How Did You Celebrate Earth Day?

By Diane Simunek

Bird Feeder 9000

“Bird Feeder 9,000”

Earth Day has always been one of my favorite holidays, because adequate celebrations require little more than a walk through the park. A bike ride or a hike always seemed like enough to show my appreciation for the environment, and I couldn’t be happier with how little preparation was needed for these festive activities. Unlike for me, however, Earth Day for local middle schoolers of Corvallis, Oregon has involved significantly more planning.

Each year the researchers and other staff at EPA’s Western Ecology Division lab host a competition for local middle school students to channel their innovative sides and create something out of nothing.

This year the Re-use It or Lose It! Animal Edition event challenged students to create animal-themed masterpieces from reused, recycled, or salvaged items. Fourteen finalists were chosen and the students, as well as their parents, were invited to an Earth Day reception at the lab to showcase their projects. The event featured an ensuing awards ceremony announcing the winners.

The students had a choice between two categories, “Functional” or “Fantasy,” around which they could focus their projects. A number of creative entries were seen, from a television turned into a cat bed to a mason bee box. Top honor in the Functional category went to Lauren Dye of Cheldelin Middle School for “The Bird Feeder 9,000,” which she constructed using a stainless steel pot and lid, forks and spoons, and bottle caps with beads strung on fishing line to add flair.

Spotted Owl Earth Day sculpture

Northern spotted owl

The Fantasy category was won by Megan Mayjor of Franklin Middle School and her sculpture depicting a Northern spotted owl, which just happens to be the subject of a population model developed by an EPA researcher from the lab (read more about it in our newsletter). The piece was assembled with brown paper, corrugated cardboard, and an intricate attention to detail seen in the decoration of each feather. “I feel very happy and excited that I won! My rabbit actually seems to like the owl,” Megan said.

Congruent with the competition, the trophies the winners were awarded were also creatively constructed with reusable material by EPA chemist Bill Rugh. He used wood items from Habitat for Humanity, seed pods, plastic twist-ties, screws, burnt out toaster elements, and coffee grounds. Appropriately, the elaborate trophies were presented to the finalists by lab director Tom Fontaine.

Although my own Earth Day celebrations may be effortless in comparison, these students have put in the time, effort, and imagination to make remarkable results. They developed an idea, acquired the material, and built their creations all in a gesture supporting and appreciating our environment. I’ll be thinking about them on my next hike.

About the Author: Diane Simunek is a Student Contractor with EPA’s Science Communications Team.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

A New Beginning: Headwater Research

By Marguerite Huber

I like beginnings. They are a fresh start and influence our lives further down the road. Just like how we have new beginnings, all rivers have influential beginnings too. In a network of rivers up in the mountains, headwater streams are the uppermost streams furthest from the river’s endpoint or merger with another stream. They are the very beginning of miles and miles of rivers and have a great impact on what flows downstream.headwaterstream

Headwater streams and their catchments, or drainage basins, are necessary for the maintenance of healthy and productive streams and rivers. Headwater catchments also provide numerous ecosystem services to humans and the surrounding environment. These benefits include biodiversity, climate regulation, recreation, timber and crop production, and water supply and purification.

EPA researchers studied the importance of headwater catchments by focusing on the quantity and value of a few ecosystem services, and then projected that importance from a regional to national scale. They focused on three ecosystem services (water supply, climate regulation, and water purification) for 568 headwater streams and their catchments.

To assess the potential economic value of headwater catchments’ ecosystem services, researchers used published economic value estimates based on commodity price (water supply), market value (climate regulation), and damage cost avoidance (water purification).

They found the economic value of each ecosystem service as follows:

  • $470,000 – The average yearly value of water supplied through each headwater catchment.
  • $553, 000 – The average yearly value of climate regulation (through carbon sequestration) of each headwater catchment.
  • $29,759,000 – The average yearly value of improving water quality by reducing nutrient pollution.

Overall, the weighted average economic value for headwater catchments in the United States was $31 million per year per catchment. It is essential to note that the national importance of headwater catchments is even higher since the 568 catchments studied are only a statistical representation of the more than 2 million headwater catchments in the continental United States. I think it’s safe to say these beginnings provide some serious benefits!

