as to refine
ideas further.
^48-
-------
Communications poses a third obstacle for NERC-Corvallis. It
was observed by the TIE teams that the extent of external
communication among the different groups we visited was
highly variable. This in part perhaps reflects the point
mentioned above; the differences between the task-oriented
and the science-oriented philosophies. Generally speaking,
individuals with engineering-oriented philosophies tend to
communicate internally with a minimum of publications in
peer review journals, whereas those with a stronger scientific
orientation tend to communicate more externally as well as
internally with substantial record of production in peer
review journals.
A fourth obstacle which also seems apparent in the organization of
the laboratories in NERC-Corvallis is an organizational or bureau-
cratic obstacle. Branch laboratories have a tendency to become
isolated with each branch chief endeavoring to strengthen his own
laboratory and further his own recognition. This is not an uncommon
occurrence in organizations of any kind, including academic
institutions, but it does result in redundancy of competence and
effort because the departmental barriers often are barriers to
communication as well as to the flow of talent among programs.
These obstacles are not intended to single out any laboratory or branch,
but are expressed simply as the impressions gained by the TIE teams
of what is now occuring in the NERC-Corvallis system. They are
obstacles which must be taken into consideration if there is to be
achievement within an ecology theme or any other group effort.
-49-
-------
Theme Formulation
The spectrum of activity undertaken or capable of being undertaken, in
an ecological context in NERC-Corvallis is so extensive to support the
expression of a broad theme. TIE's view of the theme is stated on page
4 of this report.
Implementation of the Theme
The magnitude of the programs of most of the laboratories visited
is great enough that some form of organizational apparatus can be
created to seek support for the ecosystem theme. Each laboratory
could include a unit which we call an analysis and simulation group-r^
It should be a group that serves both the service" function to
the branches of each laboratory in providing design assistance,
pointing out sensitive areas of ecosystems to be researched, and
measuring progress for the system of laboratories in relation to the
NERC-Corvallis theme. Such a group within each laboratory can be
formulated on an ad hoc basis without going through a specific
organizational change, or it can become a separate body with
representatives in each branch, or it can be both. At the same time
NERC-Corvallis would be charged with the responsibility of seeing
that each of the laboratories is directing its attention to the
theme and could constitute an interlaboratory committee (preferably
with outsiders) to review and analyze the progress each of the
laboratories is making toward achievement within the theme.
y There are similarities of this group to the ad hoc task
Torce on modeling that was recommended at the Salishan meeting,
and which drafted a noteworthy report in the summer. Although the
analysis and simulation group concept is broader than modeling
alone, both groups are seen to be of service to the laboratories
and the NERC system, and both deal with a la;rge viewpoint of the
NERC-Corvallis mission.
-50-
-------
Because the theme goes beyond answering specific questions or solving
specific problems, there needs also to be a mechanism whereby theoretical
thought and synthesis can occur. This function might be the respon-
sibility of the analysis and simulation group¦but clearly if this
responsibility is undertaken theoretical competence must be included
in the group. It is possible that a theory-focused group could be
constituted at the NERC-Corvallis level, which would have as its
function the development of ecosystem theory and predictability based
on the output of the various laboratories, as well as on the open
literature.
With this type of structure and with the analytical synthesizing and
theorizing functions included, the ecology theme for the laboratories
makes a great deal of sense and can, at the same time, meet the
immediate and long term goals of EPA.
The Benefits
The concept of a separate and identifiable theme for each of the NERCs.
likely arose from the need for some degree of specialization without
strict compartmentalization in the entire EPA research network. This
goal has been partially achieved. Another benefit from an identified
theme for a geographically dispersed organization is the sense of
common purpose that can be engendered, and toward which accomplishments
can be measured. In a system like EPA, where frequent redirections
and "firefighting" is necessary, the stability of an over-riding theme
can help overcome short-term frustrations. Finally, a theme.that is
widely recognized can provide the basis for increased interactions among
the separate laboratories and gain recognition for the laboratories as
a national resource.
