B O S C
Board of Scientific Counselors
Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection agency
Board of Scientific Counselors
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR)
Subcommittee
Responses to Charge Questions
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subcommittee
Joseph Rodricks, Ph.D., DABT (Chair)
Shahid Chaudhry, MSc
Kate Lajtha, Ph.D.
Ramboll Environ
California Energy Commission
Oregon State University
Robert Blanz, Ph.D., PE (Vice Chair)
David Cole, MS
Michelle Lorah, Ph.D.
Arkansas Department of Environmental
Oregon Department of Environmental
U.S. Geological Survey
Quality
Quality
Scott Ahlstrom, PE, PMP
Timothy Davis, Ph.D.
John Lowenthal, MS, PWS, PWD
Corix Utilities
Bowling Green State University
Cardno
Jerad Bales, Ph.D., MS
Joel Ducoste, Ph.D., BCEEM
Tim Verslycke, Ph.D.
Consortium of Universities for the
North Carolina State University
Gradient
Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc.
Elizabeth Boyer, Ph.D., MS
Elizabeth Fassman-Beck, Ph.D., MSc
Stephen Weisberg, Ph.D.
Penn State University
Stevens Institute of Technology
Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project Authority
Steve Carr, Ph.D.
Fred Hitzhusen, Ph.D.
John White, Ph.D.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
The Ohio State University, retired
Louisiana State University
Lucinda Johnson, Ph.D.
Natural Resources Research Institute
EPA Contact
Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer
May ?, 2019
A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Disclaimer Text. This report was written by the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) Subcommittee of the Board
of Scientific Counselors, a public advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that
provides external advice, information, and recommendations to the Office of Research and Development (ORD).This report
has not been reviewed for approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and therefore, the report's
contents and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and policies of EPA, or other agencies of the federal
government. Further, the content of this report does not represent information approved or disseminated by EPA, and,
consequently, it is not subject to EPA's Data Quality Guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute a recommendation for use. Reports of the Board of Scientific Counselors are posted on the Internet
at httpi//www,epa,Eov/bosc.
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Contents
List of Acronyms 5
Introduction 6
Background 6
StRAP Research Objectives 6
Charge Questions and Context 6
Subcommittee Responses to Charge Questions 6
Charge Question la 7
Strengths 7
Suggestions 7
Recommendations 8
Charge Question lb 8
Strengths 9
Suggestions 9
Recommendations 10
Charge Question lc 10
Strengths 11
Suggestions 11
Recommendations 12
Charge Question Id 12
Strengths 14
Suggestions 15
Recommendations 16
Charge Question le 16
Strengths 17
Suggestions 17
Recommendations 18
Summary List of Recommendations 18
Conclusions 18
Appendix A: Meeting Agenda 19
Appendix B: Materials 20
iii
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Material Provided in Advance of the Meeting 20
Additional Material Provided During the Meeting 20
iv
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
List of Acronyms
5
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Introduction
Text
Background
Text
StRAP Research Objectives
Text
Charge Questions and Context
The SSWR Subcommittee was charged with six questions as follows:
Q.la: Does the research outlined for the 2019-2022 timeframe support the relevant Agency
priorities as described in the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans?
Q.lb: Each ORD research program undertook a rigorous engagement process to provide
additional detail on specific EPA program and region, state, and tribal needs, the results of which
are summarized in the StRAP objectives and explanations of research topics and areas. How well
does the proposed research program respond to these partner-identified needs?
Q.lc: Does the StRAP, including the topics, research areas, and proposed outputs, clearly describe
the strategic vision of the program? Given the environmental problems and research objectives
articulated, please comment on the extent to which the StRAP provides a coherent structure
toward making progress on these objectives in the 2019-2022 time frame.
Q.ld: Recognizing ORD's focus on addressing identified partner research needs, in the presence
of reduced scientific staff and resources, are there any other critical emerging environmental
needs or fields of expertise and/or new research methods where this program should consider
investing resources?
Q.le: What are some specific ideas for innovation (including prizes/challenges) and market-based
approaches that the program could use to advance solutions to existing and emerging
environmental problems?
Subcommittee Responses to Charge Questions
Introductory paragraph that highlights any overarching responses.
6
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Charge Question la
Q.la. Does the research outlined for the 2019-2022 timeframe support the relevant Agency
priorities as described in the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans?
