PAGENO="0001"
ENVIRONMENTAL R~ESEARCII 1E~R VE NET WORKS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
OP THE
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST S1~SSION
J1JLY 28, 29, 1977
(No. 23]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Science and Technology
*~ur~tRs i~:~ ~i ~
CAMD J. Gf1102
GOVERNST DOCUMENJ
.~
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
98-513 WASHINGTON: 1977
c~1 ~
PAGENO="0002"
COMMPF~EE ON SCIENOE AND TEOHNOLOGY
OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
JOHN W. WYDLER, JR., New York
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
LOUIS FREY, Ja., Florida
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, Ja., California
GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
ELDON RUDD, Arizona
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
CHARLES A. MOSHER, E~vecutive Director
HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant
WILLIAM G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant
RALPH N. READ, Technical Cc'n~ultant
ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel
Joux P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant
JAMES W. SPENSLY, Counsel
REGINA A. DAvis, Chief Clerk
PAUL A. `STANDER MYDE, Minority Staff Director
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
DON FUQUA, Florida
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE B. BROWN, JR., California
DALE MILFORD, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JIM LLOYD, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan
TIMOTHY B. WIRTH, Colorado
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina
THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
BOB GAMMAGE, Texas
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri
SuBcOMMU"rER ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, Chairman
MANUEL LUJAN, Ja., New Mexico
ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
LARRY WINN, Ja., Kansas
JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Staff Director
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
WITNESSES
July 28, 1977: `Page
Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory 2
Dr. James L. Liverman, Assistant Administration for Environment
and Safety, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.. 38
Dr. David Reichle, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory 66
Dr. Burton E. Vaughan, Ecosystems Department, Battelle Memorial
Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories 72
Marcus E. Nelson, Chief, Division of Wildlife Refuges, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 110
Dr. Theodore W. Sudia, Chief Scientist, National Park Service 117
James W. Monroe, Assistant Director of Legislation, Bureau of Land
Management 119
July 29, 1977:
Oscar J. Olson, Jr., Executive Director, U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program, Department of State 168
Vernon C. Gilbert, Associate Chief Scientist, National Park Service -- 171
Dr. Stanley L. Krugman, Principal Research Forest Geneticist,
USDA, Forest Service 172
Dr. Eloise E. Clark, Assistant Director for Biological Behavior and
Social Sciences 189
Dr. John L. Brooks, Deputy Division Director, Division of Environ-
mental Biology 190
Dr. Paul D. Whitson, staff associate, executive secretary of the Federal
CommitteeonEcologicalReserves 238
Dr. George II. Lauff, coproject manager, Experimental Ecological Re-
serves study, and director, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michi-
ganStateUniversity 259
Dr. Paul Risser, Oklahoma biological survey, University of Oklahoma_ 283
Dr. Jerry F. Franklin, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oreg~ 288
Dr. Lee M. Talbot, Assistant to the Chairman for International and
Scientific Affairs, Council on Environmental Quality 290
APPENDIX
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECOñD
1. Preserving Sites for Long-Term Environmental Research. 1976. Mosaic,
7:29-33. National Science Foundation 303
2. The Biosphere Reserve Program in the United States. 1977. Science,
195:262-267, by Jerry F. Franklin 309
3. Prairie Preserves as Research Facilities. Spring, 1977. The Nature
Conservancy News, pp. 26-27, by Paul G. Risser 316
4. The National Biological Monitoring Inventory. 1977. Biological Indi-
cators of Environmental Quality, J. J. Reisa (ed.) Council on Environ-
mental Quality, Washington, D.C. (in press) 318
5. National Environmental Research Parks, Energy Research and Devel-
opment Administration Fact Sheet 343
6. The United States Program/Man and the Biosphere: Fact Sheet - 351
(m)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH RESERVE NETWORKS
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1977
U.S. HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMIrPEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMIrrEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2325,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., chair-
man, presiding.
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will have, as we not too infrequently do, some difficulties because
of floor action starting at 10 this morning, but I think the best thing
is to proceed and hope that we will not have too many problems with
members being detained on the floor, and that they will be coming to
the subcommittee.
The Environment and the Atmosphere Subcommittee's hearings on
environmental research reserve networks which we are starting today
I think represent a new and important area of activity for the coni-
mittee. Research reserves are field sites representative of important
natural systems which can be used for long term experiments in a
broad range of disciplines, including geology, wildlife, vegetation,
aquatic systems, and meteorology. The data obtained from these ex-
periments, in tandem with that assimilated through years of similar
studies, offers a unique national resource for understanding and learn-
ing to control man's effects on the environment and for advancing
national environmental goals.
The hearings today and tomorrow will focus on what lands are
available for research and what their status is in terms of long range
protection. Because there has been some apparent confusion about
the intent and focus of these hearings, I would like to make it clear
that it is not our intent to consider legislation concerning protection
of natural diversity or the President's Natural Heritage Trust pro-
gram which is currently being developed by an interagency staff for
the President. This subcommittee will hear testimony on several
attempts to create a coordinated network of research sites-including
the international biosphere reserves, the Federal Research Natural
Areas systems, the proposed network of Experimental Ecological Re-
serves, and intra-ageney groupings, such as ERDA's National Envi-
ronmental Research Parks.
I might insert parenthetically that all of this bears on the other
environmental research and development interests of the committee,
as evidenced by our recent hearings on the coal cycle which explored
the health and ecological impact of coal fuel cycle. Research parks
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
such as are in operation provide possibly the only and certainly the
best way of establishing baseline data with regard to the pollution
impact of these other sources.
Today, we will hear testimony from representatives of ERDA and
from the Department of the Interior. Our first wftness will be Dr. Bris-
bin of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and he will be followed
by Dr. James Liverman, who is head of the Environment and Safety
Division of ERDA. A panel of witnesses will follow with Dr. David
Reichle from Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Dr. Burton Vaughan from the
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, HanfOrd, Wash. The National Envi-
ronmental Research Park concept seems to be growing stronger within
ERDA and we look forward to your comments on this program.
The Department of the Interior has extensive land holdings and a
great deal of research has been conducted on their lands. Dr. Ted
Sudia of the National Park Service will be accompanied by Mr. Marc
Nelson of the Division of Wildlife Refuges and Mr. James Monroe
from the Bureau of Land Management. We welcome your views on
the status of lands for long term environmental research and what
recommendations you may want to provide as to their protection for
future research.
A network of sites would insure, that experimental areas adequately
represent the variety of ecosystems in the United States. It would
provide a mecha.nism to coordinate the use and development of the
sites as well as the planning and application of the research per-
formed at them. These networks of observational and experimental
environmental research reserves may eventually provide-through
basic, long-term field studies, monitoring, and associated laboratory
studies-detailed knowledge of basic natural life support systems~
and provide a vital data base for setting the necessary health and en-
vironmental protection standards.
Mr. BROWN. I would like to invite Dr. Brisbin to come forward at
this time. You may proceed in the usual fashion, Dr. Brisbin. Your
full testimony will be inserted in the record and you may summarize
or abbreviate if you wish or read it in full.
STATEMENT OP DR. I. LEHR BRISBIN, SAVANNAH RIVER
ECOLOGY LABORATORY
Dr. BRISBIX. Thank you;
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure and an honor to be here and par-
ticipate in what I think is a most important and timely issue of en-
vironmental concern.
What I would like to do to start off this morning is first describe
some of the basic philosophy and the background thinking that has
been incorporated into the National Environmental Research Parks,
or as we like to call them, NERP's, of the U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, in particular, I would like to begin by
indicating how the NERP concept has been derived from some of the
very most basic principles of the field of modern ecology as we know
them.
What is needed is a very basic approach to the natumI world that
considers a hierarchy of levels of complexity of organization rai~ging
PAGENO="0007"
I
from very simple systems like atoms up through the more complex
systems such as populations, communities, and ecosystems with man
as an individual organism sitting somewhat in the middle.
The most important point is that at each of these levels of organi-
zation we have systems that are structurally and functionally inte-
grated as unified wholes and this is more obvious at some levels than
at others. Obviously, the organs of your body act. as a unified whole
but this is less obvious in the case of more complex systems such as the
eastern forest where, for example, the extermination of the wolf
several decades ago may be considered as having been somewhat
analogous to the removal of a kidney from a patient's body. In either
case the "patient" can survive the surgery but life is certainly not
quite the same afterward.
For our purposes here today with respect to National Environ-
mental Research Parks, I will be dealing with the ecosystem level
of organization. In particular, I would like to use the flow or move-
inent of energy as a tool to dissect, if you will, this ecosystem "patient"
into its component "organ" parts and indicate how the energy derived
from sunlight is captured by green plants and passed on through a
food chain of herbivores, carnivores, and decomposers.
The important point for our discussion is to distinguish clearly
where the energy resource originally comes from. A natural system
is defined as one that relies solely on sunlight energy as its source of
energy input. Examples of natural systems include forests, meadows,
ponds, streams, and jungles. All you have to do is ieave such systems
alone, let the Sun shine on them, and they can keep thethselves fer-
tilized, recycle their wastes, and maintain and reproduce themselves.
A developed system, on the other hand, needs some form of over-
head energy subsidy. It cannot exist on sunlight energy alone. Ex-
amples of these would include cornfields that have to be harvested by
mechanical equipment with gasoline inputs, fertilized beef cattle
pastures and, of course, your automobile. You obviously cannot just
let the sun shine on your car and expect it to keep running and main-
tain itself.
Of great importance to us is the fact that the developed systems
of today's world pay their overhead enerny subsidy largely by para-
sitizing the stored energy reserves of either present or prehistoric
natural systems. Millions of years ago, the sunlight energy that fell
on this Earth was captured by the giant ferns and other vegetation of
the carboniferous forests and was transformed into the bodies of dino-
saurs and decaying vegetation, and this same energy, now in the form
of fossil fu~ls, is now being used to pay that energy overhead subsidy
of our developed systems.
The analogy I like to useto describe this arrangement is one of a
thrifty Dutch uncle who is scrimping and saving to put money in
the family bank account over millions of years and now there is a
prodigal son on the scene who is spending the family bank account
like there is no tomorrow. As indicated by the double arrow in the
middle, the prodigal son-today's developed system-is now also har-
assin~ the Dutch uncle-the world's natural systems-in such a way
that it is getting increasingly harder for him to even earn a living.
PAGENO="0008"
4
To get back to the point at hand, a National Environmental Re-
search Park-NERP-site and program is plainly and simply one
which is designed to study the interaction between natural and de-
veloped systems as we have just described them.
Thus, at the four present sites of the National Environmental Re-
search Parks of the Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion, we have to have components of both developed and natural sys-
tems. Without either one or the other it is a no-go situation. This, then,
is one important way in which National Environmental Research
Parks differ clearly from the system of national parks in our country.
The latter, like Yellowstone, Yosemite, or Everglades, have only the
natural system component within them and not the developed system
component, as do the NER.P's. This approach also helps us to assure
those concerned with future industrial development or similar activi-
ties at some of these sites, that their plans for the future are not only
compatible with but are actually essential to the successful realization
of NERP goals. The message then is that to be important for ecological
studies a research site need not necessarily be characterized by undis-
turbed pristine natural beauty. Rather, it is often just as essential for
us to take measures to protect for study classic examples of sites of
environmental disturbance, along with appropriate undisturbed natu-
ral systems to serve as reference points. That is exactly the approach
that we are using in the NERP system.
In conclusion, I would like to describe some of the research program
of my own la~boratory at the ERDA Savannah River plant near Aiken,
S.C. As you may know, this site was designated as the first National
Environmental Research Park in 1972, and I would specifically like to
describe for you those NERP studies at the site dealing with the inter-
action between production reactor effluents-developed system-and a
cypress swamp-natural system.
The Savannah River plant consists of approximately 300 square
miles of land that were set aside in 19ö2 with restricted public access
since that time, due to the safety and security restrictions required for
nuclear weapons production facilities and radioactive waste storage
areas.
Over the past two decades. these reactor facilities have released cer-
tain quantities of heat and occasional accidental spills of radioactive
materials into the natural stream water courses that drain across the
area eventually running into the Savannah River to the south.
The specific study I would like to describe as an example here deals
with the mechanisms by which a 30-square-kilometer band of cypress
swamp has apparently acted over the years as a giant heat exchanger
and radionuclide ifiter, receiving the stream effluents and passing them
on down stream to the Savannah River, cleansed of their radioactive
wastes and cooled to ambient temperatures all at no cost to the tax-
payers. You see, being a natural system a cypress swamp can run on
sunlight energy alone, just leave it alone, and without any energy sub-
sidy or overhead cost of dollars it can apparently carry out these
functions.
What we did then was simply to select one of these reactor effluent
streams and study it-setting up transects and collecting sampies at
the point where the stream enters the swamp "filter" itself. But after
PAGENO="0009"
5
locating our study area it became apparent that some of these swamp
systems, by virtue of mud, insects, and quicksand, offered resistance to
being entered and studied. Our best solution to these kinds of pr~blems
have often involved finding some enthusiastic students who want to
learn~, ecological field techniques. We find that, in most cases, these
students will work longer and harder and in some cases acitually free
of pay, as compared to most salaried technical assistants. The reason
is simply because they are doing thesis work or are otherwise involved
in the field of research and believe that it is important to get involved
in this kind of data collection.
The idea is to pull together all of the information from the different
swamp system components, ranging from the very small seemingly
insignificant grazing herbivores like mice up througth the larger
predators that might eat them, such as foxes, bobcats, hawks, owls, or
snakes, and every time we come to consider a new species component or
population in our swamp system we have to conduct more studies so
that in the final analysis we can put together an integrated picture of
the total swamp ecosystem as a unit, and through this procedure, under
stand how it operates as the natural system component of our NERP
study. The effluents from the production reactors of course, serve as
the developed system components.
In this particular case, as I have said before, the safety and security
restrictions associated with these nuclear facilities have so far at least,
made these lands available to us for long-term study with no need up to
this point for any particular protective legislation. However, a prob-
lem that has faced us in the past, and one that may come to face us
again in the future, is that prior to the designation of our NERP f a-
cility in 1972 it was extremely hard for us to justify the retention of
some of these lands as being programmatic to AEC or ERDA agency
missions. As a result, the GSA determined safety and security restric-
tions on the basis of very strictly defined radii that were drawn about
the reactor systems with the very clear implication in their point of
view, that those lands falling outside of these radii could generally be
considered as nonessential to our agency's specific mission at the site.
As a result, back in early 1972, before we had a National Environmen-
tal Research Park designation, and in connection with the Nixon
Legacy of Parks program, we lost a total of 6,021 acres which were
transferred directly to GSA and then subsequently to the U.S. Forest
Service. An additional 2,487 acres were also transferred at that time to
Barnwell County, S.C., on our eastern boundary and this has served
as the site for the Barnwell nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. That
represents a total loss of about 4.4 percent of the total land in the area
of the Savannah River plant at that time.
I might indicate here, the green areas represent a total of 953 acres
within the site which we call habitat reserve areas which are left
inviolate and as reference points, representative of the kinds of habitat
that we deal with as natural systems on the plant.
