Greenversations

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

About the Author: Melissa-Anley Mills is the news director for EPA’s Office of Research and Development [http://www.epa.gov/ord/]. She joined the Agency in 1998 as a National Urban Fellow.

When the big blue package about the size of a stack of four tires arrived at my home, my husband excitedly asked: “What’s in the package?” that was husband speak for “is it for me.”

“It’s a panda,” I said, without looking up from my paper.

“Um, yeah, really, what’s in the package?” He didn’t believe me until I pulled out the panda head and told him that in addition to my regular duties I was organizing a group of
EPA staff to volunteer at the local Six Flags Math and Science Day.

This was no ordinary panda gig, I would assume the identity of Pandy Pollution, EPA’s environmental education mascot, who joins forces with the EPA staff at special events to teach them about pollution prevention and protecting our earth.

But first, I needed the hubby’s help to make a module to illustrate lung capacity so we could talk about the importance of air quality, and the impact of air pollution and health effects.

Out came the power tools….

Using Archimedes’ principle of displacement we set at creating a water gizmo that when you blew air into it would displace enough of the water to reflect lung capacity.

We assembled our supplies: a plastic barrel, a translucent bucket, plastic tubing, a plug, disposable straws, and waterproof tape.  We quickly pulled together a low-tech but nifty gadget.  We felt like a couple of sixth graders who’d just finished their science fair projects.

I gently packed up the gizmo along with the other modules on stream ecology, the water cycle, pollution, recycling, UV radiation, and the role of the ozone layer.

I suited up as Pandy to help steer kids to the demos and modules. Oh, boy did that work!  The kids just loved Pandy and showed it with lots of hugs, poses for photos and heartwarming comments like: “Pandy Pollution, I recycle!”; and  “I love pandas, and I love the planet!”.

By the time the last school bus pulled away from the parking lot the EPA staff was exhausted but happy having had many curious, smart and environmentally minded kids visit our demos.  The lung capacity gizmo was a hit—a nice reminder that experiments can be done at home, with simple items, they just require a little effort and sometimes (but not always) some power tools!

Check out our web site from Math and Science day for more information.

About the author: Steve Jordan’s environmental career is rooted in a childhood spent in the woods and creeks of suburban Maryland and along the shores of Chesapeake Bay. After graduate school and a couple of decades working in Chesapeake Bay science and management, he joined EPA’s Office of Research and Development as a scientist and manager at the Gulf Ecology Division.

Before the 1970s, intense development of our coastal areas was limited mostly to scattered resort cities separated by large areas of sparsely populated or undeveloped land. As population grew and roads improved, coastal development exploded—and sprawled.

Beach front high-rises are the most obvious result of all that coastal development, but the whole complex of barrier islands, back bays, bayous, and tidal rivers along our Atlantic and Gulf coasts is now arrayed with homes, businesses, roads, golf courses, docks, bulkheads, and everything else that comes with development. Gulf of Mexico coastal watersheds lost over 370,000 acres of wetlands from 1998 to 2004, mostly to development (see: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Except for the occasional hurricane, the coastal zone is wonderful habitat for humans. It is also essential habitat for many kinds of animals and plants, including the fish and shellfish that shore residents cherish.

Do the habitat needs of humans conflict with the habitat needs of other coastal residents? Our research at EPA’s Gulf Ecology Division indicates that they can. With my coauthors, Lisa Smith and Janet Nestlerode, I developed a mathematical model to simulate how loss of seagrasses and salt marshes could affect the important blue crab fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

The model used information from many existing small-scale studies of how tiny, young (juvenile) crabs depend on aquatic vegetation until they are large enough to avoid predators. We linked data from these studies to electronic maps of the essential habitats and long-term, Gulf-wide commercial fishery data.

Putting it all together, we were able to predict that minor, local losses of essential habitats, multiplied many times in many places, could have serious negative effects on the future of the crab fishery. The main scientific advance in this work has been to make a connection between small-scale ecological studies and large-scale population modeling as it is used in fishery science.