Narrative
EPA's and ORD Strategic Plans for 2018-2022 each describe three Strategic Goals. EPA's three Strategic
Goals are: 1) it's Core Mission to provide the Nation with clean air, land, and water, and to ensure chemical
safety; 2) Cooperative Federalism for shared accountability, transparency, and participation with the
public; and 3) the Rule of Law and Process to ensure compliance with the Law, create consistency and
certainty, prioritize robust science, streamline and modernize permitting and reporting systems, and
improve efficiency and effectiveness of its business processes. ORD's three Strategic Goals are: 1)
advancing environmental science and technology; 2) Cooperative Federalism to inform and support
federal, state, tribal and local decision-making; and 3) enhancing the ORD workforce and workplace. As
described in the ORD Strategic Plan, ORD's strategic goals and objectives directly link to EPA's strategic
goals and objectives, to ensure that ORD research outputs will assist EPA in achieving its goals and
objectives.
To answer this charge question, the four research objectives1, three research topics2, and associated
research areas and outputs3 presented in the SSWR StRAP were evaluated against EPA's and ORD's stated
strategic goals and objectives. For some EPA and ORD goals and objectives, this evaluation was not
deemed relevant since they were not considered research oriented. These included improving EPA's
business processes, modernizing EPA's permitting and reporting processes, and enhancing the ORD
workforce and workplace.
Strengths
• The research objectives, topics, and areas described in the StRAP are aligned with the strategic goals
identified by EPA and ORD. The associated research outputs are therefore expected to support EPA
and ORD's strategic goals, especially EPA Strategic Goal 1 (Core Mission) and ORD Strategic Goal 1
(Advancing environmental science and technology).
• The stakeholder engagement described in the StRAP is aligned with and considered to support EPA's
and ORD's Cooperative Federalism Strategic Goals.
Suggestions
• While the research objectives, topics, and areas outlined in the StRAP are aligned with EPA's and
ORD's strategic goals, it is less clear how success in meeting those goals will be evaluated. ORD's
strategic plan talks specifically about measures of progress (e.g., increase the number of research
products meeting customer needs under each ORD goal). Where possible, we suggest that the
StRAP similarly describe measures of success for the different research outputs.
1 The four research objectives identified in the SSWR StRAP are: 1) Improve Prediction and Early Accurate Detection
of Contaminants; 2) Assess Potential Impacts; 3) Develop and Evaluate Approaches for Prevention and Mitigation;
and 4) Translate and Communicate Research.
2 The three research topics identified in the SSWR StRAP are: 1) Watersheds; 2) Nutrients and Harmful Algal Blooms;
and 3) Water Treatment and Infrastructure.
3 The three research topics identified in the SSWR StRAP each contain 3-4 research areas and a total of 31 research
outputs, as summarized in Appendix 4 of the StRAP.
7
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
• The StRAP describes four research objectives!.. However, the remainder of the StRAP is organized by
three research topics with associated research areas and outputs as summarized in Appendix 4.
Under the current format, it is not clear how the four research objectives relate to the three
research topics and associated areas and outputs. This could be clarified under the Program
Objectives section and potentially detailed through a revision of Appendix 4.
• There is clearly programmatic overlap between EPA, its federal and non-federal partners, and other
stakeholders in many of the research areas described in the StRAP. Where possible, we suggest that
EPA identify such overlap and describe existing or planned coordination activities to maximize
research complementarity, minimize duplication, and provide efficient expenditures.
Recommendations
The Subcommittee offers this recommendation to ensure that the partner and stakeholder surveys
support EPA's and ORD's Cooperative Federalism Strategic Goal.
Recommendation la.l: SSWR has clearly strengthened its partner and stakeholder engagement within
the EPA organization, including EPA's regional offices. However, results from outreach to state agencies,
professional organizations, and academia show room for improvement, both in number of participants
that provide input and in the quality or relevance of the input received. With respect to the ERIS survey,
it is recommended that:
• The survey should address structural issues to ensure reliable input is received on the basis of
unbiased, non-leading questions.
• ORD should conduct the surveys separately for each of the six research areas and coordinate
through ECOS to ensure state management is involved. Currently, ERIS operates through a
designated "science contact" in each state that are not all in the same program area nor level of
experience.
• The process and schedule for collecting input should be clearly documented in the StRAP so the
participants, timeline, and expectations are known and transparent.