While the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant on our boundary could
certainly be welcomed and serve as a developed system component
whose impact we could study in our NERP program, the problem is
that since we did not have at that time an extant National Environ-
mental Research Park designation at the site, these 8,000 or more acres
PAGENO="0010"
6
of extremely valuable research land have now been lost from our
* present total integrated program of environmental study at the Savan-
nah River plant. What we now have is a situation where the land is
under the control of several different kinds of agencies and groups and
the entire site is no longer intact as a unit for an integrated prpgram
of environmental study.
Unfortunately, among those lands lost from our research park was
a most unique wetland habitat known as Craig Pond. This was one of
the primary water fowl roosting and concentration areas of the area,
and the southern half of it was transferred to Barnwell County and it
has now been opened for public duck hunting which has, of course,
caused significant disruptions in our long-term studies of the water
fowl of the area. This wetland area also included a unique ha.bitat with
respect to vegetation including that of the carnivorous pitcher plant.
Because of situations like the one I just described, I feel that any
future legislation designed to protect land for ecological research
should take a particularly strong look at the possibility of also restor-
ing lands wherever possible that have been lost from sites which may
already enjoy some measure of programmatic protection, such as our
ERDA research parks.
In conclusion, this has been a quick overview of the general philoso-
phy and principles behind our ERDA system of National Environ-
mental Research Parks, with the particular example here being a
cypress swamp at the Savannah River plant in South Carolina. But
I do not want your thinking to become particularly concentrated on
any one particular habitat or on any one particular governmental
agency or any one environmental problem. In the Alaskan Arctic, for
example, where the issues are oil pipelines and tanker terminals rather
than cypress swamps and nuclear reactors, these very same basic eco-
logical principles which lie behind the NERP study at the Savannah
River plant are now coming to the fore in our discussions concerning
the immense research value of the lands at Cape Thompson which you
may know was the site of the former AEC Project Chariot. These dis-
cussions are also involving such groups as the Department of Interior,
Navy, and the various parties to the Alaskan Native Claims Settle-
ment Act.
I think in conclusion then that in the final analysis it is the very
breadth of these topics illustrated here which again indicates the very
basic nature of the ecological principles upon which such programs are
being based.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for the opportunity to come
here.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Brisbin, that is a very helpful dis-
cussion and gives us some perspective within which we can better
understand the subsequent material.
Lef me just ask you one thing-you of course had to simplify the
presentation here into general systems kinds of things, but with
regard to the Savannah River plant, you indicate that the main inter-
action between the plant and the pristine enyironment is the effluents
from the plant. Have you been able to protect this area against other
kinds of effects-highways, buildings, the other sorts of developments
PAGENO="0011"
7
that occur that impinge upon natural areas aside from just simple
plant effluent type of impacts ~
Dr. BRIsBIN. Yes, within the limits of wMt we are trying to do
within the National Environmental Research Park. Again, maybe
I ought to clarify that the word "protection" in this case does not
mean that there will be no highways, no buildings, or no new waste
storage tanks. "Protection" in this sense of the word means that if
and when there are new waste storage tanks, buildings, or highways,
that an integrated environmental research program will become part
of that program from the time that it first goes on the drawing board.
Then we conduct our environmental baseline studies along with such
a program of waste storage or highway development and the envi-
ronmental studies are closely integrated with them. That is the special
meaning of the word "protection" in this case.
Mr. BROWN. All right. I think we will go ahead with Dr. Liverman
and get his perspective on this.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Brisbin follows:]
PAGENO="0012"
8
TESTIMONY CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH RESERVE NETWORKS,
BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ATMOSPHERE,
JULY 28, 1977
Presented by:
I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Ph.D.
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
and
Institute of Ecology of the University of Georgia
ur. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure and an honor for me
to be able to participate in these hearings concerning environ-
mental research reserve networks. I would like to lead off
this morning's session with a presentation of some background
information concerning the design and philosophy behind the
designation of National Environmental Research Park (NERP)
programs at various sites of the United States Energy Research
and Development Administration (ERDA). In this presentation,
I would like to first show how the NERP concept was derived
from a consideration of some of the most basic principles of
modern ecological theory as we know it today, and them indicate
how such NERP programs have become particularly relevant to
the ERDA agency mission of evaluating, quantifying and
predicting environmental problems associated with the produc-
tion and utilization of energy in our nation. I would
then also like to indicate how such NERP programs might
similarly become relevant to the applied missions of other
federal agencies as well. Finally, I would like to conclude
with an example from my own laboratory at the ERDA Savannah
River Plant near Aiken, South Carolina, and indicate how
ecological research at that site, which was the first
National Environmental Research Park to be designated in
the nation, has been enhanced by the operation of our NER?
program and how our environmental studies there might have
been even more effective if such a NERP program had been
instituted even earlier in time.
The derivation of the NERP concept from the basic
principles of modern ecological theory is discussed in
detail in the attachment (Appendix I) to this testimony.
Basically, this involves a definition of the word ecology,
based on a consideration of the natural world as a gradient
PAGENO="0013"
9
of levels of complexity of organization extending in an
unbroken series from atoms to ecosystems. The classic
definition of ecology as "the relationship between plants
and animals and their environment" nay be applied to this
scheme by simply defining the word "environment" as repre-
senting those levels of organization other than the one
being discussed (see Figure 2 of Appendix I). The most
all-encompassing and complex of all of these levels of
organization as we know them today is of course, the
ecosystem, and it is at this ecosystem level of organi-
zation that many of our societal problems in such areas
as the energy-environmental conflict are experienced. It
is therefore at this most important ecosystem level of
organization that the basic concept of a NERP must be
most strongly developed.
One approach to the consideration of am ecosystem as
a structurally and functionally integrated unit of nature
is illustrated in Figure 3 of Appendix I. Basically, this
approach considers the ecosystem as being composed of a
series of interconnected compartments of energy (and/or
matter), with interconnecting flows between them. This so-
called "boxes and arrows" approach to the study of ccc Sy3t~iU
structure and function is basic to not onl~' our understanding
of the movement and utilization of energy in the natural
world and man's society, but it also points the way to a
better understanding of the processes by which man's
activities can and have impacted upon the world's natural
ecosystems by modifying or altering the rate or pattern of
flows and/or storage of matter in these various boxes and
arrows. In particular for example, the movement of pollutants
through ecosystems becomes readily understandable and most
importantly, predictable, once the "roadnap" of boxes and
arrows have been established for the ecosystem in question.
In order to develop the NERP concept from the above
considerations, it is necessary to distinguish between those
ecosystems which rely solely on sunlight energy alone as
their energy source and those which cannot rely on sunlight
energy alone and must therefore be provided with some form of
additional energy subsidy in order to maintain themselves.
Those ecosystems which can exist on the use of sunlight
energy alone are the so-called "natural" systems and include
such examples as forests, ponds, meadows, streams, tropical
jungles, deserts, and oceans. Those systems wb~ch cannot
rely on sunlight energy alone however, are termed `developed"
systems and include mechanically harvested corn or wheat fields,
artificially fertilized beef cattle pastures and your
automobile. It's painfully obvious for example, that your
automobile cannot run and maintain itself on sunlight energy
alone but rather constantly needs to be subsidized in the
form of gasoline and the labor of increasingly expensive
automotive mechanics. An extreme example of a developed
ecosystem is Manhattan Island; in such a case, there is little
doubt that the few green trees and other plants of Central
Park do not manufacture edough food from sunlight energy
PAGENO="0014"
10
alone, to feed the residents (humans) of that System,
whereas only 500 years earlier, the natural forest that
occupied that area was well able, using sunlight energy
alone, to not only feed all of its resident herbivores
and predators but also to reprocess and recycle their wastes
and thus maintain an effective balanced steady state over
a considerable period of time.
As illustrated in Figure 5 of Appendix I, the developed
systems of today's world are essentially parasitizing the
food energy and fossil fuel reserves that have been stored
up by the natural systems of modern times, as well as those
of our prehistoric past. Of greatest concern however is
the fact that it is becoming abundantly clear that not only
are our present developed systems parasitizing the product-
ivity of adjoining natural systems, but they are also
harrassing and impacting upon such natural systems in such
a way that their ability to capture sunlight energy and
produc2 food and fuel reserves is being decreased. A good
example of this process is the impact of acid rainfall
resulting from atmospheric contamination by developed systems
of our industrialized northeast. It is now becoming apparont
that such acim rainfall is actually diminishing tha pseen
plant productivity of many forests and other adjoining
natural systems of the eastern United States.
As indicated by the central double arrow in Figure 5
of Appendix I, a NERP program is designed to study the
interactions between natural and developed systems, not only
in the ecosystems but at all levels of organization of the
natural world. In order to accomplish such a task, a
NERP program site must have available to it components of
both natural and developed systems. In this way, National
Environmental Research Parks differ significantly from our
nation's National Parks which do not incorporate significant
developed system components within their boundaries. It
would not be possible to develop an extensive NERP program
within the boundaries of the Everglades National Park for
example, unless some developed system component such as a
nuclear power station or an oil-well complex ware developed
at that site, within the natural sawgrass ecosystem.
Furthermore, this philosophy insures those who plan to
undertake industrial or other forms of development at a
NERP site, that their programs are not only compatible with
NERP goals hut are absolutely essential to their realization!
The important point of all of this is that in order to
better understand the mutual impact and intordependeace of
developed and natural systeas in the world y, we ens
move to insure that land is protected and programs developed
at not only pristine sites of undisturbed natural beauty,
but also at sites whore the full impact of man's developed
systems is being experienced and responded to by natural
ecosystems and their inhabitants.
PAGENO="0015"
11
As an example of this process, I would like to now refer
briefly to the NERP program at the Savannah River Plant near
Aiken, South Carolina, where I have been personally involved
in sone of the field research as a nenber of the staff of the
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory of the University of Georgia.
The NERP progran at that site includes among other things,
studies of the impacts of production reactor effluents
(developed system components) upon a cypress swanp ecosystem
and its inhabitants (natural system components). These
studies, as summarized on pages 88-90 of Appendix I, have
indicated that over the past two decades, this swanp and
its associated wetlands have been working patiently as a
giant heat exchanger and ion-exchange filter, cooling these
heated reactor effluents and cleansing then of their radio-
active wastes before passing then on to the Savannah River
downstream. All of this of course, has been performed as a
service by the swamp at no cost to the taxpayers of this
country since being a natural system, the swamp runs on sun-
light energy alone and requires no subsidy of fossil fuels
and/or dollars to keep itself fertilizedr cleansed of wastes
and maintained in a proper steady state.
Studies such as the one I have just described, have
been made possible by the long-time protection and security
of restricted access which has been provided at the Savannah
River site since the time of its procurement as a research
and development facility of the former United States Atomic
Energy Commission in the early 1950's. At sites such as
these, where safety and security considerations for nuclear
facilities require strict control ofpublic access and
disturbance, little or no additional legislative action seems
to be presently needed, in my opinion, in order to provide
the protection required for these studies to progress. It
should be emphasized here however, that the word `protection'
in this sense in no ways implies assurance of freedom from
disturbance of developed system impacts. As explained above,
in fact, such impacts are essential for NERP studies to be
properly designed and carried-out. The word "protection"
in this sense rather refers to the fact that assurance and
philosophical assent is given by the agency involved, in
this case the Energy Research and Development Administration,
that as developed-system programs are brought onto line and
made operative at the particular site (e.g., new radioactive
waste storage tanks, nuclear power parks, etc.), proper
NERP-based ecological studies will indeed be designed and
incorporated as integral, parts of these programs from the
time of their inception. To do so, moreo~pr, is simply a
fulfillment of agency obligat~oms under the present letter
and spirit of such laws as the Natiomal Environmental Policy
Act, the Endangered Species Act and similar legislation.
Without the specific designation of NERP programs at such
ERDA sites, however, the ability of our agency `to effectively
defend the retention of such lands end research programs
as being of programmatic interest to ERDA goals, has been often
severely hampered.
PAGENO="0016"
12
In the early months of 1972 for example, a total of
8,509 acres or approximately 4.4t of the total land area of
the 300-square-mile Savannah River Plant was lost from the
control of our program when 6,021 acres were turned over
to the GSA and later given to the United States Forest Service)
and 2,487 additional acres were deeded to Barnwell County,
South Carolina in connection with the proposed construction
of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facility. Now while
the Barnwell facility certainly represents the kind of
developed system component that could form the focus of a
proper NERP study program, the fact that these lends were
lost from ERDA control meant that when the Savannah River
NERP facility was designated several months later in June
of 1972, these lands were not included. Moreover, the
boundaries which cut-off these lands have deprived us of
the integrity of some of the most important sites for
ecological research on our whole plant area. Craigs Pond
for example, the best example on the entire Savannah River
Plant site of a unique southeastern wetland habitat known
as a Carolina Bay, was divided in half by the boundary
which deeded lands to Barmwell County, South Carolina and
only the northern half of this bay now remains within our
NERP si~c. Ano~hor unique examplo of pi~chor plant Iiabftat
known as Sarracemia Bay was also lost at the same time.
Craigs Pond had also been~ one of the major night time
roosting areas for the Savannah River Plant waterfowl popu-
lation and the opening of the southern part of that bay to
public hunting pressure has now caused complex changes in
waterfowl habitat utilization and movement patterns on the
plant area - changes which we feel may have negative impacts
in terms of forcing ducks to now roost in less favorable
wetland habitats deeper within the plant site where the
probability of contamination from accidenLal radionuclide
releases would be increased.
The point of this discussion is that if our NERP program
had been initiated at the Savannah River Plant site prior to
the time of the GSA Legacy of Parks lamd-aquisition efforts,
such lands as those we lost might have been more effect-
ively defended as being programmatic to our agency's mission
to evaluate the environmental impacts of energy resource
development and utilization as explained above. Almost
certainly, any such land loss from an extant NERP program
would only have been undertaken with a more adequate con-
sideration and discussion of the environmental impacts and
the needs for continuing environmental studies in coordina-
tion with on-site NERP programs, after such lands may change
hands. At present, as stated above, the remaining lands of
the Savannah River NERP site seem well secured for the time
being, and in fact, over 953 acres of that land has now been
specifically set aside and designated as natural habitat
PAGENO="0017"
13
reserve areas, which serve as undisturbed reference points
of the major kinds of natural ecosystems found on our site.
Similar programs including both the natural and developed
system conponents for the other three NERP sites of the Energy
Research and Development Administration are outlined in
Figure I.
It is also of crucial importance to point out that the
development of any program of NERP study such as I have
described would be of only minimal value unless some form
of programmatic financial assistance is also provided to
insure at the minimum, the proper administrative support
needed to maintain the integrity of the research site in
question and secure its boundaries against unwarranted
intrusion and disturbance. In the case of our own agency,
site security is a fortunate by-product of the normal pro-
cedures for the operation of the Savannah River Plant area.