About the authorMarguerite Huber is a Student Contractor with EPA’s Science Communications Team.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

Take Cover! (With Vegetation)

By Marguerite Huberbuffer

Take cover!

It’s a phrase you yell to protect against something headed your way. But did you ever think that phrase could be applied to pollutants? Well, it can – vegetative cover acts as a defense against non-point source (NPS) pollutants, protecting our lakes, streams, and water bodies.

Vegetative filter strips and riparian buffers  are conservation practices that help control the amount of sediment and chemicals that are transported from agricultural fields into water bodies. They slow down the speed of runoff and capture nutrients, keep more nutrient-rich topsoil on farmers’ fields, and reduces impacts on downstream ecosystems.

To improve water quality in large watersheds, conservation managers need to know what the problems are, where the pollutants originate, and what conservation practices work best.  However, investigating all of these factors at the watershed-wide level is a very difficult and complex task. This is why EPA is working with partners to supplement an existing watershed simulation model to estimate the efficiency of riparian buffers.

USDA’s watershed simulation model, Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution (AnnAGNPS), is used to evaluate the effect of farming and conservation practices on pollutants and help decide where to put these practices.  AnnAGNPS also predicts the origin and tracks the movement of water, sediment, and chemicals to any location in the watershed.

To supplement this model, researchers from EPA, USDA, and Middle Tennessee State University developed a Geographic Information Systems–based technology that estimates the efficiency of buffers in reducing sediment loads at a watershed scale.

With the addition of this AGNPS Buffer Utility Feature  technology to the USDA model, researchers and watershed conservation managers can evaluate the placement of riparian buffers, track pollution loads to their source, and assess water quality and ecosystem services improvements across their watersheds.

Riparian buffers and other vegetative cover, such as filter strips, are considered an important, effective, and efficient conservation practice that has been shown to protect ecosystem services at a local level. However, their full impact on a watershed-scale is still subject to ongoing research.

 

About the Author: Marguerite Huber is a Student Contractor with EPA’s Science Communications Team.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

MCnest: Fly Away Home

Flying geese in a "V" formation against a sunset. By Thomas Landreth 

While recent winter weather storms may suggest otherwise, we are getting closer to the time that birds in this hemisphere begin their journey northward. Just like in the 1996 movie, Fly Away Home, last year’s crop of fledglings will begin their first return journey toward mating and nesting grounds.

However, a host of different variables can affect the success of these new populations year after year. Fly Away Home highlights how habitat loss might threaten migrating geese. But what about other, perhaps less obvious factors, such as those affecting bird breeding cycles?

EPA researchers have been working on a digital, easy-to-use model called the Markov Chain Nest Productivity Model, or MCnest, that estimates the impact of pesticide exposures on the reproductive success of bird populations.

MCnest combines existing avian (bird) toxicity test results, species life history information, and the timing of pesticide application(s) with breeding seasons to quantitatively estimate the potential impact of pesticide exposure on annual bird reproductive success.

McNest developer Matthew Etterson said, “This model is an important first step in moving avian pesticide risk assessment forward.”

Future MCnest results that indicate potential adverse affects on avian reproduction may be cited in Agency orders to regulate pesticide use under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and in support of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize won’t jeopardize listed threatened or endangered species.

Though MCnest is still in its early stages of development, work continues on a more advanced version that will improve exposure estimates and more realistically describe the length of avian breeding seasons.  The researchers are also applying the concepts behind MCnest to develop a model for fish, and a similar model is possible for mammals.

As its capability grows to take in data about more species, MCnest can play a greater role in EPA’s approach to ecological risk assessment. In time, MCnest may provide a greater understanding of pesticides and their impact on wildlife and our environment.

Click here for more information on MCnest, data libraries and program instructions.

About the author: Thomas Landreth is a student services contractor working with EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

Editor’s note: for more information on McNest and other EPA ecosystems-related research, please see the latest edition of our newsletter, “Science Matters.”

