1. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 1 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

2. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 2 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)

3. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 3 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.

4. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 4 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

5. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 5 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

6. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 6 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!

7. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 7 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!

8. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 8 See the Poster EMAP Monitoring Design & Design Team

9. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 9 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

10. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 10 GLEN CANYON DAM IMPOUNDS LAKE POWELL

11. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 11 Have Had Major Impacts on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon OPERATIONS OF GLEN CANYON DAM  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

12. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 12 APPLYING EMAP SITE SELECTION IN THE GRAND CANYON - BACKGROUND  Effects of Glen Canyon Dam  Led to an Adaptive Management Program to moderate these effects

13. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 13 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

14. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 14 VIEW DOWN TRANSECT AT MILE 12.3

15. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 15 CLIFF AT MILE 135.2 (PARTIAL HEIGHT) NO VEGETATION TRANSECT NEEDED HERE! EMAP SITE SELECTION PROTOCOL ACCOMMODATES THIS, WHEREAS TRADITIONAL METHODS DON’T.

16. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 16 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

17. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 17 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.

18. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 18 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

19. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 19 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.

20. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 20 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.

21. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 21 IMPORTANCE OF WELL-FOCUSED “REQUESTSFOR APPLICATIONS”  How can EPA change academics’ priorities?  By advertising for assistance using well- focused 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

22. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 22 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.

23. EPA & Ecology 2005 # 23 END OF PLANNED PRESENTATION Questions are Welcome. Questions are Welcome.