However, it is almost of equal importance to also insure
that some form of minimal funding be made available for the
seeding and development of quality environmental research
efforts. In the case of the Savannah River Plant, for
example, a total of $215,000 has so far been provided to ~he
site by the U.S. ERDA, for the sole purpose of developing
and promoting NERP programs. Clearly distinct from the dollar
support of environmental research per se these specially
designated funds, which last fiscal year amounted to $75,000
at our site, are used for such purposes as: (1) providing
travel support to bring scientists, students and educators
to our site to learn of our program efforts and perhaps
become interested in initiating related research programs
of their own; (2) developing and equipping certain general
support facilities such as laboratory trailers at field sites,
for the use of visiting scientists; (3) providing support
and promotion for various scientific symposia and meetings
at which environmental information generated in NERP research
programs is disseminated; and, (4) supporting certain base-
line environmental assessment programs through which the
quality and composition of the flora and fauna of the
various NERP-site habitats can be censused and monitored
over extended periods of time.
In conclusion then, I feel that it is important to
emphasize that while the NERP thinking that I have been
describing has so far operated exclusively within the
programs of the U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, the design of the NERP concept itself
relates to the basic principles of the field of ecology in
their broadest and most general sense and thus could properly
be considered the domain of many other federal, state, or
private agencies as well. Since the basic differentiabion
of `natural from "developed" systems is made on the basis
of the derivation of their energy resources, it is only
natural that the first efforts at conceiving and designing
studies of the interaction of these two should come from
within a federal energy agency. However, now that these
98.513 0 - 77 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
basic concepts have been established, it is important to
realize that many other federal agencies might also have
strong programmatic justifications for designating NERP
programs and facilities at their own sites, in order to
better study the interaction between natural and such
developed systems as the mechanized agriculture and pest-
control programs of the USDA; the timber management programs
of the U.S. Forest Service; and, the grazing leases, coal, or
oil-drilling leases of the Bureau of Land Management. As
has been the case in our own ERDA National Environmental
Research Park programs, I believe that the initiation and
support of similar NER? research efforts by other agencies
would prove not only to be of relevance to the specific
programmatic missions of such agencies but would also be
of particular long-term benefit to the best interests
of all the people of this nation in terms of better assuring
the development of the proper environmental expertise and
understanding that will be needed to help insure the
preservation of suitable environmental quality and stability
in the years to come.
PAGENO="0019"
15
Figure 1. A tabular summary of some natural and developed
system components and NERP research-study
opportunities at four National Environmental
Research Park sites of the United States
Energy Research and Development Administration.
PAGENO="0020"
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
PARK SITES AND STUDY OPPORTUNiTIES
"DEVELOPED" SYSTEM NE R P STUDIES \ "NA TL/R4L" S YSTEM
COI4IPONEN rs \~ J COMPONENTS
SAVANNAH RIVER:
PRODUCTION- REACTOR EFFLUENTS -~ -~-- CYPRESS SWAMP
HEATED WATER~ - ~RESERVOIR & STREAMS
(BASS ,TURTLES ,ALLIGATORS)
PINE TREE CULTIVATION ~ "SAND HI LLS" FOREST ECOSYSTEM
JDAHO:~
CHEMICAL PROCESSING PLANT
CATTLE, SHEEP GRAZING SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM
HERBICIDES, CHAINING -~-
SHEEP GRAZING S PREDATOR CONTROL-~- ~- COYOTES
HANFORD:
WASTE DISPOSAL CRIBS -~- -~--SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM
HEATED REACTOR EFFLUENTS-~ ~ SALMON MiGRATION
NUCLEAR POWER PARK-~--~ ~- SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM
LOS ALAMOS:
RADIONUCLIDE WASTES~ ~CANYON ECOSYSTEM
PAGENO="0021"
17
APPENDIX I
Reprint of an article entitled, tThe Principles of
Ecology and their Application to Environmental Problems
Associated with the Production and Utilizadonof Energy",
by I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr. Reprint from Population and the
Environmental Crisis, Stephen White (ed.), Research Advisory
Council, East Tennessee State Univ~ersity Press, Johnson City,
Tennessee. 1975. pp. 72-91.
PAGENO="0022"
18
THE PRINCIPLES OF
ECOLOGY AND THEIR
APPLICATION TO
* ENVIRONMENTAL PROB-
LEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE PRODUCTION AND
UTILIZATION OF ENERGY
I. L. BRISBIN
Four years ago the advent of the first Earth 1)ay piaced a challenge
before the citizenry of the United States, and especially before those
within the field of ecology, to begin to address th issues of the es-
tablishment and future assurance of environment ~l quality and sta-
bility in this-country. In the years which have f lowed since that
time, this challenge has become even more pointed, especially in
recent months, with the occurrence of a national energy crisis. With
this challenge to make environmental concerns compatible with
energy demand, national planners and scientists alike have found a
need to return to the basic principles of ecological science and apply
these principles to the problems which they are facing in this area. It
is the purpose of this presentation to relate some of these basic prin-
ciples of the field of ecology to these environmental concerns related
to the production of both nuclear and non-nuclear energy.
Basic to an understanding of the fundamental principles of the
field of ecology is an understanding of the broadest ~oncept of the
definition of the word "ecology" itself. The word "ecology" has long
been defined as the basic relationship between plants and animals
and their environment. Today, however, such a definition is probably
much too limiting to he completely useful in all contexts in which the
word is being applied. In its broadest sense, the word "ecology"
signifies a philosophy or an approach to the natural world. This ap-
proach which is embodied in the word "ecology" is based on a gradi-
ent of levels of complexity of organization of naturally-occurring
systems, as presented in Figure 1. Basically, this gradient includes
systems ranging from the very simple atoms, molecules, and cells
to larger and more complex units such as populations, communities,
and ecosystems. The approach which we call "ecology" deals with
IN: Population and the Environmental Crisis, White,
Stephen (ed.). Research Advisory Council, East Tenn.
State University, Johnson City, Tenn. 1975. p. 72-91.
PAGENO="0023"
19
M 0
0 T R
A L C I
I E E S G A
O=C= L=S= A=N
M U L U N
S L S E
E S
S
C
0 0
p M
U M
U
N=
T
E
C
0
S
V
S
T
E
E M
S
L
= A
T
S I
M 0
S N
S
Figure 1. `flu' gradient of levels of complexity of organization of the
natural world. Man `s understanding of this gradient, as
indicated by the white arrow, began at the level of the
ifl(lWiduul organism and spread, as indicated by (he black
arrows, downward to less complex and secondarily, up-
ward to more complex systemns.
PAGENO="0024"
20
all levels in this gradient, even though it has 1 e~n more commonly
associated with those levels of higher complexity of organization.
However, technical papers are now beginning to appear in the scien-
tific literature, dealing with the ecology of the human skin, the ecol-
ogy of the human mouth and ecological approaches are now being
considered for use in studying the relationships between diseasv(l
and cancerous cells and tissues. In other words, it may not he so
much what a man does, hut rather how he does it, which makes him
an ecologist, as opposed to an M.D., lawyer, zoologist, or botanist.
It is interesting to note here that man's understanding of this
gradient, which began at the individual level of organization, as in-
dicat.ed by the white arrow in Figure 1, spread in 1)0th directions
from the center of the gradient as man's understanding grew to in-
clude both smaller and less complex systems within his own body
and also larger more complex systems outside of his body. As in-
dicated by the black arrows in Figure 1, however, man's understand-
ing of more complex systems developed at a much slower rate than
did his understanding of Ies~ complex systems. `I'his may be partly
due to relative "visibility" of the syst'nis involved. Man can ap-
parently study and understand only those systems which he can
"see" and that, of course, is largely a function of the i ~strumentation
which is available to make such svstems "visible' to him. When
Hook, for example, invented the microscope, man's understanding
began to spread to include cells and tissues. Later technological ad-
vances resulting in electron microscopes and other sophisticated
electronic equipment has literally allowed man to "see" atoms and
even smaller units. It has been only lately, however, that. man's tech-
nology has allowed him to "see" larger more complex systems such
as populations, communities and ecosystems. Technological ad-
vances in this area include earth-orbiting satellites, aerial infra-red
photography and radio-tracking telemetry equipment. These tech-
nological advances have allowed man to now "see and understand
that like the bodies of individual organisms, populations, communi-
ties, ecosystems and even entire contin('nts and oceans can act as
single structurally and functionally, integrated units.
The operation of each of these levels of organizations as single
structurally and functionally integrated units is one of the most im-
portant aspects of understanding the importance of this gradient to
current environmental problems. Such a principle is well understood
at the more familiar levels of organization of the gradient.. l"or cx-
~mple, there is little doubt that the human body (at the individual
level of organization) acts as a single structurally and functionally
integrated unit. A man's circulatory, digestive, nerVOUS, and skeletal
systems certainly do not walk around as individual entities, each
doing a separate thing. Rather, they all act in consort as a single
PAGENO="0025"
21
unit, which is known as an individual organism. It has been much
harder, however, for man to Ufl(lerStafld this same principle at the
ecosystem level of organization. The eastern deciduous forest of the
United States, for example, is just as much a single structurally and
functionally integrated unit as is a human body. Yet few people
gave as much thought to the extermination of an important predator
population component, such as the wolf or panther, from that eco-
system as they would have given to the surgical removal of a man's
kidney from his body. In neither the extermination of the wolf or
panther from the eastern forest nor in the removal of a kidney from
a man's body is the system totally destroyed by the "surgery" but
there is little doubt that the system and all of its other component
parts must have been drastically affected by the process in each case.
At other points in this presentation it will perhaps be useful to return
to such analogies in which basic principles, which are easily under-
stood in more-familiar levels of organization, such as the body of an
individual human being, are shown to also ~operate at less-familiar,
more complex levels such as the ecosystem.
To make all of this compatible with the earlier more simplified
definitic i of ecology as the relationship between plants and animals
and thei environment, all which must he (lone is to simply consider
the worc "environment" as referring to those levels of organization
outside (.f the one under consideration. This process is illustrated in
Figure 2. An individual deer standing in a forest, for example, has
two parts to his environment, lie has an internal environment con-
sisting of the cells, tissues and organs which make up his body. How-
ever, the deer also has an ext('rnal environment which consists of
the (leer population in which he lives and breeds, the community of
other living populations such as squirrels, rabbits, birds, trees, grass,
etc. which inhabit the forest, and finally the forest ecosystem itself.
However, because the ecological approach can be applied at all
levels of organization, this same approach can he used to consider
the ecology of a cell sitting in a human liver! That cell also has two
parts to its environment, its internal environment consisting of its
component atoms and molecules and its external environment COfl-
sisting of the tissues, organs and the individual organism within
which it resides.
The relevance of this approach to environmental problems as-
sociated with energy production and utilization can be illustrated by
considering how OflC of these levels - particularly the ecosystem -
acts as a system comprised of interacting component parts, using
energy as a means of demonstrating how all of the component sub-
system parts are structurally and functionally integrated into a single
unified whole. This is done in Figure 3. As is illustrated there, all
energy for our natural ecosystms, as has been true for the past bil-
PAGENO="0026"
22
"Internal"
Environment
M
0
A L C
T E E
0 = C.= L
M U L
S L S
E
S
"External"
ment
C
0
M
M
Ii
=N
E
C
0
S
-y
S
T T
0 1 EM
E
S
Figure2. Consideration of the concept of "environment' as being
those levels of organization outside of the one under con-
sideration. An individual organism, for exam pie, has both
an internal environment, consisting of less (`O!)lpl('X and (in
external environment consisting of mo re complex systems.
T
R
A
N
S
P
0
P
U
L
A
T
PAGENO="0027"
23
lions of years, is derived ultimately frbm the sun. The calories of sun-
light energy which impinge upon the earth's surface are then trans-
formed and fixed into chemical bond energy by the green plants, or
as they `ire known, "primary producers." Through the proc~ess of
photosyntbe~is, the sunlight energy is transformed, in the pre-
sence of chlorophyll, and stored as chemical bond energy in the tis-
sue of the plants' leaves, roots, stems, seeds or fruit. These plant
parts arc then consumed by herbivores and these grazers then cap-
ture the calories of energy from the plant tissue and incorporate it
into their own bodies. A similar process then follows as these her-
bivores are consumed, in turn, by predators or as they are also
known, carnivores. At each stage of this chain, energy may he bled-
off to the decomposer level which includes the small fungi, bacteria
and other microorganisms which break down dead I)odieS, excreta
and other organic materials and utilize the energy contained in them
for their own metabolic processes. In addition, energy is also lost as
heat or respiration in each of these transfers, by virtue of the laws of
thermodynamics which hold that no energy-transformation process
can be 100% efficient. Each of the stages named in this process rep-
resents what is known as a tophic or feeding level.The sequence of
trophic levels, as presented in Figure 3, forms a quite simplified
linear f.od chain. In nature, however, these food chains often be-
come infinitely more complex and diverse. One predator, for ex-
ample, may derive his energy source from a number of different
kinds of prey populations. In like manner, one prey species may be
preyed upon by a number of different kinds of predators, and so forth.
Thus what is illustrated in Figure 3 as a simple linear food chain
may in nature actually be a quite complex food web.
rrhroughout the sequence of trophic levels, as illustrated in Figure
3, the basic unit of energy exchange is the calorie. Calories of energy
thus flow in a one-way fashion from the sun through the-producers
to the herbivores, carnivores and/or decomposers and eventually
leave the system as respiration heat. One-way energy imports and
exports may also occur in certain systems.
As mentioned above, these energy-flow processes in natural eco-
systems are usually quantified in terms of calories. Calories are also
the basic unit of energy which are used to describe the intake of food
in human diet and nutrition. However, society's energy consumption,
in terms of electrical I)Ower, coal, gas or oil, are generally expressed
in other terms such as B.T.U. units or kilowatt-hours, etc. Such units
of energy measurement are directly convertible to or from calories
by simple conversion factors, and it's possible that expressing energy
transformations in common units might go a long way towards pro-
moting an understanding of the commonalities of the energy prob-
PAGENO="0028"
24
RESPIRATION
Figure 3. Energy f/ow through f/ic major [(`(`ding levels of a geifer-
alized natural ecosystem.
PAGENO="0029"
25
lems shared betWPefl natural ecosystems afl(l todays Ii utmin society.
Thus, the expression of energy in calorie units would help demon-
strate the basic similarity of the kinds of transformations which occur
when a rnbuse is eaten by a snake, a sandwich is eaten by a man, a
gallon of gas i'; l)Urfle(l in a car or a lump of coal 1)urnedin a furnace.
In all four of these examples, the potential chemical bond energy of
the mouse, sandwich, gas or coal is released in a machine (the snake,
man, car or furnace) and is then used to perform work of various
kinds. Expressing all energy units in calories helps emphasize the
fact that the same kinds of energy transformations are occurring in
all four cases. On the other hand, expressing energy in different units
in different situations, tends to change one's point of view when con-
sidering society's as opposed to nature's energy problems.
To bring these kinds of thinking into even closer coordination, lIT.
Odum (1971) has proposed that dollars may also he interconvertil)le
with calories in this !rocess at an exchange rate of approximately
1O,()O() ctlories per dollar. This exchange rate was obtained by di-
viding our national energy consumption for a given year by the gross
national product for that same year, as expressed in dollars. Using
this co version figure. some interesting calculations can be made.