Charge Question lb
Q.lb. Each ORD research program undertook a rigorous engagement process to provide
additional detail on specific EPA program and region, state, and tribal needs, the results of
which are summarized in the StRAP objectives and explanations of research topics and areas.
How well does the proposed research program respond to these partner-identified needs?
Narrative
The subcommittee was impressed by ORD's effort to solicit information about the needs of states, tribes,
and regions, via surveys and meetings, and to align research activities with the needs identified by the
partners.
Important concerns with the survey process were identified, however. The survey questions posed were
very limited (11 questions, with "other" listed as question 12) and seemed biased towards specific
research interests. For example, the question asking about the concern of "Toxics and Chemicals of
Emerging Concern Including PFAS" led respondents to identify PFAs over other potential contaminants
such as pesticides or pharmaceuticals.
8
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Some research outputs identified by partners were not addressed in the StRAP, with insufficient
explanation. For example, a partner in the NTWC spring 2018 survey identified the research need for a
"hydraulic fracturing water reuse study for evaluating ecological impacts." In the StRAP, ORD's response
was "this need will not be addressed/' with no further justification. Additional items identified by partners
that are listed as not being addressed include: a) Groundwater remediation: would be beneficial to see
data from past in situ efforts and designs related to hydro technologies; b) Nutrient impact on wastewater
reservoirs from water reuse; and c) Human health & ecological effect studies for large vessel ships -
dumping sewage and gray water in international waters. The surveys also identified resiliency challenges
that are not addressed. The subcommittee urges greater transparency in explaining why partner-
identified requests like these were denied. For example, ORD could respond by saying that these concerns
are being addressed elsewhere in the EPA, or by other agencies with some specifics.
Some research outputs listed in the StRAP did not align with the needs identified by the surveys. For
example, sensors were identified by EPA as a research need. Our concern is that states don't necessarily
need sensors and did not ask for sensors. Yet, it appeared that some research outputs were designed to
satisfy the basic research interests of ORD scientists instead of addressing the needs of clients. However,
the subcommittee recognizes that not all ORD research should be in response to client needs. For
example, states are necessarily reactive: they identify problems and thus are in clean-up mode. EPA
should be in preventative mode, and thus some research funding should be in response to solution-driven
preventative needs.
In 2018 ITRC document, there is not a clear indication of what activities will be prioritized by the EPA.
There should be a ranking criteria of the items that will be addressed for this 4 yr period. It is likely that
research activity may not have been completed from the prior StRAP period that needs continuation.
Those uncompleted items should be mentioned, some of which may not have overlapped with current
interests but still need continued attention. In addition, there should be clarification on why certain topics
have been continued over topics that are no longer being addressed.
Strengths
• The subcommittee commends ORD for their effort to solicit information about the wide-ranging
needs of states, tribes, and regions; and for their use of this information in guiding research program
activities.
• The subcommittee commends ORD on the tangible research approaches that have been mapped
out to address the key objectives identified by the partners. The research agenda outlined in the
StRAP will further assist in providing solutions for safe and sustainable water resources in the states
and regions, and to advance environmental protection.
Suggestions
• Justification should be provided for research needs identified by partners that will not be addressed
by ORD. The subcommittee understands that research will not be performed for all the concerns
suggested by stakeholders for a number of reasons. It is important to maintain as much
transparency as possible with these stakeholders and describe why certain topics will and will not be
addressed.
• Further consideration should be given to leveraging research expertise and maximizing the value of
research expenditures through strategic partnerships. Given that ORD cannot perform all the
potential research outlined either by stakeholders or through internal ORD researchers,
9
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
partnerships with other federal agencies and private foundations should be explored so that limited
funds can be leveraged and provide opportunities for others (i.e., DOE, USGS, NOAA, AWWA, WRF)
to champion important research topics.
• Additional research expertise could be provided by ORD to further support needs of its state and
federal partners. ORD has substantial expertise in synthetic data analysis, advanced measurements,
and terrestrial and aquatic modeling that could be harnessed to provide specific answers to
individual state and tribe needs. For example, ORD staff could work together with individual states
to develop localized remediation plans, individual watershed TMDLs, and detailed numeric nutrient
criteria; going beyond technical information or guidance toward providing new solutions that the
states and tribes can use.