With colleagues from the Pacific Coast and elsewhere, we are extending this type of research to other species and coastal areas. We hope this research will contribute to better understanding of the cumulative effects of coastal development on ecosystems and valuable ecological resources.

Figure caption: Simulated U. S. Gulf of Mexico hard blue crab landings 2004-2050. The two lower curves show different scenarios of habitat loss: SAV = submersed aquatic vegetation (seagrasses); hardened shore = loss of salt marsh edge to shoreline structures.

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 May is Sustainability and the Environment.

One of the most widely-cited definitions of sustainability is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

What does sustainability mean to you, and what are you doing to achieve it?

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

About the author: Mary Ann Curran is a senior research chemical engineer in the Sustainable Technology Division at EPA’s National Risk Management Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. She leads the Agency’s Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Research program. She conducts research on LCA methodology and application, focusing on biofuels and nanotechnology.

Living and working in the heart of the corn belt, I am continually confronted with the promotion of corn ethanol as the green solution to gasoline. As a researcher in Life Cycle Assessment, however, I know there is a lot more to the story.

Although biofuel energy is renewable, there is some controversy that it is not sustainable due to the harvesting of biomass and the byproducts produced during combustion. With ever evolving technologies and choices in feedstock, biofuels can vary enormously in the type and intensity of environmental harm they may cause. Biofuels must be viewed in the proper perspective.

There is no single replacement to gasoline or diesel that will completely satisfy our need for transportation fuels or settle our concerns of global warming and dwindling oil supplies, but biofuels can make a significant contribution. It’s likely that solutions will be regional ones, depending on what biomass is locally available.

Research is needed to look for better biomass feedstocks and better ways to convert them to bioethanol and biodiesel. Efficiency and decreased demand through conservation must also be part of the solution. Whatever choices we make, they are sure to have far-reaching effects. The global discourse that will certainly continue should not lead us to a biofuel solution that in the end is more environmentally harmful than sucking crude oil out of the ground and cooking it.

I recently ventured far outside my native Ohio to attend the World Biofuels Markets Conference held in Brussels. The Conference started with a presentation by Sir Bob Geldof (most well-known for co-organizing the 1985 Live Aid concert). Sir Bob cautioned that in our enthusiasm surrounding the potential for expanding the world’s use of biofuels, we need to proceed in a smart way “with the competing criteria for sustainability brought into the mix.” I like that.

To learn more about biofuels, I recommend listening to a presentation by Dr. Steve A Kay, UCSD, recorded on November 3, 2008, entitled Biofuels: Hype or Hope.

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

About the Author: Jay Messer, Ph.D. is a Senior Science Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Assessment in EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He is a lead writer of EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment.

Watching my retirement recede into the future as the financial crisis deepened put me in mind of EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment.

The purposes of the Report are to “provide valuable input to EPA in devel­oping its strategic outlook and priorities, and [to] allow EPA and the public to assess whether the Agency is succeeding in its overall mission to protect human health and the environment.”

The release of the Report last spring marked the first time that such a wide range of objective, transparent, and scientifically-solid information about environmental status and trends has appeared under in a single EPA publication. I believe that it makes a valuable contribution in telling us how we’ve done over time (not bad!), but I’m less sanguine about its influence on planning for the future.

We in EPA are certainly familiar with “performance measures:”

• EPAstat presents measures of quarterly performance, primarily aimed at short-term management “outputs,” and
• EPA’s Annual Performance and Accountability Reports present measures of annual performance aimed at output and longer-term (e.g., 5-year) “outcome” targets for specific programs.

Performance measures are important management tools, but most of the agencies responsible for overseeing banks and securities received scores of “adequate” or better on their latest performance reviews. Apparently we needed more to protect the economy. So we probably need more to protect the environment.

Rather than measuring the performance of particular programs, the indicators in the Report on the Environment ideally reflect more on the outcomes of the way resources are allocated across and among programs, and on multi-program and multi-agency efforts to solve environmental problems and fill critical data gaps. EPA’s latest Strategic Plan notes that many of its targets are consistent with the trends in the Report, but there is no forum in which the Report is systematically used to inform strategic thinking at a higher level.