[`or cx `mple, present~day knowledge of the metab(Slic rate of trees
and ott yr forest vegetation suggests that, on this basis, an average
healthy tree with a 1() rn! crown, if left undisturbed in a forest, does
approximately 128 dollars worth of work per year or an acre of
healthy natural forest would perform approximately 1O,3(i() dollars
worth of work pqr year (I aigo et a!., 1971). All of this would he done at
no maintenance or overhead cost to man. However, it should be em-
phasized that only a small proportion of this work would be directly
useful to man in such fhrms as lumber, fruit or other products. The
remainder of the value of the tree would lie mainly in its contribu-
tions of stability, diversity, and other benefits which are often dif-
ficult to quantify and consider as assets to human societ~r unless ad-
verse conditions of soil erosion or some other instability of the forest
itself begins to create environmental prol)lerns for man.
A final important point concerning Figure ~3 is that two main types
of ecosystem components are presented in that representation. These
are the "boxes" and the "arrows." The "boxes," as illustrated in
Figure 3, represent storage compartments of energy which is cap-
tured and contained in the bodies of the plants or animals at the par-
ticular trophic level in question. The "arrows," on the other hand,
represent transfer rate coefficients, which indicate the rate and di-
rection in which calories of energy are moving between the storage-
compartment boxes. The importance of distinguishing and quan-
tifying the boxes and arrows of natural ecosystems will become 01)-
vious when it comes to considering the movement and cycling of
PAGENO="0030"
26
PRODUCERS - HERBIVORES -~- CARNIVORES
(Green Plants) *~*____ (Grarers) ~_ (Predators)
DECOMPOSERS
IMPORTS ~ - - - ~ EXPORTS
Figure 4. Generalized representation of the cycling patterns of mat-
ter and materials between the major feeding levels of a
natural ecosystem.
PAGENO="0031"
27
matter in these same ecological systems.
What is true for the flow of energy through ecological systems is
also largely true for the movement of matter and materials as is il-
lustrated in Figure 4. This derives largely from the fact that matter
and energy are interconvertible and thus matter may be considered
as simply potential energy held in abeyance. There are certain dif-
ferences, however, such as the fact that no matter, only energy,
comes to the earth's natural ecosystems from the sun. There is also
no respiratory loss of matter fr~m these systems as was the case with
the movement of energy. In addition, matter and materials can cycle
both ways between trophic level feeding compartments while
energy, as was mentioned previously, flows in one direction only.
rI~hus all of the trophic levels in Figure 4 might be connected by
double-headed arrows.
This approach of studying and most importantly quantifying the
boxes and arrows involved in ecosystem energy-flow and in matter
and material cycling processes zeros-in on what might be one of the
most important approaches to understanding and solving many
problems of environmental contamination and pollution. r1~his is be-
cause, 1 y and large, such pollution or contamination stresses begin
to occu in ecosystems when short-circuits or blockages occur in
some p~ rt of these natural cycling patterns and pathways. This, in
turn, might cause some substance such as a pesticide, radionuclide
contamination, sulfur from coal-burning fossil-fuel plants or heavy
metals such as lead or mercury to back-up and become concentrated
in some storage compartment box. rfhis then would cause the same
kind of deleterious' effects as would result from an accumulation of
some such substance in a compartment of the human body. For ex-
ample, mercury becoming concentrated in brain tissue, etc. lead or
Some other heavy metal in liver tissue etc.
Alternatively, short-circuits or shunts in natural cycling processes
could cause harmful deprivations of some vital substance from some
storage compartment of either our human body or our ecosystem.
For example, a failure of sufficient nitrate or phosphate to recycle
to the green plant producers of an ecosystem from the decomposers
often places stress upon other parts of the ecosystem as well, just as
a decayed tooth will often result in a headache or discomfort in other
parts of a man's body. An analogy may also he drawn between a
short-circuit deprivation in an ecosystem and a stroke which would
restrict or short-circuit the supply of blood (and therefore food and
oxygen) which is being carried to the heart muscle, brain or some
other organ sub-compartment of the human body system.
Therefore, at the ecosystem level as well as at the better-under-
stood level of our own human bodies, it becomes quite important to
be able to draw and quantify these cycling pattern "roadmaps" and
PAGENO="0032"
28
try to estal)lish as many realistic and predictue relationships as
possible for these inter-connected boxes and arrows. This approach
is exactly the one which is currently being used in many Atomic
}~nergy Cominision laboratories in an attempt to understand these
cycling pathways in natural ecosystems adjoining nuclear power
stations or other AEC facilities. In some cases, these processes ran
be studied in terms of the cycling of released radinnuclide contami-
nan ts or, alternatively, rad ionuclide tracers can actually be in tm-
duced to better study and quantify the "boxes" and "arrows" of these
food webs. Radionuclides are especially appropriate to perform this
kind of analysis. This is because they are often more easily detected
and quantified in standard laboratory counting e(fuipment than are
some other contaminants such as pesticides. While g~tmnia-emitti ng
radionuclides can often he detected and quantified from a living
animal, the detection and quantification of pesticides or heavy met-
als, for exam plc, freq uently requires extensive grinding, homo-
genization and chemical extraction processes pri ir to analysis. This,
of course, makes such analyses more difficult, time-consuming and
expensive. It should he emphasized, however, that. among the most
important goals of such studies is an underst ~nding of the actual
pathways of the ecosystem "roadmap' itself r~; her than simply one
radionuclide contaminant, pesticide, etc alone.
A simple analogy may make the relationship between these cy-
cling stu(lieS of different contaminants more clear. Such an analogy
might describe how a very dangerous convict manages to escape
from a local penitentiary and make his way into a hitherto unex-
plored piece of wilderness forested area. To find and capture t.his es-
caped convict will, therefore, be a most difficult task since it will in-
volve extensive searches, surveying and mapping of the wilderness
area into which he has escaped. This would then allow the mapping
of water sources, hide-out caves, trails and roads which might he
used, etc. Once this has been done, appropriate measures might i-c-
suIt in the successful capture of the convict. if then,¼a second convict
should later escape from the same penitentiary and enter the same
wilderness area, his recapture would then he greatly simplified in
comparison to that of the first. The prior existence of roa(l maps an(l
an understanding of the locations of caves, water sources, trails,
etc., would allow the quick establishment of road-blocks and other
measures which would allow and simplify the recapture procedure.
The application of the analogy to ecosystem cycling studies should
he apparent; the unknown wilderness area could be any ecosystem
(a desert, forest, pond, ocean, etc). The first convict into the system
could he a radionuclide, a pesticide, heavy-metal or some other f~rrn
of contaminant. Once the "roadmaps" have been drawn to capture
and analyze the movements of the "first convict," the process will
PAGENO="0033"
29
then be greatly simplified for similarly dealing with other contami-
mints (the ``second convict ).
Thus, it is entirely possible that Current radionuclide cycling stud-
dies may actually l)e ~)roviding important information and principles
which will later prove to he of value in analyzing the environmental
impacts of contaminants released by non-nuclear energy production
through such processes as oil-shale extraction, off-shore oil drilling,
strip-mining or the operation of coal or oil-burning power plants. In
other words, the adaptation of current AEC radionuclide cycling
studies to address the environmental impacts of non-nuclear energy
production may not involve so much of a change in what is being
done, as it would simply involve a change in where it is being done!
Thus, cycling studies such as are now being conducted in the vicinity
of nuclear power plants would simply he duplicated in concept and in
approach in the vicinity of non-nuclear installations such as those
described above.
What has been discussed so far and illustrated in Figures ;~ and 4,
are so-called "natural systems. Natural systems may be defined as
those which depend on sunlight energy alone for their energy input.
In tlv ~e systems there is no appreciable economic or energetic cost
to ma for their "overhead" maintenance or stabilization. Such natu-
ral s~ stems include forests, grasslands, oceans, tropical jungles,
arctic tundra, etc., and may l)e contrasted to so-called "developed"
systems which are structured and maintained by auxiliary overhead
energy inputs which are required over and above the sunlight energy
which falls upon them, for purposes of maintenance, stability, etc. In
most all "developed" `systems today, this auxiliary overhead energy
cost is being paid by man who must process and supply energy to
them-- usually in the the form of fossil fuels-- to perform these func-
tions. Examples of "developed systems" include cultivated crop
fn lds which ire d p ndent upon inputs of commercial fertilizer and
farmmachiriery, towns, suburban areas and particularlycities. Fossil
fuels usually provide over 95% of the auxiliary energy-input require-
ments of these developed systems--usually less than 5% of the aux-
iliary energy costs being paid by nuclear, wind, tidal, solar or geo-
thermal energy resources. This is suggested by the dotted figure in
Figure 5.
It is important to note here that population growth and particularly
the expansion of man's society and technology on the earth seems to
have provided an impetus for the conversion of natural to developed
systems. rube implications of such a trend are suggested by the tro-.
phic pyramids at the bottom of Figure 5. That is to say, the amount
of food energy fixed by the producers is usuallymore than adequate
to supply the needs of the herbivores which feed upon them. In turn,
the herbiviores provide a more-than-adequate food base upon which
985130 77 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
Figure~5. Sonic important relationships between natural and de-
veloped ecosystems. The pyram idol representations at the
bottom of the figure suggest the relative stability of organ-
izat ion of feeding levels in the two kinds of systems. P =
producers, H herbivores, and C = carnivores.
PAGENO="0035"
31
the predator populations may rely. In (leVeloped systems, however,
the producer food-base is usually not sufficient to supply all of the
energy needs of the resident herbivore a fl(l pred ator populations.
This results in an inherent system instal)ility which must be counter-
acted by energy inputs which are "parasitized" from more stable
natural systems which must give up some of their productivity to
``shore-up" and support the food webs of the developed systems.
The green plants of Central Park, for example, are scarcely capable
of supplying ~ I of the f~od needs of' the herbivore~and carnivore in-
habitants of Manhattan Island. Therefore, additional energy re-
sources in the forms of imported meat, produce, fossil fuels, etc., must
he continually brought into the city from adjoining natural systems
where the green plant producers provide not only an adequate hut a
superfluous food base. Such (leVeloped systems might, therefore, be
thought of as "deficit-spending" economies. Calculations suggest
that cities may show total metal)olic rates energy-expenditure of up
to `1,000 I.cal/m2 per day while natural systems usually show rates
of only 40 kcal/m? per day (Odum and Odum, 1972). It is obvious
that the natural productivity of the developed system is unable to
supply ~e much greater metabolic energy requirement of such a de-
veloped `system.
It is ( ~)Viou5 that in order to stabilize the overall utilization and
flow of energy through 1)0th natural afl(I developed systems, it is
necessary to have appropriate proportions of 1)0th in a given area or
region. It WOUI(l not be possible, f~r example, in the long run, to ~il-
low the metabolic requirements of (levelopecl systems in a given re-
gion to exceed the a~iilities of the natural systems of the same region
to supplement the energy requirements to the extent needed to sta-
bilize these "deficit-spending" economies. A pioneering attempt to
calculate the relative proportions of landscape which are required to
obtain such an overall regional energy stability has been made by
Woodwel I and II all (1971) for the Long Island Sound region. These
authors estimate that the 5,102 square miles of the II county Long
Island Sound region (which of course acts as a deficit-spending de-
veloped system), would require clean undisturbed areas of either -
20,000 square miles of' eastern forest or 9,60() square miles of pro-
ductive inshore estuaries or 4~(),00() square miles of open ocean in
order to halance'the Long Island regional energy maintenance de-
mands in the long run.
An alternative to the preservation of such vast adjoining areas of
natural system, of course, would be to begin to reduce the deficit-
spending energy demand per unit land surface in the "parasitic"
Long lsland counties. The important point here is that such thinking
must begin on a regional basis in terms of balancing the energy de-
mands by establishing the proper ratio of developed to natural sys-
PAGENO="0036"
32
tei~s. I Jsing similar proce(Iures, ( )dum and ( )dum ( I ~)72 calculated
that the minimum I~er capita acreage r('quir((l br the niintenant-e
of a quality environment is approximately ~ acres. iii order to sus-
tain a standard of living such as is realized in most. of America today.
In the state of Georgia, for example. there is an average of it) acres
per man an(1 thus the state, as a whole, is still below its energy-based
carrying ipariL,
A further appreciation of the importance of green plant primai-v
producers a 11(1 their natural ((osVst ems in hal; I fl(i 0 g W rl (I (i1(rgv
deinands may be ohtilifle(i 1w consul en ng figures piese nit ed h~-
Woodwehl (I 97:b, \Vh() in(iicates that on the basis of I 9ti7 data t he
total primary production fixed for one ear h~ the woi-lcls green
planis was a~)pr(~xI iiiiiL('lV 2) )-t0l(t greater I hill tot.i 1 world energy
consumption during the same period - including all coal petroleum
natural gas. nuclear energy and `tiler ~our-is.
A most important point which must he made here is that the fossil
fuel energy resources--which - as was discussed ;~ h vc. supply ver
¶)~N of the energy supplement req u i red iw dEveloped svst (ms--a (P
supplied to those deficit-spending systems t h IOu)~ Ii the most ml
porta nit processes of the decay and ( )n versil ii f log; in ic in at) en I
such fossil forms as natural ga;; con I and ~iit n eu In n ii at Urn 1 sys
terns. As suggested in Figure ~i. it is precisely lii sti ragi of energy.
as mediated by the decomposer food chain of nat .i `;il svst ems, ~`h Rh
supplies the fossil fuels needed l)V the l)arasit ii' devel jod systems.
These fossil fuel resources th us act uahlv rel)rsen t decayed a 11(1
stored ni-gail ic iii atter which has been put ;i way by ii at U r;i I systems
over the past millions of years. That is to sn the vast natun-al svs-
terns of prehistoric swamps, fern forests ii rid jungles, whose remains
today even underlie the North Sea and Alaska's Nroth Slope, have
been acting over' the (-en to ties like a t.hti fly 1 )ut (hi I ~ia-lI' -- 5(11111 JI-
ing, saving and putting away world stoi-es of energy which were
originally bestowed h)y a prehistoric sun (0 t Ia' vast idiotosynthet ic
factories of the green I)lants of these swamp foi-est~ (If prehistoric
ages.
It is ironic that with this knowledge: we should still tolei-;tte tilE
vast ignorance and lack of stU(lV ~v1i u-h chin i-;(-t(niz(s thE h; SR ((`(1-
logical processes associated with the de -omp sen f 1)11 c hr ;ii n. \V hi 1 e
relatively great amounts of knowledge have been and C oil irlue to In'
collected concerning green pin nits, hei-biv( ifS a 11(1 I )I((l at ((`5, t li(
small decom imser organisms wh icir are foi tid P1(1 ;iy iii the litter.
decaying leaves and organic matter of our forests, s~v;iin ps md
marshes still remain one of the ie~Isl-sti1(hi('(f and least understood
portions of the world's natural systems. Yet~ it v~;is this very conipon-
ent of our natural systems which was and perhaps still is responsible
for the storage processes which have allowed the `I)utch Uncle" of
PAGENO="0037"
33
1UitUt~1l s~st(rfls to Iti\' ~ tIi(' store(l energy ``l)~1i11c t1C(~)ii!~t5 upon
\V hich our parasitic ii eV('l( )pe(1 systems are (U1r('n tl~ nI y ng t ( olay
`1(1 continue the aiiti bogy, OU~ dev('lope(l systems may a(t ((ally be
viewed as a profligate-spending ``prodigal son, living oii the past
savings accoUnts of family a ncest( irs. U niortun ately, Ii owever, n our
present analogy, the ``prodigal son is not only s~)('nding up the
stOre(~ h(iflhlV :-ci'-iflgs i -;o'rg\ hut. i. ,itmo a('tivefy 1(11(1 firing with
the present ability of the ``l)utch Uiiele' to continUe t,o earn a living!