-51-
-------
Appendix 2
Key Features of the Laboratories
The Arctic Environmental Research Laboratory (AERL)
The TIE team visited a small group of about 20 competent people in the
laboratory with expertise in microbial biology, fishery biology, soils
and both organic and physical chemistry, organized to study a variety
of topics including:
. sedimentation processes and biological effects
of rechannelization;
. effect of watershed management on aquatic ecosystems;
. microbial oil degradation at low temperatures;
. winter survival of viruses in Alaskan rivers;
. oil effects on the estuarine environment;
. low dissolved oxygen and its effects of fishes.
Communications among the group's members was good and there was evidence
of free and easy interchange of ideas among the different projects.
Morale was surprisingly high in spite of the harsh climate in the
area.
The group is not now able to form a critical mass working on a
coherent ecosystem study for two reasons: numbers of people and
competencies involved are not adequate and; secondly, ecologically
trained, ecosystem oriented scientists are not present in the
organization.
The problems in the arctic are unique and do require special talents,
but before a coherent ecosystem study can be mounted, elaboration
of skills must take place. This can be accomplished in several
ways: through the extramural program applying ecological expertise
to specific tasks, through advisory consultation with ecologists,
or through increasing the line staff with ecologists.
An immediate primary focus of the laboratory might be to develop a
capability to quantitatively predict potential changes, physical,
chemical and biological in Alaskan rivers, especially in the winter.
-52-
-------
In addition, the ecosystem level effect of oil spills and logging on
tundra, taiga and in arctic estuaries are also important facets of work
in Alaska. The overall focus of the Alaska laboratory could be cold
climate ecosystem ecology with emphasis on (1) monitoring representa-
tive ecosystems; (2) determining the influence of environmental
modifications on processes of decomposition, photosynthesis and
secondary production and; (3) developing predictive models for the
systems being studied.
Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory (GBERL)
This laboratory staff of about 40 persons is composed mainly of
biologists and evidenced high morale despite severe manpower constraints
that made typists and dishwashers out of senior scientists. The
research focus is on marine ecological effects of pesticides and other
chemicals. There is a large number of "one man - one project" program
elements, but communications among the scientists was high, and working
groups are formed for specific assignments and terminated at its
completion.
The interest areas and skills of this group, which was transferred
from the National Marine Fisheries Service, makes the prospect of
shifting to an ecological systems orientation difficult.
Technical assistance demands have been very great at this laboratory.
This absence of communications with other research groups has limited
the program's effectiveness, though their work on pesticides is of
very high quality.
Grosse lie Laboratory (GIL)
This laboratory concerned with large lakes research was not visited and
the following information has been obtained by interview with the
laboratory director.
-53-
-------
There is a small (7-person) professional staff and a large proportion
of extra-mural work. The interactions with these grantees/contractors
seem very strong. Also, the laboratory is intensively involved in
providing service to the Chicago EPA Regional office and the Inter-
national Joint Commission on the Great Lakes. There are other
"outside" collaborative research efforts as well.
The Director displayed considerable understanding of the limits and
benefits of university-laboratory interaction and a very pragmatic
view of the needs of the small group to maximize its time and resource
in light of the court challenges to EPA's regulatory functions.
The group seems to have achieved a balance between research manage-
ment and "hands on" research.
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (KERL)
The several programs underway at the Ada Laboratory include:
. Water Quality Control;
. Groundwater Research;
. Treatment and Control Research.
There were many indications that the laboratory was well organized,
that staff support for the administration of the laboratory was good,
and that a cooperative spirit appeared to be evident throughout the
entire laboratory. The scientific staff of about 40 persons in the
laboratory appeared to be interested in their work, concerned about
it, and judging from the number of reports and publications coming
from the laboratory, the overall contribution to their areas of
interest was high.
Environmental problems of concern to this laboratory are acknowledged
to be ijnportant and some of them, particularly those concerned with the
development of new and additional energy sources, will most certainly
-54-
-------
require additional attention. Since these are of an urgent nature
and require immediate answers, such studies may require a special
effort on the part of the laboratory staff. There will be a
continuing need for short-term research on a "crisis" basis on many
types of problems but there appears to be a need for more careful
assessment of what constitutes a "crisis," particularly when it
requires the reduction of effort on other problems. The continued
crash program approach to problem solving has resulted in a sense
of frustration on the part of the investigators and has often
resulted in the postponement and abandonment of long-term research
programs. It would appear that the decision to assign a crash
program to a laboratory is often done without collaborative planning
by the laboratory leadership or personnel, but is imposed on them
from higher administrative levels.