Recommendations
The Subcommittee offers these 2 recommendations to capitalize on [describe charge question]
Recommendation lb.l: ORD should expand efforts to obtain information about partner needs by using
surveys and other methods. The use of surveys to gather information from state and tribal partners a
proper strategy. However, the survey questions were not general enough to solicit the range of
stakeholder concerned issues. Survey questions to identify partner needs should not be leading
questions but rather more open-ended. As briefly mentioned above, questions should be generic and
not make any subtle suggestions to the respondent about what might be of interest to ORD. We
recommend that survey questions be re-designed to better determine stakeholder priorities. In addition,
survey questions should be designed with more participants in mind through strategic partnerships (i.e.,
NOAA, AWWA, WRF, etc). ORD should explore additional strategies to solicit detailed information about
partner needs. If research needs identified by the partners are not funded or prioritized, more
explanation should be offered.
Recommendation lb.2: ORD should prioritize research activities. Given the budget constraints of EPA as
well as the short 4-year time frame associated with developing outputs for StRAP, there needs to be a
better articulation of the high level priorities that can be accomplished, and consideration of the other
topics that could be accomplished with strategic partners such as other federal agencies, private
research foundations, and academic institutions.
Charge Question lc
Q.lc. Does the StRAP, including the topics, research areas, and proposed outputs, clearly
describe the strategic vision of the program? Given the environmental problems and research
objectives articulated, please comment on the extent to which the StRAP provides a coherent
structure toward making progress on these objectives in the 2019-2022 time frame.
Narrative
The StRAP describes four overarching Research Objectives and then identifies three closely related Topics
under which the proposed research efforts are organized (watersheds, nutrients and harmful algal
blooms, and water treatment and infrastructure). Presented under each Topic are the broad research
areas and programs that are identified by Region, State, and Tribal needs. These lists identify specific
research activities intended to be responsive to those needs. The process through which the proposed
research will meet these needs are described in a series of 31 Outputs. The 31 Outputs collectively reflect
10
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
the direction proposed for the SSWR in FY 2019-2022. It is acknowledged that achieving these Outputs
will depend upon budgetary appropriations.
The Subcommittee attempted to address this Charge Question by examining the proposed program as a
whole. We examined whether the Research Objectives clearly reflect agency and ORD priorities, whether
the Topics clearly provide understanding of the program's organizing framework, and whether the
research areas and Outputs, taken together, provide a Vision that is both appropriate for EPA's mission
and adequate to achieve the Research Objectives.
Strengths
• The StRAP provides a reasonably comprehensive examination of some the important challenges our
country faces in providing safe and reliable water supplies within the context of EPA's mission. It
also provides guidance on scientific, technological, and translational efforts required to respond to
these particular challenges. At a broad level the StRAP communicates how these needed efforts will
support the EPA's mission and its various Congressional mandates, to provide a relatively clear path
forward for addressing the EPA's highest priority research objectives for safe and sustainable water
resources.
• The needs of various stakeholders, as described in the StRAP have been given high priority in the
proposed research program, and the 31 Outputs are generally satisfactory responses to those
needs. The information, tools, and capabilities described in the Outputs, if delivered in efficient and
understandable ways, should provide substantial support for those stated needs.
• At a technical level, the StRAP provides a relatively clear, albeit very broad, vision of the leading
requirements for advancing the proposed research efforts. Of particular value is the emphasis on
expanded analytical methodologies, continued environmental monitoring, and enhanced modeling
capabilities. Moreover, the focus on delivering tools directly to stakeholders is rightly highlighted.
• Overall, the StRAP is a well-conceived and thoughtful guide to (for) addressing many of EPA's and
their stakeholder's highest priority issues within the context of EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources research program.
Suggestions
• The Subcommittee believes the StRAP could be improved to provide better understanding of its
stated and implied strategic vision.
• Consider introducing some sense of program priorities.
Are the 31 Outputs all of equal importance? Is there a difference between Outputs that are
intended to apply nationally and those that are to apply locally? It is perhaps not critical to identify
specific priorities, but a discussion of the topic would be useful as the planning effort moves ahead
to identify more specific research undertakings. Some guidance on priorities will support these
objectives, as well as development of future budget documents.
• Consider introducing some discussion of how success over the 2019 - 2022 planning horizon will be
measured and reported. A plan that does not include an approach for assessment of success of the
overall program would seem to be deficient. The StRAP now contains a roadmap for progress but no
plan for allowing stakeholders to understand whether objectives are being achieved in a timely
manner.