This occurs in the form of nu n~'rous ki fl(ls of bedhack in I erW't ions
between natural and (I eve peo I systems as ire suggested I y the
double arrow between the two systems in Figure `~.
A good exa mj le of to n eg it i ye bed I oio'k between ~iev o'Ioj )e(f and
natural systems is the case 1 toil rainfat! in the nort loo'astern I. Tniled
States which is described at length by Woodwel 1 (1974 In t lois (`ase
it appears that. i neretosi ng tici(Iity in rain falls, which is apparently
being caused by a f.m Os! )her u (-(nt am in at ion from fossil - fuel -hu on i ng
power plt'nts, automobile exh;orsts, etc., mtiv be occurring at rates at
which the resulting aridity of the rainfall may soon be lo'to'hing (`5-
sential nutrients from the Ill an Is and soils of' I he ``Ii fe-supp it'' svs-
tems of the Northeast, to the extent that a IO'' reduction in total
system `iet primary pro(Iu('tivity may soon ho' affected. Ibis would
ro'pr('sei the loss iif energy from the equivtolo'nt of' tlppr((xin)tltely
Ii fteen 1 ,( OO-megawt itt react (irs. It is iflI portant to (`onsi (101' factors
such as this in making decisions as to) the relaxation of' air-omission
stafl(lat'ds for fossil fuel plants, automobiles, ole. Vieweol on energy
terms, both the decreaso' in rititurtil system primary productivity 0)11
out' ha n d a no1 the i fl('io't150' ii) &`no'rgy proof uo'e~ I f or (IeV('l ( )pE `(I sys-
tems by the 1)11110 ng of fossil fuels (espo~ei ~o I lv Ii igh-s ul fur coti I) on
the other in us t be weighed tog ii nst each other in a (`tO ro'I'ul ly (`al('U-
lated C05t-l)('n0'fi t tintilysis.
Stud k's of 5U('}l in terto('tion s I )o'tWe('n n ;itui'a 1 a rid d `vol oped sys-
tems (as in d icto ted l)y tloo' (1(0(1 hle ti rrow iii H gure i~ to ro' lb e sul )J o'('ts
of studies being initiated in to ii' ~ 0050(1 no'twork of' N tot ion tol En vi ron-
mental Research Parks (NE RI 0S). Those areas inclu(Ie with in tho'i r
acreage and study (l001lOtillO (`OIlipon('flts of 1)0(11 intertocting nuturul
(1/0(1 (/(`(`(`Iop('d ,~y,strnis, lii this wtiy, they differ significantly and
(`( onc('pt.u tol lv fri on Nto t.i onto I I 0tt i-ks so ch as ( lacier, Yo'l lo~vst one, or
Yosemite Ntotional Ptorks, `I'ho' Ititter tireas tn('loloI(' only (`Io'Ioo('nts of'
natural systems. The N ElliS, on the other ltind, include both ntotu-
rtil an(l developed system o'Iements. It is importtont. I)) o'rnj)htosize,
howcver, that neither t lo e nato r:o 1 nor the devil oped systems them-
selves tire the actual subjects of NE1tP stu(Iies, It is, rtotloet', the
``rlou ble-to rrow,'' - sign i fm ug ii tot oral /develol)ed system i ntertiction,
which is of pflflie concern too st (i(IiO'5 iii such areas.
Activities within a NERI' prograrn may he grouped into thro'e gen-
PAGENO="0038"
34
cral catergories: (I) I~n cirnnmcntal asse.'s,iz'nl in ust be un(ler
ta ken in order to understand the nature and extent of cnvirunm(jital
impacts which are presently occurring in the area as ~vehI as to ol)tain
a l);lsic understanding of the structure and the function of both the
natural and developed ecological systems on hand. `l'his would be
real i'ied l)y 0 hO SiC "boxes a fl(1 `Irrows" tyT)u of stiidy~ (2) F~M Viron
mental prediction, must then follow the assessment process so that
the consequences of alternate forms (If energy production or other
environmentally-important activity may he determined in advance.
Of prime importance to such predictive stu(hies is the establishment
of mathematically and statistically reliable models which should
not only be testable under field conditions hut which should be real-
istic in terms of both their mathematical and biological ecological
properties. (3) Environmental demonstration must then occur so
that there is an informing of all segments of our society to ensure
that there will be intelligent input from all quarters in decision-
making processes. This is especially true concerning decisiors which
must he made in the area of land-use planning. Such environmental
clemonstrath m and "public extensio fl' shun id run I he gain ut From
published research appearing in professional Sc i en t iii ( jon ma Is
through popular newspaper and inagazi nes articles. k ~tures to
technical and lay audiences and speciahize(l briefings Il groups
having particular concerns or needs to understand environmen t~d
im f)aCt processes.
The Atomic l'4nergy Comm ission s Sa van n~ih l~ i ver 1 ~l ant which is
located near Aiken, South Carolina. was recent lv (Iesign~It.(d as the
nation's first National Research Park. `l'lu' un-going program at
this site serves as a good example of a typical NERP program. The
Savannah River Plant (SRP) area was closed to the public in I 9~i2,
thereby establishing an area of approximately ~P() square miles as a
production and research facility for the Atomic Energy (`onimission.
Scattered throughout this area are a number of atomic production
reactors. The liquid effluents from these reactors (which are larger
in size and environmental impact. than typical electric I)owt'm gener-
ating reactors) enter a number of on-site natural stream water
courses of the SRP. The effluents from these production facilities
contain certain amounts of ra(Iionuclide wastes aIl(l heated water.
The streams carry this heat and radionuchide burden in a generally
southerly direction across the SRP area, eventually entering the Sit-
van nah River and passing downstream to the Atlantic Ocean~ Re-
fore entering the Savannah River proper, however, these stream
water courses pass through an area of approximately (() squarE'
miles of cypress swamp. Cypress swamps are, to he sure, a "rare and
endangered" type of ecosystem in most parts of the southeastern
United States. The Audubon Society and other conservation-minded
PAGENO="0039"
35
grou )s have been (I('vot i U g t p f b ri s to 1rsrv iii g I h se I ew on
(ilStlIIbP(l (`yl)rPSS SWaInI~s still in (XiSt(n((. such ~LS ( `urk Screw
S~vatnp it) tiW l~Vergla(les Ltid Ihrte-l IOIP SWulflj) in Soil h ( `arolina.
I ntil flo~V, there have been fl) good economic reasons tic argue br
the preservation of such natural swamp ((OsVSt(n)5. Ihe reasoning
for sv;aIilI) J)r(S('iVutiOn and (or(serv~ctiohu has, until (lOW, 10(1) large~
iv (`(IOta! and aestheti(' in odor'. Now, hoWeVer, sttiilit'~ at I he ~"a-
vatin~th River Ni'~RP are i)''giflhIiIug to suggest. that hue on-site cypress
SW~ L nip of the SRI~ Ii as pa Ii (nil y ~(rv e(i over Iii e past 21) ((F so ye; t rs
(If no (~i~( to the AE( as a giant licat-c'xciiacigc'r and radimuclide
Idler. Fhe stream `flluints (nicruig this swamp are apparently
ci ~ `; a plc cm t.c ma ni- a ml ~.c
heat imbre being i)asse(i (0 (1 ( )W nst.rcatn to the Sava on tb River
ttsclt.
In this swamp'filter hit c~c1canger -vsteni there are all of the
clenients for a classical Niil' study. Ihe swamp itself r(I)resetltS a
natural system, running n sunlight energy-input alone, with to
oV(rhe~1(l maint(n;tn(r ((csls to itiat). Tin- produciton reactor cc)mj)lex
upstream WiIi(h pro(iulee~ tin' Itirden of raciionutlide (`otut;tcnlnant s
;tn(I ii at ((`Is as In eh'tiieit 1 (ieVeloJ)e(i system a tid I ui I inlet'-
action in the swamp ;tr;t 1t-elt ``pitotuuizes the `(h)uhle-;crruw 01 a
NI:Ri' stu(i,', as diagt'~t(ucno(t to Figure :`~. Several vein's ;tgca the
:\.tonuic ~ (((Ill nhis-1'cc) cc nt tac ((1 with tile httstitiite ccl l;('Ohcgy
at the I, niversity of ( ootgu 1 cc login to ((((1(111(1 st 11(11(5 of lice (y(lIt)g
})rcc('(sS(c of ra(lionueli(i( (``Oct ttait);tt)ts ~itid liii inip;t('t these coil-
t;tmiñanti~ and heat. upon hits swamp ecos steni. `lb' study was (li-
signed to answer the (luestic)n ot how this swamp has been ;iicic' to
act as a rad ion ucl ide lilt er 111(1 Iie:t I excha ngir f~ r I he A E( `. Even
mire important lv, however, the study ```as (iesigne(i to ;tsk what
damage such activity has done to the s~v;tmnp (0(1 its v;trmous inhahi-
tan ts and What the eonseq uc nm's `v )U 1(1 in' of ~`on t.i no n g t cc IX f)( ~
the swam p to such im pa('t s. in ot liii' words, it bc; tine im ~ort ant to
km cw hi cw long the 581111(1(11(1 (`((11 tin ui to I c(' ix pei't.ed ic) play Lb is
rol(' cf a no-cost radionuelid' I mit(r and heat exchanger.
`[`he prom'cl ure used by I ice t *1 ni vet-sit y i f (eorgi a smeic fists in t. his
swam p study were basical lv ;t `bc cxc's and arrows'' rc cad -ma ppi uig of
h t' ~ system wit i'm i's pe(t Icc sevc -rah I m port ant rm hi( ((`((1(11 ( ies. 111
(`(cndu :t.i rig th rse st 11(1 (5, ci ~t1 1 Y 1'('Pt'('s(n Ia ti VI'S 1)1 thE di f'f it'~'ri t t ro-
p1cc' 1 c'V('lS of hit' W ticijis Ic (cci ~Vehi5 were stud iP( I - `ft `S(' i tie! u (1('(I
sI (Idle,'; u soil 811(1 sericmenl s, i usc'ct ~, plants, trees and aquatic vege-
11110cc grazi rig iceri)ivcres S(1 cli as i~1it55ii0I)P('t'S, t1I~((' 811(1 (1(01' (11(1
predators such as foxes, bois';its, snakc's 811(1 alligators. Fiiiallv,
pre(hi (`t.i ye mat hi('fl'( cit icci 1 1)1 ((II'! 5, p; c t't icu ct ny I hose describing f ri-
~1~'1~~' (histril)tIticctIs, \\`c'r(' ccs((1 in :c(c ittt('iilpt ii) PhcIt.'(' ci!! of these
sIU(Ii('S ticto a (ccIiIIcioll ``boXeS 811(1 arrows' conceptual h'arilt.'Wort{.
PAGENO="0040"
36
Although far from complete. the results of tliise st udits ire ;ilre;elv
becoming available in the fiurni of symposia and piihlislwd scientific
manuscripts.
The swamp studies of the Savannah Hiver I l:uit simply ii lustrati
a Nl~RP study program which can easily he duplicated in (Wicipt
many other areas of the I ~iitcd St.atc~-. The National l~'actur Test-
ing Station in ldaho~ for example, is another large piece of A E(
controlled land in which NERP study programs could easily he in-
itiated. This area which is located in southeastern Idaho contains ii
numher of experimental reactors which may interact in various ways
with the natural sagebrush ecosystems of this site. ( cit ii n port ions
of the 90(1 square miles o~ thi~ Idaho I it :uri its ~~e:rd to graz-
i ng pressure by d~ imestic cattle a n(l sheep. These (Ii mest a Ii vestock
represent an extension of ii "(l(Velopd Ii vest ck-i ml ust iv eco-
system component. They interact in maiiv important ways with the
natural ecosystems of the area and their inhabitants. Vi example,
herbicidal sprayings and chainings to cent ref siq~hrw h and en-
courage the growth of grass f~r grazing d iast i ~; fly a I icr the nat or: 1
ecosystems present on the ~11Wl. I rtil~~ter cent :ol by the poisoning
or shooting of' coyotes also represents ;i dni lb-: rrow' intr~i'1 jell
l)etween man s devclope(l a n(1 nat on l mi )syst(ill colni, ~11 is `lIes
and other such N EHI~ study programs a ii presin liv I vi 1i~ (onsid cred
for future study at this site. ( )1her Al( sites iii which siinil;tr N V 1(1~
study programs cou 1(1 he mu inteil i ml to to the 11:11 ford Vservutt ion
in Washington State, the Nevada lest. Site a ad t h I ~s Alamos
Proving (rounds area in New l~1exicl.
In conclusion, the NERI~ study programs offti I~ (lJ)p(lrtuI)ity,
f)05S1 Ny for the first time, to (`011 ceptu ally rI at t he in vi 0(1)1)) tn tal
ifl) pacts and activities of t he developed syst ems ~`re;t t ml h~' iii an's
society ~lfl(l technology with the natural (c()sVsteills ~Vlfl(l~ mmiv ad
join and he interspersed with such developed areas. As aiggestsl by
this presentation energy considerations ii) ight easily form uiii .i
portant point of departure from which such studies nut be initiated.
In the final analysis, however, it should In I hose basic ecological
principles relating to the gradient in levels of mm plexitv of (Irganiza-
Lion, the concepts (if systems WI) (h act as single strii (to in I lv and
functionally integrated units at all levels of organization and il~
``boxes and arrows' sub-system ciInp(nnt mtn:fvsis locedure
which will allow these studies to be conducted in a rnmiiiingful and
relevant fashion.
PAGENO="0041"
37
Preparation of this m;inus(n;it WaS Supfn)rt(d by the )ivision (if
l~iOL~1((1i(;iI ;Ln(f IflVironhl)ei)lal 1~isini'h of the El n it((1 ~tates
Atoiiiie I.~n~igv (oi1~n~ission. lb ~avann;ih lb VII' Piatil St u(Ii(S are
l)(ing (Ofl(lU('t('(f (111(1(1 (`001 i'aets Ah:l~4- I )-7O~ ;ii~d A'I:l~ 1 )~ll 0
between (he Un iversi lv of (eorgia md I he At.omnir En~rgv (`oninii~
5100. ~~jiem'i;il ;mpf)r('('ial 011 15 (X1,(11(l('d ((i I )r. ( ;eorg( M. ~Voo(l~veli
of t he I ~rook ha ~,en N; iii ~mn;i I ~; I ~ ira t orv f~r stimulating di s~'iissm on s
of ideas and to Ms. (`andare I )ixon fin' assistance with the mann
script preparation.