There is very little of an ecological approach now used at this
laboratory and little capability for assessing biological aspects
of its research projects (i.e., toxicity of industrial effluent).
Hie laboratory staff is aware of this situation, and in this
context additional staff or other resource persons with broad
ecological training could be useful.
The National Ecological Research Laboratory (NERL)
This laboratory is composed of a young and aggressive group of about
25 people drawn from the air pollution programs of EPA and recently
moved to Corvallis. Their focus is on terrestial ecosystems and
included programs concerned with:
. ecological effects of air pollution;
. effects of pesticides;
. effect of salt drift;
. predictive modeling of air pollutants.
-RR-
-------
The abilities and interests included ecosystem modeling, plant-
oriented physiologists and pathologists. The laboratory director
has added skills and new viewpoints to the group by taking
advantage of the intergovernmental personnel act, holding frequent
seminars and workshops and encouraging high levels of interchange
among the different working teams.
This laboratory appeared to the TIE team to be very well organized
to approach ecological problems. An effort was made within the
laboratory to maintain low branch profiles and allow movement of
competence and people among the various different tasks to be
performed. In addition, a modeling-oriented group was formed and
served all aspects of the program.
In our view, this was an important reason for the significant
inter-disciplinary accomplishments of this laboratory. Many of
the laboratory personnel had an ecosystem philosophy that allowed
their activities to be integrated.
National Marine Water Quality Laboratory (NMWQL)
This large laboratory, with about 70 scientists is charged with major
environmental quality issues in the estuarine and coastal environment.
There is great emphasis on program coordination within the laboratory,
including a staff charged with this responsibility. The staff morale
seemed very high and there was marked enthusiasm in the group and
a strong relationship with their neighbors in the University of Rhode
Island.
Excellent work is started in pathological studies, ocean dumping and
heavy metals, but the available resources fall very short of the
extensive program responsibilities.
-56-
-------
The National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL)
The mission of this large laboratory (about 85 scientists) is to
establish the necessary criteria to protect the viable aquatic
environment and, to implement this goal, the work has been divided
into the following specific units and special work groups have
been formed to carry out the research on each of these:
. to furnish bioassay support for Headquarters and
Regional Offices on request;
. to study the effect of synthetic organic chemical
compounds on selected aquatic life;
. to determine the temperature and oxygen requirements
of aquatic life;
. to study the effects of mixed gas supersaturation
on natural environments;
. to study the effects of heavy metals on aquatic
organisms;
. to develop biological test methods for determination
of toxicant criteria;
. to develop short-cut methods to determine toxicant
criteria;
. to determine the effects of complex effluents on
freshwater aquatic life;
. to determine the effects of waste oil on aquatic life.
The basic philosophy of operation of the laboratory is to develop
a pool of competent manpower capable of addressing itself to the
mission of the laboratory and then from this, assemble units to
address special problems as the need arises. Such teams have been
developed to study pesticides, heavy metals, temperature and oxygen
demands and other problems of a similar nature for which numerical
-57-
-------
criteria must be established. In what appears to be a modification
of this general policy, there is an analytical chemistry group which
not only does its own research, but is advisory to other units of the
laboratory. Also, somewhat different in assignment are the
physiological and behavior groups which are making an effort to
devise quicker tests that will be able to more rapidly describe
the effects of toxic materials on aquatic biota.
The laboratory has proven to be a productive unit as well as a
desirable place to work. The turnover of personnel has been
extremely low. The staff has been quite productive in publication
in national scientific journals, and there was every evidence that
they have provision for travel to scientific meetings and conferences
to maintain contact with the scientific community. This is probably
particularly important to this laboratory because of its relative
geographic remoteness.
The Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory (PNERL)
This large laboratory includes about 100 scientific personnel with
about 1/3 having interests in the biological or agricultural sciences,
and the other 2/3 in the physical sciences or engineering. There are
five major branches which together reflect the laboratory's interests:
. eutrophication and lake restoration;
. industrial wastes;
. coastal pollution;
. thermal pollution
. eutrophication survey
The TIE team was impressed with the quality of the leadership in the
laboratory and in the branches. Morale was high, although there was
frustration about the minimal input opportunities for staff into the
research planning process.