This is not a problem unique to EPA. Environmental agencies around the globe are facing the same challenge, and a review of several major environmental decisions suggests that environmental indicators seldom demonstrably inform strategic decisions. I’d argue that this needs to change and that EPA can and should provide international leadership in effectively using indicator information in strategic planning.

Because we all look forward to a healthy, well-protected environment that we can (eventually) retire to!

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

About the author: Julie A. Layshock is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Environmental & Molecular Toxicology at Oregon State University. Her work is funded by an EPA Science to Achieve Results (EPA STAR) Graduate Research Fellowship. She is looking forward to a career focused on reducing human exposure to pollutants.

Westerly winds over the Pacific Ocean efficiently carry sea salt and dust from the Gobi Desert to the western United States. Recently, scientists have begun to detect other, less welcome, things in the wind, too: air particles laden with pollutants from fossil fuels.

People from countries around the world cause tons of pollutants to be emitted into the air we breathe. Everything from operating vehicles, to burning coal and natural gas for heat and electricity, and manufacturing and industry activities all contribute to the global transport of air pollution. The contribution this global transport makes to local air conditions is poorly understood, and the impact it makes to human health can not yet be estimated.

That’s where my research comes in.

I am working toward answering questions concerning long-distance air pollution and how China might contribute to pollution in the United States. In my travels to China, I have seen first-hand the effects air pollution can have on human health. Understandable questions arise: Can we really quantify the contribution of pollutants from China and determine the how they affect a person in the United States?

I spent several months in China collecting air particles that I can use to compare with ones I have collected in the Pacific Northwest. My goal is to identify specific pollutants arising from en route chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Using the chemical “signatures” of the particles, combined with powerful meteorological and wind mapping models, I aim to distinguish Chinese sources from our locally produced air pollution. In the laboratory, I am also designing toxicity tests using the collected particles and identifying the most toxic combustion byproducts.

The results of my research could provide much needed insight into the global movement of these combustion-derived pollutants that are attached to particles in the air.

Demonstrating that these pollutants are capable of traveling half-way around the world highlights the need to reduce this type of pollution. Alternative energies and creative pollution control techniques are just a few of the directions that could result from my research.

For further information, I can be reached at layshocj@onid.orst.edu.

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

About the author: Dr. David Reif is a Statistician in the National Center for Computational Toxicology with the EPA’s Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park, NC. He holds degrees in Biology, Statistics, and Human Genetics—giving him an abiding appreciation for the lasting impact of Darwin’s theories.

From an evolutionary perspective, should we be surprised that our bodies sometimes react inappropriately to novel chemicals encountered in the environment? According to the principles of adaptation by natural selection laid out by Darwin, the answer is “not at all.”

Each of us alive today is the product of tens of thousands of years of environmental adaptation. This long evolutionary process allows modern humans to respond appropriately to a remarkable set of naturally-occurring substances.

In contrast, people have had comparatively zero time to figure out how to handle the myriad of man-made chemicals introduced since industrialization. Even at the earliest centers of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve had less than 10 generations to obtain evolutionary solutions to previously unseen combinations of substances. Given that Darwin posited “incomprehensively vast” time periods for natural selection to arrive at workable solutions, he would not be surprised that humans have yet to adapt. Neither should we.

Modern civilization has given us all sorts of incredible tools for fighting diseases, making more efficient use of natural resources, and dealing with identifiably toxic substances. However, along with this progress, we have burdened ourselves with an unquantified volume of synthetic substances to which we are all exposed (to various degrees) on a daily basis. This tension between the needs of modern society versus the volume of new chemicals introduced into the environment puts enormous pressure on our bodies to appropriately respond.

Does that mean we must wait patiently while hoping that natural selection weeds through humanity to settle on appropriate adaptations for continuously shifting environmental conditions? No! Thankfully, a key adaptation of modern society is compassion—meaning that we must explore potential toxic effects of all new chemicals through smart science and careful consideration of relevant ethical, legal, and social consequences. Darwin would be proud.

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.