BiBLIOGRAPHY
Lugo, i .I., ~nm(1;mLm'r, ~ ftmvlev an(l II. `1'. ()dum. P171. r\lotlmls
fur ~I;mnriing afl(l l~(s('ar('li fur the South I'Iurida Lilvirominient ;il
SIn Iv. lillal Ibpurl fur ( ))iltr;I(t II l099(H)-:f(~l l)elwem'n lh(
National lark S(rvm('( md I lie (~enter for Aquatic Sciences, 1 Jni-
versitv of I~lorimla, ( ;L)11(SVI lie.
)(Iumn, .I'. I'. and III'. ()d un. 1972. N at ur;ml areas ;ms 1u('(ssarv (`On)-
jionenlsof rnaIlstof;il('mivIrr)mn(-ntIraI)s:37t11J's41\,j1)(r\\'jl(Jl
(11(1 Nat Pesources (omit. pp. 1 79-l~0).
()dunl, II `1'. 197 In Vii01)!llei)t, power and society. ~Jolin Wiley and
~ N~v ~`ir-k. :l:l I ~
\Vood~vel 1, ( .r~i 1 171. 1 ~iot ic energy flovs. Science I
11 ( 1\1 li 1 "Oi( (I `--`~ "U( ((`-"1011 (11(1 Ad 1111 `-`~iiiiI 11 hio
S('iefl('e 21 :~`~ I *~7.
\\Too(f~vtlI (.M. ;mn(I ( `AS. I Ia II. I ¶171. file ecological (`filets of
energy: ;i hasis for jiolu v in 1-eg nm ml plan 11111g. In: Energy, l'~n-
vironmnitit amid I `l;omning 1\I. I). ( o1(ll)erg, e(l. Proc. of a Conf. at
I ~rookfia von Nat on ml I .; mb ratory (I ~N I r50~i~). pp. F0~f~.
PAGENO="0042"
38
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMLS L. LIVERMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRA-
TOR FOR ENVIRONMENT AND SAYETY, U.S. ENER~+Y RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Dr. LIVER~IAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be back
before the committee. As you know, I face you quite often and it is
always a pleasure to come back.
Today, however, I feel particularly privileged to be here because
the prdblem that you are discussing is one that is very near and dear
to my own professional heartr-namely, the preservation of large land
areas that can be used on a continuing basis for environmental R. & D.
Basic studies, as Dr. Brisbin has outlined beautifully, of developed
systems and undisturbed ecosystems, should help us to better under-
stand what the broad impacts of man's activities across a much broader
landscape would be.
My own personal view of these National Environmental Research
Parks calls for a relatively small investment in terms of dollars and
effort. With the proper orchestration-which seems to be the general
intent of H.R. 6379-of these resources we can certainly get a very
great payoff in terms of understanding natural ecosystems and how
they may be impacted by various things. At the same time that we
are getting those things out of the environment that we need, we can
also maintain the quality of the enviromnent.
Dr. Brisbin has alluded to it and my own feeling is that ERDA's
principal contribution in this subject of natural areas derives from
our National Environmental Research Parks program which arose
from a rather small number of fortuitous decisions made early in
World War II. It became obvious that if the TJnited States and its
allies were to come out on top in World War II, we should make
nuclear weapons. In order to do this, one needed areas that were
secure and remote for safety and for national security reasons. These
areas had to have an ample supply of water and they needed to be
able to be guarded with the least possible inconvenience to people
working and living in the areas.
Today we call these facilities national laboratories, test sites, or
what have you. Names such as Oak Ridge, Hanford, Brookhaven, Los
Alamos, and Argonne, that are everyday words now, were originally
not conceived of as places where you could do environmental research.
But as we proceeded during early World War II with the develop-
ment of nuclear energy, it became very clear that we had to set up
mechanisms by which we could track radioactive fallout and releases
from our own production plants as they entered the environment and~
the food pathways to man. All of this came about as happenstance
without any great and grand design behind it. So, fortuitously, then,
in the mid-50's we found ourselves with large land areas with restricted
access, a variety of climates, scattered over the Nation. These included
forests, grasslands, and other vegetation types and provided us with
the capability to run long-term, controlled experiments without any,
except the most essential interruptions. Even these interruptions
could be largely controlled or if not controlled, the areas could be
studied for any impact on them. This is a very important point. From
studies of the impact these interruptions one could begin to see what
PAGENO="0043"
39
steps were needed in the future to prevent further degradations from
taking place.
Mr. BROWN. May I ask you, Dr. Liverman, whether at this early
date the terms ecology and ecologists were in very broad use?
Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, it was a ~pretty academic subject.
Mr. BROWN. You actually, knowingly or unknowingly, were mi-
tiating some of the earliest research in ecological sciences, I presume.
Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes; that is correct. I was going to bring it up a
little bit later in my statement. But I think now is a good time.
I think we owe much credit for what we now have in NERP's to a
few far-sighted people like Dr. Stanley Auerbaçh, of the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and Dr. Bill Qsburn, of my staff, both of whom
are here today and to Dr. Eugene Odum, University of Georgia. They
saw the need for large land masses with controlled access to trace
radioactive elements' through the food pathways to man as a basis
for regulatory standards. Dr. Odum, one of the country's leading
ecologists, was instrumental in developing a research program at the
Savanah River Plant which you have just heard about. A few olher
farsighted people, for instance John Wolfe, now deceased, who headed
AEC's first environmental program, could see that these sites offered
a unique opportunity for study if seized upon and vigorously pursued.
So, yes, what you say is largely correct as it was somewhat by
chance. However, we owe much to the influence of the people I have
mentioned and many others who have led us in that direction.
Another important point is that there are an enormous number of
different kinds of ecosystems scattered over the face of the Nation
(slide No. 1). It was fortuitous again that in siting our facilities on
SurE 1
PAGENO="0044"
40
the necessarily large land masses with adequate water supplies we had
the beginning of a systematic network. You see Brookhaven National
Laboratory up on Long Island. You see the Savannah River Plant
down in the southeast coastal region. You see the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory at the foot of the Applacluan Mountains. You see sites in
the Midwest, some in the Rocky Mountain States, and in Idaho, Wash-
ington, California, Nevada, New Merico; each of them in quite dif-
ferent climate,s. -
SLIDE 2
Slide 2 illustrates the point that I wish to make. Namely, that it
just happens that these facilities end up being in almost the center,
or, if not the center, certainly well within the regions that represent
large ecosystems. The one at Savannah River, for instance, which is
fairly large, is quite representative of much of the southeastern and
gulf coast coastal plain area. So the results which you obtain from
studies at the Savannah River Plant, with proper ground proofing or
confirmation, are probably extrapolatable to most of that region. This
is a key point. If you can then run experiments at a given site, study-
ing effects of impacts before you have to impose impacts on a whole
region you begin to be able to anticipate what is going to happen and
may take ameliorative steps.
So we found ourselves, then, in a position to begin to do the kind
of thing I have just talked about. Namely, in a limited area, we can
MAJOR LANDSCAPE UNITS
- OES~GNATEO
10 1977
00019 COISI0194TIOO 1900 COF4TROLLED 007
R1000STIOG C007IOEFATIOO 0011-17.00 10.001
S SITE OF OATI000L LAOS
PAGENO="0045"
41
begin to run experiments that might be extrapolatable to broader
areas.
It is interesting how the concept of National Environmental Re-
search Parks has begun to be multiplied and utilized by others. Only
in yesterday's mail, for instance, I had a letter from the vice president
of PEPCO. Interestingly enough, they bought 1,400 acres at Douglas
Point a number of years ago with the intent of establishing a nuclear
powerplant there. Because of many recent events, which is a totally
different discussion, the decision has been made that they will defer
the construction of that plant until some time in the future.
What do they find themselves with? They find themselves having
paid for 5 years of baseline studies carried out by the universities in
the region. They were beginning to wrap around the problem rather
well and now, all of a sudden, they decided that they are going to defer
for sometime the construction of that nuclear plant. As most profit-
making institutions, they have great difficult believing that they should
continue to run that ecological reserve, as it were, until such time as
the company decides to build a plant, but under the concept we have,
they are getting that baseline information. They are looking at the
natural ecosystems there, in a broad sense, so that they can prevent
hopefully the kind of thing that happened at Indian Point II. Yet the
question was: Dr. Liverman, can you help us in any way with your
National Environmental Research Park concept? Is there any way
that you can continue to help us sustain this effort?
I think this is a question that is repeated many times over: That
the Nation somehow needs to deal with because here is an organiza-
tion willing to devote and maintain this land and to keep it restricted.
They welcome within their fences studies by anyone who wants to do
studies there if they can bring their own money.
So, I think that as the committee wrestles with this problem of
land areas, this may be an area to which you would like to give some
kind of consideration. I do not know exactly how one deals with it.
Mr. BROWN. Well, does this relate at all to the concept, that has
surfaced on many áccasions, of the prior acquisition and analysis of
nuclear plant sites by some agency of the Federal Government in or-
der to shortcut the ultimate process of licensing and so on?
Dr. LIVERMAN. I think it bears directly on that question. The coun-
try and agencies of the Government have not quite faced up to how
one achieves the selection of sites, carries out the baseline studies that
can help one to come to the decision, either on the part of the State
or the Federal Government, as to what are, in a given State or given
area, the sites that really are best suited for commercial development
whether it be powerplants or something else. Again, I do not think the
problem really has been thought through fully as to see how we
achieve that. I think the goal is clear. Most people would support that.
But, how you go from where we are to do it with private enterprise
and the Federal Government both being involved is a pretty open
question.
It is interesting that Jim Schlesinger, who was at that time the
chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and is now the Secretary-
PAGENO="0046"
42
designate of the soon-to-be Department of Energy, is the man who
designated the first National Environmental Research Park at Sa-
vannah River. Because of speeches he made, which often make policy,
the Idaho site was designated -as a National Environmental Research
Park. I am not sure how many people in town are aware that Jim
Schlesinger had the foresight to do that.
Mr. BROWN. He wanted some place to do his bird watching.
[Laughter.]
Dr.LIVERMAN. Perhaps. Let's go to slide No.3.
RESEARCH RESULTS ALLOW
1. ASSESSMENT of Environmental Impacts of -
an Energy Activity
2. PREDICTION of Environmental Impacts from
- - Postulated Energy Activity
3. DEMONSTRATION to Public of Environmental Costs
SLIDE 3
Let us move ahead. Dr. Swinebroad, who is in the audience here
with us, is a favorite bird watching colleague of Dr. Scheslinger, so
maybe he could say more than I can. -
You see here an indication of the many sites that are under ERDA
control, some of which have been designated formally as National
Environmental Research Parks.
The second column shows their sizes in thousands of acres: Savan-
nah River is. about 200,000; the Idaho site about 600,000; the Han-
ford site about 400,000; the Oak Ridge site, which has not yet been
designated, about 37,000; Nevada test site, three-fourths of a million
acres.
The third column indicates the general kinds of ecosystems that
exist there. For instance, Los Alamos has a juniper piñon vegetation
type. The Oak Ridge site is fairly typical of an Appalachian forest,
whether you are in Tennessee or in Pennsylvania. It covers a very
broad spectrum of ecosystems types and means that one can establish
or there already exist a wide diversity of research programs.
PAGENO="0047"
43
1. RECOMMENDATION 8*
COMPLETE A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF ECOLOGICAL
RESEARCH AREAS TO:
a. PROVIDE SITES FOR MANIPULATED
EXPERIMENTS
* b. MANAGEMENT TESTING
c. OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESULT OF HUMAN
IMPACT
*THE ROLE OF ECOLOGY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THIS IS THE ONLY REPORT ASSESSING THE EXTENT AND
STATUS OF ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH BEING CARRIED OUT
BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
SLIDE 4
The next slide-slide No. 4-indicates some additional sites which
we have and I would like to point out one or two things. The ERDA
sponsored Puerto Rico Center controls an area typical of tropical
rain forests. They have come to us and asked if we are interested in
establishing an environmental research park there.
Dr. Brisbin mentioned Cape Thompson, which has about 100,000
*acres typical of arctic tundra. The Natives own part of it. It has al-
ready had, perhaps, as large a baseline study done on it as. any place
in the Arctic. We are working with the Department of the Interior
and the Navy to maintain some degree of control over that region
in order to continue those baseline studies because of the enormous re-
sources and the energy potentials that exist in Alaska. We believe
that we can obtain a better understanding of how we need to protect
the environment through work performed at that site.
I could continue to go on through others.
I would like to make one more point, however. If I go back to slide
No. 2 which shows the distribution I can point out that there is a
great void in which there are no National Environmental Research
Parks and not all the sites shown constitute National Environmental
Rsearch Parks. I would like to draw my hand down through the mid-
dle of that map in the central part of the country, where, as far as
ERDA is concerned, we have no activities that really contribute in
a major way to understanding that area to the country which repre-
sents much of our agriculturally vigorous areas.
PAGENO="0048"
44
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Liverman, why is Hanford not designated on that
chart?
Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, it should be.
FROM Tm AimrsNcE. It is, it is just not clear.
Dr. LIVERMAN. I think it is the black dot down near the bottom of
the State of Washington.
Mr. BROWN. My eyes are nOt all that good.
Dr. LIVERMAN. The point I wish to make with this slide is that
ERDA, certainly, in no way believes that we are the protectors of the
Nation's total landscape. The Departments of Interior and Agricul-
ture, and many others have many holdings. But I think if one begins
to put together what you are trying to do here-namely: Where are
those areas? What do they represent? Are they typical of most of the
United States? It would be interesting to know if one superimposed
on that map all of the different kinds of ecosystems that are now in-
cluded in anything resembling environmental research parks, we
could, perhaps come to a. far better understanding of what studies we
need to do on those sites with controlled access to give us a better
understanding of environmental impact across the Nation.
2. RECOMMENDATION 8
(Cont.)
AT PRESENT A SYSTEM OF NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARKS
HAS BEEN ESTABLiSHED ON CERTAIN
FEDERALLY OPERATED FACILITIES.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE
FORM THE BASIS FOR THE NATIONAL
SYSTEM OF ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
AREAS.
SLmE5
Slide No 5 points out (1) that environmental research parks give us
an ability to assess environmental impacts of energy activity and (2)
the ability, hopefully, to predict in ecosystems that are quite similar
what the impacts are likely to be.
The third important point, which Dr. Brisbin did not mention but
which 1 think is rather obvious if you think about it, is that one can
demonstrate with real live things what the impact of proper manage-
ment of the environment can be even in those developed ecosystems
which Dr. Brisbin discussed.
