Greenversations

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays. 

For each month in 2009, the Year of Science—we will pose a question related to science. Please let us know your thoughts as comments, and feel free to respond to earlier comments, or post new ideas.

The Year of Science theme for March is Physics and Technology.

What technologies do you use to be more green? What one technology do you hope is available soon?

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Bill Fisher has worked with EPA’s Office of Research and Development for 18 years. His academic research included environmental studies of several marine invertebrates, including lobsters, crabs, squid and oysters. For the last five years he has worked to improve environmental protection of U.S. coral reefs.

This will be our third survey of coral reefs in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The first was in St. Croix where we verified that a new EPA bioassessment method could identify adverse effects of human activity on coral reefs. The next year we applied an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) ‘probability-survey’ method to determine the condition of reefs island-wide. And now, another year later, we will perform the same survey at St. Thomas and St. John.

It may seem a long time to complete a study, but coral reef research has many challenges—not the least of which is a suitable ship to work from. EPA has a well-equipped research ship, the Ocean Survey Vessel BOLD. She not only provides us berth and board, but has compressors to fill our SCUBA tanks and dive boats that we deploy to our sampling locations. The OSV BOLD is in great demand, so it is fortunate that we are able to work from her even once a year.

The survey itself is not complicated—especially if you were to run it on dry ground. The coral surveyor identifies each coral colony in a 25 square meter transect, measures their size and estimates the percent of live tissue. (Corals are clonal organisms, and colonies can suffer large losses of living tissue without dying). Under water, these observations are more difficult because the surveyor has to maneuver in currents and surge. What’s important is that these three basic underwater observations provide several indicators highly relevant to resource management.

We usually field three dive teams and each surveys two to three stations a day. All too often, it is too windy or there are high rollers (waves) that pose hazards getting in and out of small boats with dive gear. On these days we usually catch up entering data, checking gear and reading emails.

Our ultimate purpose in USVI is to assist in the development of coral reef biocriteria. These are water quality standards developed from indicators of coral condition. The first survey we ran told us that we could use the new bioassessment procedures, and the latter two will establish the baseline condition for coral reefs. USVI will use this baseline condition to establish expectations for reef health in the future.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Stephen S. Hale joined EPA’s Atlantic Ecology Division (Narragansett, RI) in 1995 as a Research Ecologist. Last spring, he spent two months in Portugal with the Embassy Science Fellows Program.

I gazed over the podium at the Portuguese faces waiting to hear how the U.S. EPA measures the health of U.S. estuaries and coastal oceans. A conference in the Azores was comparing the approaches used by the U.S. and the European Union (EU). A few opening pleasantries quickly exhausted my what-you-can-learn-from-ten-CDs knowledge of the Portuguese language and I switched to English.

A two-month Embassy Science Fellows Program brought me to Portugal. The U.S. State Department draws upon other federal agencies to provide scientific and technical expertise to American embassies around the world. Portugal held the revolving EU Presidency, and the Embassy in Lisbon requested help with coastal and ocean issues resulting from the EU’s Water Framework Directive (akin to our Clean Water Act) and Marine Strategy.

If I sailed due east from Rhode Island along the 41st parallel, I would bump into Portugal, a small country that could hold 23 Rhode Islands. My previous experience with things Portuguese—other than Portuguese man-of-war jellyfish that sometimes land on our shores—was a peripheral involvement with research my division conducts on the Superfund site in New Bedford Harbor, MA, an area with many people of Portuguese descent and common ties with (earlier) whaling, and now fishing.

In Portugal, I met with government agencies, universities, and environmental groups to learn how the EU directives are being met and to explore areas for collaborative research. Fueled by strong coffee (bica) and cream tarts (pastéis de nata), at universities all over the country, I gave seminars on developing ecological indicators for the U.S. National Coastal Assessment and on the EPA research that has led to the U.S. National Coastal Condition Report. The Portuguese were keen to adopt some of the study design and methods I shared. In turn, I learned about methods used to intercalibrate indicators among different EU countries.

While serving on two scholarship panels (Fulbright Commission and Luso-American Development Foundation), I saw a flotilla of bright Portuguese students who will come to the U.S. for graduate study.

Throughout my stay, I met dedicated and passionate people who were determined to turn Portugal’s proud sea-faring tradition into modern-day leadership on environmental research and policy to keep our oceans healthy. I returned fortified with different ways to advance our shared goals—better water quality and healthier marine ecosystems. Obrigado.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Aaron Ferster is the science writer-editor in EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and the Science Wednesday Editor.

A few weeks ago I noticed the crosswalk I traverse to get from the office to the local coffee joint had a fresh coat of deep red paint. Then its dingy, frayed stripes were replaced with new ones, screaming white and perhaps twice as wide as the originals. It was shortly after that that grandstands and a big viewing platform along Pennsylvania Avenue outside my downtown office building began to appear. And yesterday, a million porta-potties were installed along the cross streets.