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

It All Starts with Science: Answering Questions about Mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska

Reposted from “EPA Connect, the official blog of EPA’s leadership

By Lek Kadeli

Considering the scope of resources in Bristol Bay—a 37.5 million average annual run of sockeye salmon; $480 million in ecosystem-generated economic activity in 2009; 14,000 full- and part-time jobs from that activity; and 11 billion tons in potential copper and gold deposit—it is no wonder there was significant interest in an EPA science assessment to understand how wild salmon and water resources in the Bristol Bay watershed might be impacted by large-scale mining operations. The public comment periods generated 230,000 responses on the first draft of the assessment, and 890,000 on the second.

This week, after reviewing all those comments and formal peer review by 12 scientists with expertise in mine engineering, fisheries biology, aquatic biology, aquatic toxicology, hydrology, wildlife ecology, and Alaska Native cultures, EPA released its final report, “An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.”

 

Read the rest of the post.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

Challenging Nutrients: EPA and Partners Launch New Ideation Prize

Effects from excess nutrients in American waterways cost the country more than $2 billion each year.

Activities of daily modern life add small amounts of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus to our lakes, rivers and estuaries, either directly or indirectly.

We all contribute to the widespread problem. Runoff from our suburban lawns, city streets and rural fields is just one of many ways we introduce more nutrients into the environment.

The partnership for this challenge currently includes: - White House Office of Science and Technology Policy - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  - U.S. Geological Survey - Tulane University - Everglades Foundation

The partnership for this challenge currently includes:
– White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
– U.S. Department of Agriculture
– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
– U.S. Geological Survey
– Tulane University
– Everglades Foundation

These excess nutrients end up in our waterways and fuel algae growth that exceeds healthy ecosystem limits. In turn, algal blooms can contaminate drinking water, kill aquatic species and negatively affect water-based recreation and tourism.

A partnership of federal agencies and stakeholders has announced a new prize competition to collect innovative ideas for addressing nutrient overloads.

The challenge aims to identify next-generation solutions from across the world that can help with excess nutrient reduction, mediation and elimination. The total payout will be $15,000, with no award smaller than $5,000. Proposals can range from completely developed ideas to exploratory research projects.

Ideas will be judged on a range of criteria, including technical feasibility and strategic plans for user adoption. Additionally, the challenge entries will inform the partnership members’ broader commitment and vision to find new ways to approach this decades-long problem.

Submit your idea today!

About the Author: Dustin Renwick works as part of the innovation team in the EPA Office of Research and Development.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

Flexing Freshwater Mussels in the Delaware

Reposted from Healthy Waters for EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region

By Matt Colip

It takes more than the brute strength of legislation to clean up America’s waterways.  The complex process of aquatic ecosystem cleanup requires many tools, including one of nature’s most powerful muscles: her freshwater mussels.

That’s what the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (PDE) – assisted by the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Scientific Dive Unit – set out to assess during a late summer freshwater mussel survey in a tidal section of the Delaware River near Philadelphia.

Freshwater mussels are bivalves similar to oysters and clams.  But, unlike oysters and clams, freshwater mussels live in inland streams, and provide valuable benefits including strengthening streambeds by keeping soils in place and providing food and habitat needed by other animals and plants.  As filter-feeders, mussels also clean the water in which they live by sucking water in and trapping solids such as dirt, algae and other pollutants, then releasing the clean filtered water back into the environment.

Being in the tidal area of the Delaware River as a scientific diver was an interesting experience. The water was not clear and flow rates were very high due to tidal fluctuation.  In these conditions, I couldn’t help but think, “There’s no way there are mussels down here.”  Despite my suspicions, when I reached the river bottom, sure enough, there were mussels everywhere, thriving and filtering the ambient water!

Freshwater mussel survey

Recording data during the freshwater mussel survey.

Ultimately, the survey, in addition to confirming the existence of an abundant freshwater mussel population in a very urbanized section of the Delaware River and providing valuable scientific data, gave me a newfound appreciation for what I used to only consider a tasty added protein to a pasta dish at a restaurant.*

For more information about freshwater mussels in the Delaware River, please visit the PDE’s website.  Read more about EPA scientific diving at facebook.com/EPADivers.