PAGENO="0049"
45
LOCATION
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT'
SOUTH CAROLINA
IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING
LABORATORY - IDAHO"
AIIGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
ILLINOIS
BATAVIA. ILLINOIS
INATIONAL ACCELERATOR LAB)
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
NEW YORK
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY''
NEW MEXICO
NEVADA TEST SITE
NAVADA
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
TENNESSEE
PACIFICNORTHWEST LABORAToRY"
WASHINGTON
TALL GRASS PRAIRIE AND
FOREST EDGE
TALL GRASS PRAIRIE AND
DECIDUOUS FORESTS
NORTHEAST OAK-AND PINE
FOREST
ANNUAL GRASSLAND AND
CHAPARRAL
JUNIPER AND PINVON FOREST
RADIONUCLIDE MOVEMENT IN
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
WATER MOVEMENT; THERMAL EFFECTS;
NUTRIENT CYCLING
PRAIRIE RESTORATION
EFFECTS OF RADIATION; TERRESTRIAL AND
AOUATIC ECOLOGY; NUTRIENT CYCLING
RADIOECOLOGY OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS;
AIR POLLUTION EFFECTS ON VEGETATION
RADIOECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF LIQUID
WASTE DISCHARGE AREAS
FATE & EFFECTS OF RADIONUCLIDES;
NUTRIENT CYCLING
AQUATIC & TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY;
IBP ECOSYSTEM STUDIES
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY; THERMAL
EFFECTS; BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLING
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARK SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION (Cont.)
1.4 NORTHERN HARDWOODS
<1 PACIFIC ATOLL
INQUIRES
GRAMA-NEEDLE GRASS -
WHEATGRASS GRASSLAND
MIXED-OAK-HICKORY
DECIDUOUS FORESTS
B TERRESTRIAL & ESTUARINE
ECOSYSTEMS
SLIDE 7
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARK SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION
VEGETATION TYPE IKUCHLER)
MIXED HARDWOODS AND
FLOODPLAIN FORESTS
ARID SAGEBRUSH SHRUB
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
SIZE ACRES.
1.BXOs
200
B72
3.7
BR
27
MINERAL CYCLING; THERMAL-EFFECTS
`D~sig~~I,d ApAI 1972
`D.,ig~~Hd J~AHy 1B7B
"Doi9~Md 1976
B5O DESERT SHRUB-CREOSOTE BUSH
AND GREAT BASIN SAGEBRUSH
37_B APPALACHIAN OAK FOREST
360 SAGEBRUSH STEPPE AND
FESCUE GRASSLAND
SLIDE 6
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
LOCATION
PANTEX
AMARILLO TEXAS
ROCKY FLATS
COLORADO
PUERTO RICO NUCLEAR CENTER
PUERTO RICO IN COOPERATION
WITH THE FOREST SERVICEI
AMCHITKA. ALASKA
1)0 COOPERATION WITH THE
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE)
CAPE THOMPSON
ALASKA IIN COOPERATION
WITH THE U.S. NAVYI
RHINELANDEK WISCONSIN
IIN COOPERATION WITH THE
U.S. FOREST SERVICE)
ENIWETOI(
POWDER RIVER BASIN
U. OF WYO.
T. V.A. REGION
FEBRUARY 3. 1976
PUERTO RICO TRUST
SIZE ACRES.
lOOTS VEGETATION TYPE IKUCHLERI
15.2 GRAMA-BUFFALO GRASS IBP ECOSYSTEM STUDIES
GRASSLANDS
2 SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE RADIONUCLIDE MOVEMENT IN TERRESTRIAL
MONTANE GRASSLAND AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
LAND NOT UNDER ERSA CONTROL. BUT UPON WHICH ERDA
HAS OR IS GUPPORTING EXTENSIVE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH -
<1 TROPICAL RAIN FOREST ECOLOGY OF MARINE SYSTEMS;
MARINE-ESTUARINE RADIATION EFFECTS ON TROPICAL
FORESTS
70 MARITIME ARCTIC TUNDRA TOTAL ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS; BA5ELINE
STUDIES STRESSING SUCCESSION OR
RECOVERY OF ECOSYSTEMS
100 ARCTIC TUNDRA TOTAL ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS;
BASELINE STUDIES
TERRESTRIAL RADIOECOLOGY
PRE- AND POST-NUCLEAR TESTING STUDIES
98-513 0 - 77 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
46
There was a report put out not long ago, entitled "The Role of
Ecology in the Federal Government" which is really the only report
that assesses the extent and status of ecological research being carried
out by the Federal agencies. I take it as a compliment to ERDA be-
cause it discusses-slides Nos. 6 and 7-the need for a national system
of ecological research areas. It says that our National Environmental
Research Parks should be used as an example of the kind of thing that
needs to be created in order to build for the Nation a system of eco-
logical research areas in which one can run controlled experiments of
one.kind or another.
I have no more slides and I will finish very quickly.
I do not think you have asked us to testify and concern ourselves
very much with the particular piece of legislation. My statement sub-
mitted for the record goes into some detail to give you a feeling for
the size of acreage that needs to be set aside. Obviously it can vary,
but I would point to the slide that Dr. Brisbin showed of the Savan-
nah River site, in which you need an area large enough to have con-
trolled sites where you let nature develop as nature will and you do
not add any stresses to that particular area. But you need an identical
site or period in the same general region for comparison where you
do, in fact, impose upon tha.t ecosystem various kinds of insults arising
from man's endeavors. It will depend, somewhat, upon the particular
nature of the experiments and on the vigor of the ecosystem in which
things happen. One could set aside as much as a million or a million
and One-half acres which could be used for a given set of experiments.
I think that by judicious design of experiments, by coordination of
experiments in the various e.cosystems~ one can sharpen up and define
and more nearly limit the amount of land that needs to be set aside
for such things.
The administration has not yet taken a position on H.R. 6379.
Clearly, as you mentioned in your opening comments, this is a matter
the administration is thinking about~ about land areas. I think there is
one important point from my own background and experience that
the committee could well keep in mind, and that is to cast a watchful
eye upon what we in the administration come up with, to cast a watch-
fiil eve on seeing that there is an ability to force t)he total compliance
with NEPA as these land masses may be diverted to other uses. Also,
remember the important points `that Dr. Brisbin makes-that you do
not learn about how fragile or how vigorous-that is not quite the
word-resilient the environment is without testing it at some time~
We believe then that our sites-National Envirdnmental Research
Parks-offer the oppOrtunity for two types of study. One is on undis-
turbed or control areas and the other in areas wherein man deliber-
atelv or inadvertently impacts the environment.
Protecting these sites that are set aside for the R. & D. is just as
important as farming or other kinds of activities. One needs some
mechanism by which to achieve that. Perhaps NEPA is the way, if
pronerly enforced. `
With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I will close and am open for
any questions you may have.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Liverman.
PAGENO="0051"
47
Dr. Liverman, is it really possible in most parts of the United States
to have an ecological research site that is not impacted substantially
by man's uncontrolled activities? I am thinking of the maps, for ex-
ample, which show, the prevalence of acid rain covering almost the
entire Eastern United States.
Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, the problem that you raise is obviously a se-
rious problem for the development of control areas. One thing that
can be said is that you cannot control the impact of that acid rain
unless you get all of the SO~ and related things. Acid rain is not the
only thing that is going to impact those areas. So using acid rain on
two sites that are equivalent, you can bring in shopping centers, you
can build highways, you can bring in farming, you can superimpose
upon that not quite a clean baseline, but certainly a baseline, other
insults that may arise. That is the best we have in most places. So one
has to live with what is out there, but try to then superimpose upon
those controlled experiments within limits to try to determine what
additional impacts there may be. It is not clear that acid rain is always
bad. It is certainly bad for buildings. If you have a shortage of sulfate
in the soil, it is not totally clear then that it is necessarily bad, but we
simply do not know.
Mr. BROWN. Well, in southern California, which is my own area
and a particularly hazardous one from the air standpoint, pine for-
ests are being devastated by ozone 100 miles from the main center of
population. In fact, the University of California at Riverside has
just received an additional $250,000 to study this phenomenon, which
should be a part of an environmental research park project. I do not
think we have any environmental research parks in southern Califor-
nia, but we are talking about national forests and in some cases wilder-
ness areas. It seems more and more difficult as we contemplate the
need to expand energy-producing facilities in new areas, to keep from
impacting at least air quality over large parts of the United States,
and the vegetation and animal life and so on.
Dr. LIVERMAN. May I make another comment related to your spe-
cific comment? It seemed to me as I drew my hand down through
the middle of that map, that as the Nation begins to allow its na-
tional forest lands to be utilized for mining, recovery of mineral re-
sources and biomass production, it is imperative to establish simul-
taneously a research program. I think it rests right in the lap of this
committee, as a matter of fact, to try to insure that there is constituted
at the same time we turn over millions of acres for the extraction of
energy resources something that resembles a National EnvironmBntal
Research Park effort to begin to examine what the impact may be.
Because we are going to be mining coal (unless the CO2 becomes a
problem) for many, many years. Let us begin to look at all aspects of
the question more vigorously than we have before to do that.
My own feeling is that this kind of R. & D. must march hand-in-
hand with the implementation of mining. We must examine the en-
vironmental impact of mining and resource recovery. It simply is
not taken into account in the usual course of events.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Liverman, you and Dr. Brisbin have outlined the
development of the environmental research parks beginning with
PAGENO="0052"
48
World War II as a sort; of a casual or almost accidental response to
the development of a new energy source. I am sure, a feeling was
involved in it that we were ignorant of the environmental im-
pact of this new energy source and that we needed to do this kind of
research to fully assure the people of the country that we could live
with the results. Well, this subcommittee ha.s been having hearings
on the environmental consequences of the President's energy plan,
particularly on its provisions for increased coal use. Testimony on
human risk, part of which is environmental and part of which is
accident-related, indicated that. the coal cycle is somewhere around
200 to 500 times as hazardous as the nuclear fuel cycle.
Is it possible that under these circumstances we decided almost
accidentally to develop these parks because of the development of a
nuclear fuel cycle, all the while knowing what we are in for in terms
of additional coal development, yet not, planning on an even broader
scale for some coal-oriented research effort? What I am trying to
state rather imperfectly is, shouldn't this knowledge of coal impacts
lead to the further development of the concept of research parks?
Dr. LIVERMAN. It certainly should and again I find myself taking
my hat off to Dr. Brisbin, but on that Savannah River site there must
be some 10 or 15 coal-fired units, and the group there has been address-
ing the environmental impact immediately around those sites.
But to answer your question directly-I think it is imperative to do
so. I think that -our sites in ERDA can be utilized somewhat, but we
do not exert control over a large mass of the land and in my view it
falls to the responsibility of somebody-I do not know whether that is
ERDA or the new DOE or Agriculture or Interior or all of us jointly,
to come up with a concept of how we do the kind of thing you are
examining, here fore the alternative energy sources other than nuclear.
Mr. BROWN. If the Congress should succeed in passing a major
synthetic fuel bill as has been proposed several times before, it seems
to me that as a logical followup we should include in it components
which would reflect this research park approach as we move into shale
arid high-Btu gasification, coal liquefaction-the whole gambit of
using this fossil fuel. We ought to do at least as much as the AEC did
on the nuclear program.
Dr. LTVERMAN. I find myself on a continuing basis commenting on
many bills that enter the hopper in the Congress and, almost without
exception, I find that I am writing into each one of those a need to
address the environmental question. I think the price of doing this is
constant vigilance on everybody's part because we have to get the
energy and we do not seem to learn the environmental consideration
lesspn very well.
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. Spensley?
Mr. SPENSLEY. Dr. Liverman, is it not true that the NERP sites
might disappear tomorrow with a swipe of the signature of the Ad-
ministrator of ERDA or a decision of the Secretary?
Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, it would be over a lot of objection on my part.
Mr. SPENSLEY. The point is that NTERP's have been established ad-
ministratively and could be abolished with a decision of the Adminis-
trator or the new Secretary.
PAGENO="0053"
49
Dr. LIVERMAN. That is correct. -
Mr. SPENSLEY. Do you think there is any prudence in looking at any
protective legislation for these sites? Do you think that your agency,
which started NERPs, has done quite well with them and has ex-
panded them, wants Congress mingling in those affairs now?
Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, there is as you are well aware from the general
flow of your question that these large land areas that belong to the
Federal Government are constantly subject to encroachment by
farmers, by ranchers, by people who want to harvest forests, and there
are not in existence very many rules or regulations that prevent that
encroachment. My life would be simpler if some mechanism existed.
Perhaps the need for protecting these lands will be driven home by
Charlie Warren of CEQ. GSA surveys us. GAO surveys us. Every new
administration surveys us. Every time it is up for reconsideration. Per-
haps it is worthwhile and important to say that ability to do environ-
mental R. & D. on natural areas is an important national goal also,
and, therefore, before you give way, destroy, write off these things, you
have to take into account the following considerations. That is entirely
possible.
Mr. SPENSLEY. Let me ask just one more question.
Is there a mechanism in the administrative procedures of ERDA
that when excess land becomes available or surplus, it is reviewed for
~ise as a potential NEIRP site before it is turned over to GSA for sale?
Dr. LIVERMAN. I think the answer is no, but I will check it.1
Mr. SPENSLEY. OK.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Liverman, for your testimony.
Dr. LIVERMAN. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Liverman follows:]
1 The correct answer is that due largely to urging by the ERDA representative, the
charter for the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves contains a provision whereby
Federal lands which the GSA declares excess are systematically reviewed for potential
environmental research value.
PAGENO="0054"
50
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
OF
DR. JAMES L. LIVERMAN
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY
U.S;. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
JULY 28, 1977
PAGENO="0055"
51
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcomittee--
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here to discuss with the Subcom-
mittee ERDA's National Environmental Research Parks Program.
A National Environmental Research Park (NERP) is an outdoor laboratory
dedicated to studying the impact of man's activities on the environment so
that ERDA's and the Nation1s environmental goals may be achieved. Not only
are NERP~s places to conduct research but a cadre of environmental researchers
are an integral part of the program. The core of my presentation may be
found in the NERP charter and the associated program directives.
The charter outlines research objectives and the program directives
represent a research plan or guide whereby ERDA and national environmental
goals may be achieved. Thus NERP'S If expanded into a full network offer
a mechanism whereby the spirit of NEPA may be attained. Ultimately, the
NERPs should include sites representative of all ecosystems (in every stage
of succession and recovery from stress) within each physiographic region
of the United States.
ERDA emphasis focuses on activities related to energy resource develop-
ment; efforts will be continued to Insure that appropriate sites are reserved
for research needed to determine the range of impacts associated with each
stage of alternative energy developments. Thus, within each NERP, or NERP
satellite, there will be protected natural areas (experimental controls or
research reference areas) and examples of such man-altered systems as nuclear
and fossil fuel powerplants, heated ponds and streams, cultivated fields,
tree plantations, grazed land, and land disturbed by construction activities.
With the exception of certain restricted areas, land within a NERP may be made
available for environmental research on a permit basis. The participation of
PAGENO="0056"
52
researchers with outside funding is invited.
The research program conducted at each NERP will be unique, but all
programs will address three general objectives: (1) to develop methods to
continuouslymonitor and assess the environmental Impact of man's activities;
and (2) to develop methods to estimate and predict the environmental response
to proposed and ongoing activities to minimize adverse impacts; and (3) to serve
as demonstration areas to fully inform the public of the various environ-
mental and land use options open to them.
Most ecological studies require, first, a comon group of factors or
conditions to be determined with each experiment such as, soil fraction, pH,
nutrient levels, and vegetation type. Second, for proper Interpretation of
the response of organisms to environmental stimuli, the environmental regime
under which the experiment takes place needs to be measured. Third, one needs
to know whether or not the environmental pattern for that year Is typical, or
how atypical. Hence, the experimental year environment must be compared to
that of other years; the greater the number of years the~ more reliable the
predictions will be. Thus, experiments superimposed upon other. studies can
be carried out with much less expense and their results become more precise.