Washington, DC is bracing for a big party.

Preparations for the Presidential Inaugural parade and other festivities are in full swing. It’s an exciting time to be working here. Clearly, that excitement is also being felt in other places, because I’ve been getting lots e-mails from out-of-town friends asking me what’s going on around town.

They also ask how much different I expect my job to be once the up-coming “changing of the guard” is complete. Good question. But as this is my first Presidential transition while here at EPA, I can’t really predict.

It’s easier to be certain about what I know won’t change. As a science writer, I fully expect to continue to work with lots of busy scientists and engineers to communicate what they do, and why it’s important. Science and research play a critical role in helping EPA meet its primary mission: protecting the natural environment and safeguarding human health.

Lisa P. Jackson, President Obama’s choice for EPA Administrator, said “science must be the backbone of what EPA does” during her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate. Exciting stuff, and I’m eager to help tell the EPA science story. But first I’ll be meeting a few million of my closest friends at a parade.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Susan Lundquist works in EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research Program. She has been with the Agency for almost seven years.

Like so many consumers out there, I admit I spent time Thanksgiving Day combing through newspaper ads in preparation for the next day. It’s my usual thing, coffee early in the morning when it’s still dark, lending a certain mystic quality to an otherwise silly tradition of planning my shopping attack—solidifying my vision of goodies bought at bargain prices.

I indulged until I ran across an ad for a mini indoor garden for fresh herbs and lettuces grown under a sophisticated lighting system. Great idea, but suddenly I realized I already had an environmental bargain of my own, a raised-bed, outdoor winter garden.

I’m growing a winter garden using simple raised garden beds, a hoop house for each bed, and plastic covering. I’m eating seasonally with fresh cilantro, arugula, thyme, parsley, red and green leaf lettuces, chives, and mesclun.

Seeing the ad for the mini garden made me think about my job. I work in the Ecosystem Services Research Program at EPA. After all, my makeshift outdoor garden is a mini ecosystem in its own right. My indulgence in Black Friday ads made me ponder the significance of the Ecological Research Program recently changing its name to the Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP).

We changed the name so it would more accurately reflect how the goods and services we get from nature may be adversely affected or positively enhanced by management actions. On the tiny scale of my garden, an adverse action might be using pesticides that harm the bees and other pollinators that are the basis for my harvest.

The goal of the ESRP is to transform the way we account for the type, quality and magnitude of nature’s good and services, what we call “ecosystem services.” So even though my winter garden is on a small scale, it provides a great example of one of the fundamental ecosystem services: food production.

Isn’t it time we start thinking about ecosystem services on a larger scale and how we can begin to more accurately account for the cost of using these services? It’s certainly food for thought in early morning hours before Black Friday.

Learn more by visiting our website at http://epa.gov/ord/esrp/

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Steven Whitfield is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Biological Sciences at Florida International University in Miami. His work is funded by a Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Investigating Patterns and processes implicated in enigmatic declines of amphibians and reptiles at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica

Here’s a picture of me and a Mexican tree frog, (I’m the one on the left).

Amphibians are the most threatened group of vertebrates, with approximately one-third of their species at risk of extinction.

Rapid declines of amphibian populations, even in apparently pristine, protected reserves, have generated much alarm. The causes associated with these “enigmatic declines” are poorly understood.

Through my dissertation research—supported by a GRO Fellowship from EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research—I am investigating a variety of factors associated with population declines, including chytridiomycosis (Amphibian Chytrid Fungus), habitat modification, and climate change, in amphibians and reptiles in the lowland forests of Central America.

That’s where my work at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica comes in.

The strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio) is one of the common species at my field site that is slowly becoming less common.

Amphibians are the most threatened group of vertebrates, with approximately one-third of their species at risk of extinction.

La Selva populations of terrestrial amphibians have declined by 75% since 1970, and similar declines have been noted in terrestrial lizards. It is currently unclear what factors have contributed to these declines, but potential stressors include fungal disease, shifting climate, pesticide drift from nearby agricultural areas, and habitat modification surrounding the La Selva Reserve.

I am using extensive field investigations and synthesis of long-term datasets collected at La Selva. I hope my research will provide important information necessary to protect biological diversity of this important group of animals.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Erich Hester recently finished his Ph.D. in the Ecology Curriculum at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research was funded in part by an EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship.

Most Americans live in urban areas or their suburban fringes, and many more live near forests or agricultural lands. As kids, many of us enjoyed splashing in streams in our backyards or in the park down the street. Although we probably did not know it, major changes were occurring in those streams during our lifetimes because of human activities such as urbanization, agriculture, and even climate change.