• Consider reorganizing Topics and providing clearer objectives for each of the tasks.
The three Topics convey quite different messages about how the overall research program is
organized, which adversely affects communication of the overall vision. While "Treatment and
Infrastructure" reflects the research content clearly, "Watersheds" seems a "force-fit" for its
11
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
content; "Nutrient and Algal Blooms" is an entirely different category of activities. There is, no
doubt, a need for some type of categorization of research areas, but the current Topics impede
efforts by not articulating exactly what the SSWR is trying to achieve. Further, the relation between
the four Research Objectives and the Topics is difficult to track.
• Consider improving consistency in the wording of Outputs.
Some Outputs are fairly specific in what is to be expected from the research (e.g. Outputs 1 and 20);
some are very broad and less clear (Outputs 5 and 23), and some are in between (Outputs 13 and
29). Not enough effort has gone into communicating specific expected Outputs, and the program
vision is somewhat blurred as a result.
• Consider accounting for unanticipated changes in scientific advances and consumer market
demands that may require modifying targeted CEC lists. For example, over-the-counter and
prescription sales volume or demands of popular pharmaceuticals may quickly or unexpectedly
change when newer classes of similar drugs are approved, or observed to have unexpected
environmental effects. The StRAP responsiveness may be improved by giving thought to such issues.
This would ensurie the agency remains nimble and adaptable when priorities or changes to the
threat landscape occurs.
• Consider uncertainties in capturing information on stakeholder needs. The StRAP responds well to
the described stakeholder needs, but there is uncertainty regarding the methods used to capture
and understand those needs. The StRAP should consider elaborating further on this issue and
pointing to efforts needed to improve understanding of these needs in the future.
• Consider identifying unmet needs. The StRAP provides little sense of what is not captured in its
research program. A discussion of this matter would not suggest the SSWR program is deficient, but
would reflect how well the program is in touch with future challenges. No research program is
expected to be complete, but a program should reflect an awareness of the challenges that lie
ahead.
Recommendations
The Subcommittee offers these [number] recommendations to capitalize on [describe charge question]
Recommendation lc.l: Research Objective 4 (Translate and Communicate Research) is partially met in
the StRAP. The Outputs clearly and appropriately emphasize communication of results (data, tools,
models) to stakeholders, and this is clearly essential to the SSWR program's success. There is, however,
no mention of how to communicate information on risks to public health and the environment when
discovered as a result of agency research. Risk communication is far more complex than is
communication of a strictly technical nature. Ineffective or unclear communication concerning human
health or negative environmental impacts can have many adverse consequences, including distrust of
agency results. The SSWR should review the role of risk communication in its general communication
efforts, its value to stakeholders, and of the significant guidance that is available from authoritative
sources on appropriate strategies for communicating risk.
Charge Question Id
Q.ld: Recognizing ORD's focus on addressing identified partner research needs, in the presence
of reduced scientific staff and resources, are there any other critical emerging environmental
needs or fields of expertise and/or new research methods where this program should consider
investing resources?
12
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Narrative
As the nation's pre-eminent research organization devoted to addressing and solving environmental
problems associated with water, ORD has the difficult task of balancing its programmatic needs between
meeting the immediate and pressing needs of its clients, and maintaining capabilities and capacities to
meet the nation's emerging threats and challenges. The current SSWR StRAP reflects the extensive effort
that was invested in communicating with its clients about their needs. However, given the increasing
threats to the nation's water resources and supplies (i.e., changing environmental conditions due to
climate change, aging infrastructure, increased nutrient and contaminant loading, decreased water
quantity and quality), and the potential for unknown threats and stressors resulting from genetic
mutations, newly manufactured drugs and chemicals, and novel interactions resulting from extreme
climatic events and warming, ORD must develop a parallel strategy for identifying new and emerging
issues of concern and developing practical and cost-effective solutions. Thus, we have three distinct
recommendations, the first which pertains to ORD as a whole, and the next two pertain to SSWR
specifically.
1. Find balance between meeting the immediate needs of customers and anticipating emerging issues
by developing a formal process for conducting "horizon scanning" exercises that will: a) identify
threats that are known to be coming; and 2) anticipate the "unknown-unknown" threats by
identifying the necessary skillsets, data and information required to identify actionable issues. To
meet new and emerging threats in a proactive, rather than reactive manner that is cost effective
and efficient, ORD as a whole must maintain its capacity to anticipate and innovate. Two historic
examples of EPA investments that have paid substantial dividends and were transformative to their
disciplines include: 1) the development of the field of computational toxicology, which
revolutionized the practice of chemical testing, and 2) EMAP, which fundamentally changed
approaches for conducting environmental monitoring. Investments such as these do not need to
consume large portions of the budget, but when chosen wisely, can result in cost-effective problem-
solving of future threats and challenges.