58-
-------
This laboratory had its roots in the water quality laboratories
of the old Water Quality Administration and emphasis was pollution
oriented. Much of that emphasis still remains. With the advent
of the EPA, the laboratory retained much of its old charge and
much of the same kind of activity, concentrating on waste disposal
problems in both marine and fresh water environments. The most
ecologically oriented activities, such as the studies on
eutrophication and effects of pollutants on marine ecosystems can
provide the basis of an ecological thrust for the laboratory.
These programs have both the charge and the personnel necessary
to approach ecological problems.
There appeared to be a redundancy among the branches for some
types of work. For example, the eutrophication group, the
thermal pollution group and the coastal pollution group all had
elements of modeling falling principally to the younger people
in the organization, but essentially duplicative in role. While
some interchange seems to occur among the branches, further inter-
change could be encouraged.
The work undertaken by the various branches seems to be best
characterized as multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary.
Many persons pooling their skills (multi) instead of blending or
synthesizing them (inter).
Since much of the effort of this laboratory is to gain understanding
of the aquatic ecosystem as it might respond to various pollutant
perturbations, it would be useful to develop predictive capacity
in each of the branches, or have the branches combine and pool
^their talents to provide this capacity.
This cannot easily be accomplished unless some comprehensive set
of goals is established which will allow the various branches, singly
or in combination, to achieve progress toward a mutually agreeable
purpose.
-59-
-------
Southeastern Water Quality Laboratory (SERL)
This is a very large laboratory of about 75 researchers who work in
three major programs:
. fate of materials in ecosystems;
. analytical chemical program;
. agricultural runoff and wastes
There is an awareness and attempt to achieve an ecosystem viewpoint
in much of the laboratory's work and a strong interest in modeling
techniques and utilization. Existing staff capabilities and man-
power ceilings cause constraints in both of these interest areas.
Perhaps the greatest stress on the laboratory which generates
frustration at many levels, is the fact that three different EPA
program offices oversee their work and tend to compartmentalize
the staff and negate efforts toward integration by the laboratory
leadership.
The record of laboratory publications has been markedly improved
by contributions to both EPA reports and peer journals.
The TIE team noted a strong expression of interest in cooperative
programs with other NERC-Corvallis laboratories, but this is not
realized at the present time.
-60-
-------
Appendix 3
TIE Team Members
NO
CM
I
CM
ri
CM
o
to
o
LO
i
1
I
(N
I
00
1
CM
00
CM
CT>
CM
r-»
\o
•
rH
X)
•
i
#
'$
1
O
V*
i
<1)
Sh
1
,1
i
U,
i
*->
i
oo
v© i r eg r-i cm Is-*
i
LO
Q'
e
pc p: >-)
w W
OT S' O
r-^
t-»
fNj
John M. Neuhold*
Utah State University
John Magnuson
University of Wisconsin
Neil West X ^
Utah State University h
o
Edward Kormondy X h
Evergreen State College 2
Robert C. Ball*
Michigan State University
Robert C. Ball* X X -h
Q
¦$
Ray Oglesby X X
Cornell University g
• H
0)
William Sopper X X £
Pennsylvania State University
George Sprugel, Jr. X
Illinois Natural History Survey
Robert Metcalf X
University of Illinois
Roy W. Hann, Jr. * XXX
Texas A § M University
Harold Wolf X. X
Texas A § M University
Barbara Welch X
University of Connecticut
William Milstead X
University of Missouri (KC)
Hugh Putnam XX
Gainesville, Florida
Sammy Ray X
Texas A 5 M University
Frank Golley
University of Georgia
* Team Leaders
-61-
-------
Appendix 4
TIE Project Advisory Committee
Chairman
George Sprugel, Jr., Director
Illinois Natural History Survey
Robert C. Ball
Institute of Water Resources Research
Michigan State University
Roy C. Harm, Jr.
Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A § M University
John M. Neuhold, Director
The Institute of Ecology (1974 - )
Arthur D. Hasler, Director
The Institute of Ecology (1971-1974)
Robert L. Metcalf
Department of Zoology
University of Illinois
Henry Regier
Department of Zoology
University of Toronto
-62-
------- |