AN ACADEMICIAN’S VIEW OF EPA’s
ECOLOGY PROGRAM
ESPECIALLY ITS
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (EMAP)
N. Scott Urquhart, Director
Space-Time Aquatic Resources Modeling and
Analysis Program (STARMAP)
Department of Statistics
Colorado State University
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 1
TOPICS FOR TODAY
 Some Disclaimers
 My Experience and Perspectives
 Ecology and the Clean Water Act
 Impact of EMAP and Related Activities
 (Including examples)
 Academics and EPA-Relevant Research
 Importance of Well-Focused “Requests
for Applications” (RFA)
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 2
SOME DISCLAIMERS
 No One Can Speak for All Academics in
an Area!
 My Funding: A Cooperative Agreement

This talk was developed under the STAR Research
Assistance Agreement CR-829095 awarded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
Colorado State University. This presentation has
not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views
expressed here are solely those of presenter and
STARMAP, the Program he represents. EPA does
not endorse any products or commercial services
mentioned in this presentation.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 3
MY EXPERIENCE and PERSPECTIVES
 Trained as a Statistician, but
 Have Worked with Ecologists for 45
Years
 Relevant Post-Doctoral Experience:

25 years in Agricultural experiment
stations
 Wildlife and range science
 Water quality
 Beneficial uses of sewage sludge
 Variety of ecology projects
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 4
MY EXPERIENCE and PERSPECTIVES
(continued)
 10 years of direct contact with EMAP

From a department of statistics

Mainly with aquatic resources
 Specifically related to lakes and streams

Developed the methodology to
 Evaluate the power of
 EMAP-type designs to detect trend.
 Directed STARMAP for nearly 4 Years

Developing analysis methodology for
EMAP-type data
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 5
ECOLOGY and the CLEAN WATER ACT
 The Clean Water Act (CWA)
Specifically Mentions Aquatic Life As


“… the protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife,
and to allow recreational activities …”
 Statements like this occur at least 28
times in the CWA sections
numbered 3xx

Ecology covers this class of interests!
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 6
IMPACT OF EMAP
and
RELATED ACTIVITIES
 The Perspectives and Approaches of
EMAP Have Had a Major Impact in:

EPA’s Offices of Water and Air

State Water Quality Agencies
 See poster!
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 7
See the Poster
EMAP Monitoring Design & Design Team
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 8
IMPACT OF EMAP
and
RELATED ACTIVITIES
 The Perspectives and Approaches of EMAP
Have Had a Major Impact in:

EPA’s Offices of Water and Air

State Water Quality Agencies – See poster!

National Park Service

Forest Service

Sub-state authorities, such as the San
Francisco Estuary Institute

Near Coastal cooperative efforts

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 9
GLEN CANYON DAM
IMPOUNDS LAKE POWELL
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 10
OPERATIONS OF GLEN CANYON DAM
Have Had Major Impacts on the
Colorado River in the Grand Canyon
 Water flow into the Grand Canyon
 Temperature of water entering Grand Canyon
 Sediment entering the Grand Canyon
 In the past, the diurnal variation in flow
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 11
APPLYING EMAP SITE SELECTION IN
THE GRAND CANYON - BACKGROUND
 Effects of Glen Canyon Dam
 Led to an Adaptive Management
Program to moderate these effects
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 12
MAKING THE ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT PLAN WORK
 Management Panel is Supported by
Technical Work Group (TWG)
 Most needed info supplied by the Grand
Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

 A USGS organization
 Past studies used “hand picked” sites
 Whole canyon riparian area inferences needed
 Peer review panel suggested redesigning
near-river terrestrial studies
 Using EMAP site selection process
 NSU invited to assist, and to help lay out transects
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 13
VIEW DOWN TRANSECT AT MILE 12.3
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 14
CLIFF AT MILE
135.2
(PARTIAL HEIGHT)
NO VEGETATION TRANSECT NEEDED HERE!
EMAP SITE SELECTION PROTOCOL
ACCOMMODATES THIS, WHEREAS
TRADITIONAL METHODS DON’T.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 15
QUESTION ASKED AT TWG MEETING
 Can “Whole Canyon” estimates of
vegetation be obtained from these
results and sampling plan?
 RESPONSE: YES – with some
qualifications:

For some, but not all, of the responses
evaluated.
 For the whole Canyon below the 60 kcfs level
 and by geologic reach
 More accurate estimates would require quite a
bit of GIS work
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 16
SO WHAT?
 A member of TWG had been
responsible for

The environmental impact statement (EIS)

For a high flow release in 1996

He said that at that time the EIS work
group recognized that
 They needed such an estimate, but
 Available data would not support such an
estimate.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 17
IMPACT OF EMAP
and
RELATED ACTIVITIES
(continued)
 The Perspectives and Approaches of
EMAP Have Had a Major Impact in:
…

Academic settings
 Originally, ecologists vigorously opposed the
EMAP approaches because they weren’t the
way they were used to doing business.
 More recently many ecologists have embraced
the kinds of large-area data previously
unavailable
 Example: Zooplankton ecologist
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 18
ACADEMICS
and
EPA-RELEVANT RESEARCH
 EPA is a Mission-Oriented Agency

It should support research which advances
its missions

Aquatic resources and related landscape
matters are a part of that mission
(in my view)

There is a great distance between much
academic research and EPA’s needs.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 19
ACADEMICS
and
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
 How Academics are Evaluated?

Frequently by their performance in their
respective disciplines.
 Because academics frequently have no
“clientele,” they can’t be evaluated relative to
their contributions to their clientele.
 Academic research (not applied) often is very
important.
 Secondary, but increasingly important, is
outside $ brought into the institution.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 20
IMPORTANCE OF WELL-FOCUSED
“REQUESTS FOR APPLICATIONS”
 How can EPA change academics’
priorities?

By advertising for assistance using wellfocused RFAs
 Research requirements of an RFA need to reflect
EPA’s needs.
 Give academics a little room to “do their own thing,”
as a way to encourage them to actively participate

Using cooperative agreements
 Make sure PIs and directors understand what
cooperation means!
 Centers can have a valuable role
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 21
CONCLUDING THOUGHT
 The Activities at EPA Identified as
Ecology Have Made Contributions!
 Much Work Remains.
 Where Should EPA’s Research Needs
be Met?

In the EPA Labs, and

In academia, using focused RFAs.

Cooperation between these two kinds of
organizations needs to be fostered.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 22
END OF PLANNED
PRESENTATION
Questions are Welcome.
EPA & Ecology 2005 # 23