2. Invest resources in addressing two different areas: a) developing solutions to address the
ramifications of changing climate and b) investing in the next generation of environmental
monitoring and assessment tools and technologies.
We recognize that EPA is not a climate change management organization; however, it must consider the
ramifications of extreme events and long-term changing climate patterns in all of its water-based
programs. In particular we feel the following areas merit further investment, (if not a mention of current
activity in the current StRAP):
• Stressor interactions of intense storms / warming on:
• Ocean acidification
• HAB toxicity (economic and environmental impacts on drinking water and recreation)
• Hypoxia
• Water quality characteristics, esp. with respect to nutrients and chemical contamination
• Impacts of changing hydrologic regimes on:
• balance between water reuse and biological responses
• stormflow intensity and water quality characteristics
• Ecological, economic, and social impacts of diminished water availability
13
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
• Groundwater-surface water interactions
• Changing patterns of biota:
• Invasive species impacts
• Pathogens (redistribution: new and emerging)
• HAB distribution and toxicity patterns
• Impacts on biotic metric (e.g., Index of Biotic Integrity) responsiveness and effectiveness
In addition, ORD must continue to invest in the next-generation environmental monitoring and
assessment tools and technologies. This includes new investments, as well as making better use of existing
tools and technologies within and across EPA and ORD, as well as other agencies and programs across
government, academia, and the private sector. For example, increased connectivity and interoperability
across data and tools can enhance data and information delivery to researchers and end users. An
evaluation of the best uses for community-engaged science, including use of Traditional Ecological
Knowledge, could provide a cost-effective means to expand the geographic and topical scope of data for
assessing status and trends of environmental conditions. Additional areas of enhancement include:
• Genomics (and other "omics")
• Microbiology:
• Faster methods for detection and risk identification (e.g., new pathogen detection; level of
pathogenicity)
• Source identification
• Genetic barcoding
• Method standardization
• Expansion to extracellular DNA
• Indicator development and benchmark setting
• Other Diagnostic Tools ("Omics"-based)
• Technologies for detecting, analyzing, and remediating chemical of emerging concern
• Beyond PFAS
• Pharmaceutical monitoring and assessment / remediation
• Scanning methods for monitoring and remediating chemicals of emerging concern
• Automated Monitoring Technology Development
• Unmanned drones for characterization and sample collection
• Sensor development - all cost points
• Big Data analysis and visualization
Strengths
The panel noted many strengths of the StRAP. The first was the obvious and extensive communication
with clients including OWOW, Regions, States, and Tribes. The panel also noted that several very high-
profile areas have received a lot of attention in the Watershed and HAB programs to identify important
technology needs, and to integrate and leverage existing innovative technologies including remote
sensing, and (unspecified) use of "omics". Also noted were efforts to develop guidelines for the
development of safe cyanotoxin levels in drinking and recreational waters. The panel was also encouraged
by the focus on lower food webs dynamics, which can provide an "early warning system" for identifying
human and environmental health threats. Further, the research emphasis on nano/microplastics is noted;
14
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
however, in addition to evaluating potential health effects, there is an urgent need to identify
standardized methods for sampling and characterizing these particles. This plastics program presents an
opportunity for collaboration across multiple ORD programs (e.g., SHC, HSRP, CSS). Finally, the panel
noted the comprehensive and ambitious set of outputs. We encourage the scientists and communication
staff to consider multiple methods for disseminating research results with a focus on both peer-reviewed
as well as social media venues.
Suggestions
The panel noted a number of areas where new issues could be considered or improvements could be
made to the StRAP. As noted in our recommendations, the panel is very concerned that ORD must
maintain its capacity to identify future and emerging issues of concern. While it is undeniably a critical
function of EPA as a whole to meet to the needs of its end users and clients, there is no other single
organization in the government or the private sector that has the capacity to proactively address new
and emerging issues that could threaten human and / or environmental health. A specific strategy for
conducting such 'horizon scanning' activities must be implemented for EPA, and ORD in particular. In
addition, sufficient institutional and human resources must be maintained to quickly and cost-effectively
deal with the 'unknown-unknown' threats when they appear. The agency cannot only rely on scientists
attending professional conferences and keeping up with the literature to provide the necessary
intelligence to identify new and emerging threats and stressors. Thus, we recommend that a specific
strategy be developed to identify sources of data and information required to: identify issues in advance
of their becoming a threat, or identify when an existing issue will become a serious problem.