About the Author: Matt Colip works in the region’s NPDES Enforcement Branch and focuses primarily on enforcing wastewater and stormwater regulations. Originally from Texas, Matt graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., with an interdisciplinary BA in Public Health and has a MS from Saint Joseph’s University that focused on environmental protection policy and management. In addition to SCUBA diving, Matt is an avid bicyclist and enjoys riding with friends and colleagues.

*EPA is not endorsing the consumption of oysters, clams and mussels in the wild.   Please refer to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines associated with regulating the handling, processing and distribution of mussels prior to consumption.

 

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

Closing Thoughts, Reflecting on the Trip

By Julie Barker

The author enjoys a tow during the trip.

The author enjoys a tow during the trip.

Our Chequamegon Bay research cruise wrapped up Tuesday, one day early! Our early return was the result of a lot of hard work and the luck of great weather (except the heat, which we northerners are not accustomed to).

Here are some take-away facts of what we accomplished in 10 days:

  • 14 Benthic sleds (a sampling technique).
  • 274 Ponar grabs, which means…
    The Lake Explorer II

    Research Vessel Lake Explorer II

    • If you average three rounds of elutriation (separating the samples, as described in our previous post) per sample (normally our minimum), that’s at least 822 times we stuck our arms in sediments up to our elbows swirling round and round.  I must say, my right hand and arm are nicely exfoliated.
    • If you average 200 organisms per sample, that means we may have approximately 54,800 organisms to now pick out of woody debris, vegetation, or bits of sediment that didn’t get flushed out in elutriation.  Once picked, each organism will be individually examined under a microscope and identified as close to species as possible.
  • 830 person hours of work.
  • We filled out enough field sheets to fill a one-inch thick binder.
  • We collected approximately 28 gallons worth of samples (seperated out into varying sizes of sample jars).

    Sample bottles

    Sample bottles

In addition to accomplishing the goals of our study, we also had some fun adventures.  Last Friday we came across an unmanned boat while en route to a site.  It was evident that the boat got loose from its dock because the bow line had parted.  For the safety of others, we towed the boat to the nearest residential dock.  I had the pleasure of riding in the boat while we towed it, to keep it from fishtailing.  A nice lady answered our knock on her door, and agreed to let us leave the runaway boat at her dock for the coast guard.

All in all it was a productive and fun research cruise.  However, the work is just beginning.  We now need to process the samples in order to enumerate and identify all organisms.

Thank you for following our blog, we hope you enjoyed reading about our work!

Julie BarkerAbout the Author: Julie Barker is an ORISE fellow with EPA’s Midcontinent Ecology Division, part of the Agency’s Office of Research and Development. She has been participating in coastal field study assessments, and her research includes investigating how wetland-nearshore interactions affect coastal fisheries, and exploring novel ways to detect invasive species.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

Chequamegon Bay – Day 6: Separating Samples

The Art of “Elutriation”

By Will Bartsch

The Lake Explorer II

The Lake Explorer II

The benthic survey is progressing nicely. The Lake Explorer II has already sampled all of the deep spots that it can safely access and was docked yesterday.

The 90-foot vessel can operate safely in water as shallow as five meters. However, much of Chequamegon bay is shallower than that. So, we’ve enlisted other boats to join the effort. The Prairie Sounder, being able to operate in one meter of water, got an early start and has been out taking Ponars (a heavy metal sampling device as described in my first post; see below for more about this) in the shallow, coastal areas of the Bay near Ashland. In anticipation of needing another small vessel that can operate in shallow areas, we towed the Research Vessel Tullibee from Duluth on Monday. The Tullibee is 26 feet long and has a cathedral hull that offers extra stability, and was also taking Ponars.

More About Ponars

A ponar

Deploying a Ponar.