Streams and rivers are important for humans, and not just for kids. They provide what are known as “ecosystem services,” such as supplying drinking water and rendering nutrients and toxins less harmful. But the capacity of aquatic resources to provide these services is being overwhelmed in many places.

To address these issues, billions of dollars are currently being spent on “stream restoration.” Nevertheless, the science connecting restoration practice to ecological recovery and ecosystem services is often weak, and many restoration projects fail to achieve their stated goals. I’m trying to fill scientific gaps between restoration design and ecological response so restoration projects can have a more positive impact on stream ecosystems, a goal shared by EPA scientists.

Through modeling and field studies, I evaluated how humans impact the exchange of water between streams and groundwater, which is critical to many stream ecosystems. I focused on how certain natural stream features, often used in stream restoration, can help restore surface to groundwater exchange. One key component of this exchange is heat, as temperature is the single most important condition affecting the lives of organisms, and humans can induce heat stress in aquatic organisms by warming the water. I determined how these features can help moderate peak temperatures in streams that are overheating due to deforestation or climate change.

This information will help improve design guidance for stream restoration currently being developed. I’m also participating in the Virginia Stream Alliance, a working group created by the Virginia legislature to foster knowledge transfer among academics, consultants, and government about the fast changing field of stream restoration.

I plan to continue research on this and related themes when I become an assistant professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech in January 2009.

About the Author: As the news director for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, Melissa-Anley Mills is always on the hunt for good science stories. She joined the Agency in 1998 as a National Urban Fellow.

Oh boy, it’s Sunday night, and I can’t wait to get to work tomorrow and tell my co-workers that this weekend I met The Raging Blue Robots, Saturnalia, Nuts for Squirrels and the Taco Buddahs. Now these aren’t the names of the latest bands to hit the DC music scene who hope to win legions of adoring fans, these are folks with an entirely different focus: winning the Marian Koshland Science Museum’s first annual eco-scavenger hunt called “The Green Hunt.”

You see, on Saturday, I helped staff The Green Hunt for the U.S. EPA. Free to the public, the event honored Earth Science Week 2008 and was designed to inform people about climate and earth science, and show that urban environments provide great learning opportunities for outdoor science activities.

As we neared the start time, we were anxious to see who’d burst through the Koshland doors proclaiming “We’re here for the Hunt!” From 11 until about 4:30 a diverse set of teams arrived, all ready to run around the neighborhood, looking for science clues: Teams of friends, teams of big sister/mentors, teams of college students on a homework mission, mom-headed teams, dad-headed teams, mom-and-dad-headed teams, abuela y padres headed teams.

Once their time cards were stamped, they were off! Dashing about DC’s Penn Quarter trying to complete the clues and challenges as fast as possible. There were challenges for the observant, brain teasers, some math, and things that you had to track down and take photos of or doodle. Once the teams checked back in and had their return time recorded they headed to the registration desk to have their answers checked.

Here are links to the map and clue sheet from the hunt you can use to set up a similar science event in your own town, city, or school. So, what did folks think? The general consensus was: FUN – for both the teams and for me! Not bad for my Saturday at “work!”

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Dr. Robert Lackey is a senior scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. He has been involved professionally with West Coast ecological issues for 44 years and was awarded EPA’s highest award, the Gold Medal, for his salmon work.

Recently I presented a talk to a group of community activists about why salmon populations along the West Coast have dropped to less than 5% of their historical levels. I’ve given such talks many times so I was confident that I had heard just about every question that might be asked. I was wrong.

The opening question was asked by a well known political activist. He was direct, pointed, and bursting with hostility: “You scientists always talk about our choices, but when will you finally tell us what we SHOULD do about the dramatic decline of West Coast salmon? Quit talking about the science and your research and tell us what we should do! Let’s get on with it!”

From the nods of approval offered by many in the audience, his impatience with science and scientists was broadly shared.

What does the public expect from scientists regarding today’s ecological policy issues? Some examples of such policy challenges include the decline of salmon; deciding on the proper role of wild fire on public lands; what to do, if anything, about climate change; the consequences of declining biological diversity; and making sense of the confusing policy choices surrounding “sustainability.”

The lament “if we just had some better science, a little more data, we could resolve this policy question” is common among both scientists and decision makers. Calls for more research are everywhere in ecological policy debates.

In most cases, even if we had complete scientific knowledge about all aspects of an issue, the same rancorous debate would emerge. Root policy differences are invariably over values and preferences, not science, data, and facts.

In a pluralistic society, with a wide array of values and preferences competing for dominance, the ecological policy debate is usually centered around whose values and preferences will carry the day rather than over scientific information.

So what was my answer to the emotionally charged question from the political activist? It was: “Science, although an important part of policy debates, remains but one element, and often a minor one, in the decision-making process. We scientists can assess the ecological consequences of various policy options, but in the end it is up to society to prioritize those options and make their choices accordingly.”

He wasn’t pleased.