Other suggestions offered by the panel focused on the StRAP document and its focus. These include: 1)
there is a clear need to identify the link between Technical Support and Research, and the criteria used to
elevate a request for support to the level of a research question and program. It is not clear to the panel
that the survey was a particularly effective tool for identifying the key research questions that would best
serve the Regions, States and Tribes. 2) Several pressing environmental problems were noted (pages 3-5),
but were not further addressed within the Program Descriptions. These include Stormwater; Diminished
Water Availability; and Wetlands (arguably not a problem, in and of themselves). 3) Nano/micro plastics
are noted in the Watershed program, but are not listed as a category of environmental problems. 4) The
topic of Resiliency is discussed in the Integration section, but not addressed elsewhere. 5) The Integration
section does not address the potential for use of the USGS's new NHD products in the Watershed Program.
Furthermore, the panel is unsure whether this list of topics for integration represent the full potential to
maximize and leverage resources across programs. 6) The San Juan River Watershed program is an "odd
duck" within the Watershed Program; its specific nature is an anomaly and the report would benefit from
some additional contextual information. 7) Description of the Communication Strategy seems to rely
heavily on traditional media and methods, e.g., peer reviewed papers, workshops for dissemination of
results. Younger audiences require different communication strategies centered on social media. In
addition, tools such as the EnviroAtlas appeal to a broad audience and could be used more widely to
provide a platform for disseminating research results. A secondary benefit would be that its user base
would in turn be enhanced by increasing interoperability with other analytical and information-delivery
tools. 8) Both benthic and pelagic algal blooms are important, but the report largely ignores activities that
address the benthic component.
From a programmatic perspective, this team also identified some additional opportunities and comments.
First, the panel suggests that there is a need for a strategy to address other classes of chemicals than PFAS,
PFOAs. PFAS are an obvious problem, but there are other families of chemicals for which the threat is
clear (e.g. pharmaceuticals) or for which there is insufficient data to determine the exposure risk. Second,
15
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
given the clear cost-effective nature of preventative measures compared to remediation followed by
restoration, could ORD identify particular threats for which the agency could collaborate with
conservation and management agencies and organizations to: 1) prioritize the types and locations of
threats for which prevention measures might produce the greatest cost-benefit, and 2) identify the most
effective protection practices and strategies for given stressors.
• WRITING TEAM: I also have on my list: Opportunities open to address impacts on lower and upper
food web dynamics. I don't know what to say about this, as up above, we state that we are pleased
that they are addressing lower food web dynamics. Please help.
Recommendations
The Subcommittee offers these recommendations to identify other critical emerging environmental
needs or fields of expertise and/or new research methods where this program should consider investing
resources?]
Recommendation ld.l: Develop a deliberate process for identifying emerging stressors and problems.
Recommendation Id.2: Invest further resources in:
• developing solutions to address the ramifications of changing climate (Extreme Events and
Warming);
• developing/refining next generation environmental monitoring and assessment tools and
technologies.
Charge Question le
Q.le. What are some specific ideas for innovation (including prizes/challenges) and market-
based approaches that the program could use to advance solutions to existing and emerging
environmental problems?
Narrative
We interpret market based approaches and prizes or challenges as targeting two distinct audiences:
industry, and secondary education institutions. In either case, to create successful incentives, it's
important to engage and promote end user participation to develop the structure for incentives. We
suggest working together with industry associations (e.g. American Society of Civil Engineers, American
Water Works Association, and State Water Environment Associations) for a "finger on the pulse" of
practitioners.
Regarding educational institutions, we suggest targeting specific populations, but consider that
undergraduate engineering programs have very little flexibility and high demands on student time for
course work, whereas graduate student schedules are more flexible. High school opportunities are
entirely different. To encourage participation, we suggest giving the competition structure support, and
give greater recognition to faculty and teachers behind the student teams. Opportunities to engage
corporations to partner may raise their corporate profile as good stewards and promote education
amongst these stakeholders.