A Ponar is a metal contraption that is designed to be lowered to the bottom of the lake using an overhead cable and winch. It is lowered in an open position and, because it is so heavy, will sink into soft or sandy sediment. Upon hitting bottom, the locking mechanism releases. This allows the jaws to close and collect a sample when it is retrieved. Because it needs to sink into the sediment to work properly, it is not an effective sampling method for areas with hard or rocky bottoms. Even sporadic gravel can cause problems as it doesn’t allow the jaws of the Ponar to properly shut.

Once the Ponar is out of the water, its contents are emptied into a large bin. The next step is to separate the sample into two parts. The first part is all the benthic organisms. The second part is everything else that we don’t want: mud, clay, rocks, sand, sticks and other large organic detritus.

Elutriating

Elutriating a sample.

This process is called elutriation. To elutriate, we mix the sample with water in a hinged basin that has an outlet connected to a fine mesh net with a bottle at the end. After mixing we pour the top water, along with any benthic creatures that were suspended in the process, into the bottle. This is repeated multiple times until only the things we don’t want remain in the basin. The sample that is captured in the bottle is preserved with ethanol and taken back to the lab.

Next we will investigate sites to deploy the benthic sled. We’ll let you know how it goes.

 About the Author: Will Bartsch is an ORISE fellow with EPA’s Midcontinent Ecology Division, part of the Agency’s Office of Research and Development. He primarily analyzes data collected as part of the NationalAuthor Will Bartsch Coastal Condition Assessment survey, and works on early detection methods for invasive species in Great Lakes coastal embayments.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

Life Aboard the Lake Explorer II – Day 4

By Julie Barker

Research Vessel Lake Explorer II

Research Vessel Lake Explorer II

Yesterday was the fourth day of our efforts sampling the benthic community of Chequamegon Bay. We all got a break over the weekend, but for the next five days, the Lake Explorer II (LE II) will be home to the nine of us contributing to the sampling effort.

What is life like on board? The LE II has five “staterooms” (bedrooms), four of which sleep two, and one that sleeps three (that’s my room).  Each has a bunk bed, a small desk, a sink, and a space to keep your personal items (most rooms have high-school-type lockers).  One of my favorite things about the staterooms is that each of the bunk beds has curtains that allow the occupant some privacy while sleeping, reading or just taking a break.

By now you may be wondering about bathrooms on the boat.  Referred to as “heads,” there are two, and there are two showers aboard.  We also have laundry machines available for longer trips.  All of the potable water used on the vessel comes from a large storage tank that is filled before every trip.

The galley is where we eat and socialize.

The galley is where we eat and socialize.

The primary social area on the vessel is the “galley” (kitchen).  There are always yummy snacks there.  Often a group of us will spend time there in the evenings playing board games like Scrabble, or watching a movie (although we usually never finish because we are all too tired from the workday to stay up).  On a typical research trip we eat all of our meals aboard the LE II because we are out in the middle of Lake Superior or docked/anchored in some remote area.  However, since this research trip is based out of Ashland, WI, we have been eating breakfast and lunch aboard the vessel and going out in the evenings to explore the different restaurants in the area.

When you want to get a good vantage of your surroundings from the boat, the best place to go is the bridge (where the captain drives, controls, and monitors the vessel).  We do all our sampling and sample processing (which we will describe in an upcoming blog post) off the large back deck of the vessel. Although we are not doing much laboratory work on the LE II for this trip, the vessel does have a large science area.  We have been using this space primarily for research planning and organizing the benthic samples we have collected so far.

Back deck where we work.

Back deck where we work.

Overall, life on the boat is comfortable, enjoyable, and a unique experience.  Sampling trips such as these have been a great way to get to know my co-workers, and I’m sure we are all creating a lot of good memories.

Julie BarkerAbout the Author: Julie Barker is an ORISE fellow with EPA’s Midcontinent Ecology Division, part of the Agency’s Office of Research and Development. She has been participating in field study assessments of coastal embayments, and her research includes investigating how wetland-nearshore interactions affect coastal fisheries, and exploring if underwater video can be effectively used to detect invasive species.

 

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content, or remove EPA’s identity as the author. If you do make substantive changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to specific content on a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.