16
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
In considering a plan for developing new incentives or challenges, it would be useful to understand the
success of previous efforts. To date, how has EPA measured the success of incentives or challenges? These
represent substantial investments in time and volunteer work (e.g., for judging, etc). What evidence is
there of a connection between an incentive or challenge to change the broader community's behavior
supporting EPA's objectives under the CWA and SDWA?. For example, has EPA compiled information on
previous competitions or incentives and their long-term impacts? If so, can this be used for public
interest/good PR? We consider communicating success stories important.
We are aware of several tertiary education sector challenges. Does EPA have any activities directed to
high school audiences?
Strengths
• Partnerships with NIH, USDA, USGS.
• Partnerships with tertiary education institutions such as Campus RainWorks Challenge.
• Programs such as National Municipal Stormwater and Green Infrastructure Awards Program.
• Challenges such as: Nutrient Sensor Action, Advanced Septic Nitrogen Sensor and Arsenic Sensor.
Suggestions
• Have regional EPA offices partner with state regulatory counterparts; in particular, the state regional
basin coordinators who are responsible for assuring that the regulated community develops and
implements TMDLs in their respective basins or watersheds. The goal of this partnership is to
reinforce the implicit rewards that a given sector of the regulated community can realize if they
meet the TMDL goals of improved water quality.
For example, if a wastewater treatment plant with known levels of mercury in its discharge, and the
receiving stream is water quality limited for mercury, can develop and implement a mercury
minimization plan to effectively reduce the concentration in its discharge, then the state may be
able to reduce or lift restrictions on fish consumption.
A secondary benefit may be that after word of this success story spreads, more anglers will come
into the area, boosting the local economy, and providing a safer environment for those who like to
eat what they catch.
• Provide incentives for market based approaches such as streamlined or reduced permitting
requirements, grants to assist with initial development, or industry recognition to encourage
innovative development to reduce nutrients. Methods such as algal harvesting have a great amount
of potential.
• Work with innovation incubators and investors to better understand the emerging innovation
economy, and better understand where market based incentives might best be targeted.
• Pursue opportunities for EPA staff to serve as visiting instructors. Teachers are more prone to
include new material if they do not have to create it all themselves. A co-benefit to EPA staff is to
stay current on topics at hand.
• Explore technologies for harvesting and reusing materials captured in stormwater treatment
practices (aka stormwater control measures or best management practices). Heavy metals might be
more of an economic incentive, whereas there is generally more data on nutrient capture.
• Develop programs to encourage extracting nitrogen and phosphorus from the soil profile or runoff.
N and P are currently inexpensive, thus it is easier for farmers to continue applying more, rather
than harvesting what is already building up in the soil. Successful examples from Southern California
nurseries who are harvesting and reapplying their own irrigation water, thus substantially reducing
17
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
application of new N and P. Programs should be developed to collaborate with Regions, USDA
and/or state extension services.
• Create incentives for using agricultural byproducts that would otherwise contribute to nutrient
loading and generating electricity. An existing example emerges from a power company that seeks
converting methane from hog waste digestion to electricity.
• Create partnerships to address reducing sediment loads from construction, which is not currently
mentioned in the StRAP. Construction sediment loading is a significant issue for watershed
management, especially in highly developed urban areas.
• Create partnership/incentive for water conservation such as a Fit Bit for domestic water use. What
would drive/encourage people to continue conservation after droughts and mandatory conservation
ends?
• Conduct a detailed literature search of the hundreds of case studies that provide insights on how to
introduce more market related incentives for environmental protection, such as Economic Valuation
of River Systems.
Recommendations
The Subcommittee offers these recommendations to capitalize on specific ideas for innovation (including
prizes/challenges) and market-based approaches that the program could use to advance solutions to
existing and emerging environmental problems
Recommendation le.l: Paradigm shift to reduce enforcement penalties (not eliminate) and to increase
incentives.
Summary List of Recommendations
Add just the list of recommendations, if this is helpful.
Conclusions
Add brief text that summarizes main findings.
18
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Appendix A: Meeting Agenda
19
-------
BOSC SSWR Subcommittee Report | May ?, 2019
Appendix B: Materials
Material Provided in Advance of the Meeting
Materials to Support the Charge Questions
• Bulleted list
Informational Materials
• Bulleted list
Additional Material Provided During the Meeting
• Bulleted list
20
------- |