Additionally, previous experiments may be opened for re-examination. Hence,
since ERDA is able to provide foundation data, others may capitalize upon it
withbenefit to all.
PAGENO="0057"
53
National Environmental Research Parks have been established at the
Savannah River Plant, South Carolina (1972); the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho (1975); the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
in New Mexico (1976); and the Hanford Reservation near Richland, Washington
(1976). Designation of the Oak Ridge site and the Puerto Rico Center for
Energy and Environment Research as NERI1s is expected in 1977. Several
other major ERDA sites and some areas managed by other Government agencies or
private groups are currently being considered for inclusion in a national
NERP network.
Now to address specifically the two questions on which you have requested
information: How much land will be needed for environmental research? Will
legislation be needed to protect these research lands?
First, as to the amount of land needed, ecology has not reached a stage
of sophistication sufficient enough to give us a quantitative estimate. Let
me pursue this for a moment. You are all familiar with the story of the lad
who invented chess. As payment he requested One grain of wheat for the first
of the 64 chess squares and double the number of grains for each of the
remaining squares. The emperor - not making the needed calculation - offered
a "super generous" reward of several bushels of grain. At the lad's insistence,
a calculation was made and the magnitude of the payment was soon apparent.
* Most people will readily admit that we need to have land on which to
conduct environment research. It is vital to developing information to
resolve presslngproblems. And like the emperor most people are willing to
set aside, "generously," a few acres. Like the chess inventor, we should
force a calculation. Let us examine the various considerations.
PAGENO="0058"
54
1. For statistical reliability, at least 10 replications of nearly
any experiment are needed.
2. At least three treatments are required plus a control. One treatment
should be at a level of upper tolerance, one at a lower limit of response and
a third In between.
3. Size of each experimented plot must be determined. For small mamals,
Golley of the University of Georgia calculates 2-10 acres. Also, a minimal
area for the comunity should be considered. Minimal area means large enough
to contain all normal components (plants and animals), normal populations,
normal functions, activities, and behavior.
4. Another consideration is that in order to observe seasonal effects
an experiment should be carried out for at least a year. In order to observe
effects of extreme years, perhaps 10 years isa minimum.
5. Each experiment should be done at least twice.
6. Each stress experiment can belnitiated during fall, winter, spring
and sumer (4 more variables) and results can be expected to differ.
7. The above applies to one stress only. When several stresses or Inter-
actions are considered, the permutations become almost Infinite.
8. Each year, some 10 to 15 new materials are added to our foods or, In
some manner, Introduced Into our environment.
* 9. A calculation goes as follows:
10 x 4 = 40 plots x 5 acres each - 200 acres x
2 (repeats) = 400 acres x 4 seasons Initiated =
1600 acres x number of different ecosystems in
U.S. region, say 100, = 160,000 (aquatIc habitats
PAGENO="0059"
55
not included) x 10 new toxic materials introduced =
1 ,600,000.
Each year we would tie up for 10 years over 1 million acres. For this
research to be truly representative of the region In which the experiment Is
performed~one would also need to perform a number of additional land-consuming
experiments to ascertain whether or not the results could be extrapolated over
the entire region.
10. One should carry experiments through a complete succession cycle.
In the South, this may require 10 to 50 years, whereas in arctic regions
several hundred years are required.
One way to circumvent such large land use is by a judicious selection
of experiments. In chemistry, by following certain procedures, an unknown
may be examined for many different things. however, If one follows an
improper sequence the sample Is destroyed after one trial. Ecological
experiments, too, should be carefully planned to avoid failures.
Simultaneously with planning experiments, we need to `design' our
outdoor laboratory. Step 1 is for a group of scientists, land managers, and
administrators to decide what kind of landscapes and communities are desirable
in order to offer a maximum field research potential for a particular physio-
graphic region and for its future. The questions to be considered are:
What kinds of cotwnities, how mmmy stands (examples) of each and how many acres
per stand, and how distributed In relation to soils, topography, and geology?
What kind of management is needed to create and, in case of subclimax types,
maintain each ecosystem or comunity? This first effort, defining the desired
PAGENO="0060"
56
mix of ecosystems, has to be based mainly upon the scientists' best judgment
as to future needs. They must be pre-eminent in any planning of this type.
This process of defining the land management objectives is extremely im-
portant. It is comparable to designing a laboratory only it is more
difficult to correct mistakes. No outdoor laboratory blue prints are
presently available.
In response to the second question regarding legislation needed to
protect environmental research sites, we could discuss H.R. 35, H.R. 39,
andR.R. 6286. But in my view, the most important is H.R. 6379: "To
establish a non-profit center for long-term environmental research and
other purposes." Although, to date, the administration has not formulated
a position on the bill, this type of legislation will receive further con-
sideration during administration deliberations on Government reorganization.
With proper planning and related funding, I believe ERDA's NERD pro-
gram could serve as an example for other Federal agencies to follow. In
fact, the interagency report, issued in 1975, "The Role of Ecology in the
Federal Government" strongly recomnended that other groups follow the
NERD lead.
Mr. Chariman, this coücludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
PAGENO="0061"
57
Information from ERDA
Washington, D.C. 20545
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARKS
National Environmental Research Parks are protected.
areas in which scientists can conduct long-term experiments
to learn the impact of man's activities on the natural
environment and on environments already altered by man such
as abandoned farm fields and land that has been strip mined.
Four Parks, totalling more than a million acres, have been
established since 1972 when the first came into being.
They are located on ERDA-owned land near Los Alamos, New
Mexico; Richland, Washington; Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Aiken,
South Carolina. The Parks co-exist with ERDA research and
production facilities for which the land was originally
purchased.
Each *Park represents a specific environmental region
and a variety of ecosystems which are typical of large
areas of the United States. For each, there is already
a substantial body of basic information on geology, wild-
life, vegetation, aquatic systems and meteorology. These
Parks, which are under the supervision of ERDA's Assistant
Administrator for Environment and Safety, are available
for research use by scientists from universities, private
foundations and other state, local and federal agencies.
They offer a unique national resource for understanding,
and learning to control, man's effects on his environment
and for advancing national environmental goals.
(MORE)
PAGENO="0062"
58
-2-
THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT
Ecological studies require controlled lands where
instruments can remain undisturbed and the study areas are
protected from intrusion by vehicles and casual visitors.
Through historical circumstances, the Energy Research and
Development Administration owns very large tracts of land
in nearly all of the major environmental regions of the
United States.
These areas were inherited from the Atomic Energy
Commission. They were purchased in the 1940's and 50's
as sites for nuclear research laboratories and oroduction
plants which require large buffet zones around them, both
for security and for safety.
Proposals to turn large sections of these sites
into National Environmental Research Parks were made
by scientists at several AEC facilities as early as 1970.
For example, scientists from the Savannah River Ecology
Laboratory, which was operated for the AEC by the University
of Georgia, proposed that those segments of the Savannah
River (South Carolina) Plant site not being used intensely
be set aside as reference ecological areas and ~for use as a
protected outdoor laboratory. There, long tern experiments
could be conducted to test the effects of various chemicals,
of construction and of agricultural activities. The concept
was a logical outgrowth of the 1969 National Environmental
Policy Act and of increasing concern for preserving repre-
sentative land areas.
For 25-30 years, these nuclear sites had been protected
from public intrusion. Large portions of then had been left
in their natural state or were permitted to revert to a
natural state from previous human uses which included town
sites, cultivated fields and grazing lands. In addition, a
substantial catalogue of information on the soil, ecology,
hydrology, vegetation, wildlife and aquatic systems on the
sites had been compiled as a result of years of environmental
research and decades of environmental monitoring necessitated
by the nuclear work.
(NOPE)
PAGENO="0063"
59
-3--
The Savannah River site was designated a National
Research Park in 1972. In 1975, ERDA's Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory site near Idaho Falls was desig-
nated; and, in 1976, ERDA's Hanford Reserve in central
Washington state and narts of the Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory site in New Mexico were added to the list. In
each case, care was taken to assure that the environmental
research at the Park was compatible with the basic research,
testing or production activities which were underway and
which will continue.
All of these Parks are available to scientists through-
out the country for a wide variety of environmental research.
The non-ERDA research conducted at the NERPs nay be funded
by private companies, research foundations, universities or
other government agencies.
FUTURE RESEARCH PARKS
ERDA is considering Iroposals to designate several
more of. its large sites as National Environmental Research
Parks. Among them are the Oak Ridge (Tennessee) Reser-
vation; the Nevada Test Site; the Brookhaven reserve on
Long Island (New York); and, in cooperation with the U.S.
Forest Service, a research area in the Loquillo National
Forest of Puerto Rico which now is being used by the
Puerto Rico Energy and Environment Center under an EPDA
contract.
By establishing a network of environmental research
areas, man may have the opportunity to test in advance the
effects that new ideas or technologies may have on the
environment.
(MORE)
PAGENO="0064"
60
-4-
THE PAR~(S
SAVANNAH RIVER NERP
Designated as NERP: 1972
Location: About 20 miles east of Augusta, Georgia on
the South Carolina shore of the Savannah River.
Size: 190,000 acres (76,000 hectares)
History: The site was acquired in 1950 as the location
for facilities to produce nuclear materials for national
defense.
Environmental Features: The site includes a variety of
land ecosystems which are representative of much of the
Southeastern United States. Among them are swampland,
pine and hardwood forests, a large man-made lake, old
fields, an abandoned town site, marsh-covered Carolina
Bays, and several streans and watersheds.
Wildlife: The site is home to at least two endangered
species, the American alligator and the red cockaded
woodpecker. In addition, the variety of wildlife includes
qu~il, beavers, rabbits, possum, raccoon, bobcat, fox, deer
and feral hogs.
ERDA Facilities On-Site: 1) The Savannah River Plant,
operated for ERDA by the DuPont Company to produce nuclear
materials. It includes long term storage of high level-
wastes from the production process. 2) The Savannah River
Ecological Laboratory, operated for ERDA by the University
of Georgia.
IDAHO NERP
Designated: 1975
Size: 571,800 acres (229,000 hectares)
History: Since 1949, the site for testing various types
of nuclear reactors. Originally called the National -Reactor
Testing Station; now, the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory.
(MORE)
PAGENO="0065"
61
-5-
Environmental Features: The site lies within the upper
Snake River Plain. The average elevation is nearly 5000
feet (1515 meters) and it is typical of a cool temperature,
desert scrub environment. It contains a variety of desert
vegetation such as sagebrush, saltbrush and junipers, and
several endangered olant species. High buttes of basalt and
rhvolite dominate a landscaoe that also includes volcanic
craters and cones and alluvial deposits which may have been
ancient lake bottoms.
Wildlife: A rich variety of bird and animal life including
endangered soecies such as the prairie falcon and pygmy
rabbit. Hawks, eagles and doves, pocket gophers, weasels,
kangaroo rats and pronghorn antelope also make their home on
the reserve.
ERDA Facilities: The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
operated for ERDA by AerojetNuclear, Inc. (The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Loss of Fluid Test Facility
also islocated on the site.)
LOS ALAMOS NERP
Designated: 1976
Size: 27,000 acres (10,800 hectatres)
Location: North-central New Mexico in the county of Los
Alamos.
History: Acouired in 1943 as the top secret site for the
Manhattan Project's atomic bomb research laboratory.
Transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947 and
to the ERDA in 1975.
(MORE)
98-5130-77-5
PAGENO="0066"
62
-6--
EnvironmentalFeatures: The Park is located on the Pajarito
plateau, and consists of a seriesof mesas, or tablelands,
separated by deep canyons running eastward from the volcanic
Jemez Mountains to the Rio Grande Valley. It contains
vegetation in three major continental life zones: 1) the
upper Sonoran (juniper); 2) Transition (pinon, juniper,
ponderosa pine); and 3) Canadian (fir, aspen). The land
rises from 5600 feet (1700 meters) above sea level at the
Rio Grande 10,560 feet (3200 meters) at the Jemez Mountains.
There is an abundance of prehistoric Indian ruins, remains
of 14th Century pueblos and settlements, and many 15th-to-
17th Century sites which originally had three-story adobe
buildings. Three specific areas within the NERP have been
proposed as historic sites under the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Wildlife: The wildlife include 4 species of fish, 9 of
reptiles, 187 of birds and 37 species of mammals. Deer
and elk migrate through the area seasonally.
ERDA Facilities: The Los Alarnos Scientific Laboratory,
operated for ERDA by the University of California.
HANFORD NERP
Designated: 1976
Size: 365,000 acres (146,000 hectares)
Location: Along the Columbia River in central Washington
State, near the town of Richland.
History: Acquired in 1943 as the site for secret facilities
to pro~uce plutonium for the atomic bomb. Transferred
to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947 and to ERDA in
1975. The Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve on the Hanford
site was a forerunner of National Environmental Research
Parks. In 1966, 110 square miles (286 square kilometers) of
the Hanford Reserve were set aside along the east face of
Rattlesnake Mountain, to be used for protected environmental
research. ALE `is included in the new Hanford NERP.
(MORE)
PAGENO="0067"
63
-7-
Environmental Features: Borders on' the last free-flowing
stretch of the Columbia River and is the only sizeable
land area of desert steppe in the U.S. that is not heavily
used for livestock grazing. The elevation ranges from 350
feet (106 meters) to 3600 feet (1090 meters). Topographic
features include an extensive zone of advancing sand dunes,
a series of vertical cliffs along the river, the Saddle
Mountain range and several hills and buttes. with inter-
connecting plains. Temperatures can exceed -20°F (-32°C)
in the winter and more than 100°F (40°C) in the summer.
Vegetation includes sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass,
and salt desert shrubs such as spiny ho~sage, winterfat
and bitterbush. The Hanford Reserve also includes aban-
doned farms, towns and settlements and several archeological
sites.
Wildlife: The reserve is home to blue herons, black crowned
night herons, gulls, partridges, grouse, curlew and nesting
Canada geese. Mule deer, coyote, bobcat, badger, muskrat
and beaver and a variety of smaller mammals also live there.
In the Columbia River adjacent to the Reserve are found
Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Pocky Mountain whitefish
and sturgeon.
ERDA Facilities: The Hanford Engineering Development
Laboratory, operated for ERDA by Westinghouse; the N-Reactor,
operated by Douglas United Nuclear; high level waste storage
farms, maintained by ARHCO; a fuel fabrication plant for the
N-Reactor, operated by United Nuclear Industries; and the
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, operated by Battelle Northwest.
April 1977
PAGENO="0068"
FOUR-LEGGED C.B.er---A mule deer at ERDA's Los Alamos National
Environmental Research Park is marked with colored ear streamers and
a numbered ear tag, and fitted for a radio transmitter (contained in
a colored neck band). The deer is then released unharmed. The trans-
mitter will permit accurate tracking of the animal, so that its move-
ments, feeding habits and other life patterns can be studied. (LASL
Photos, available from ERDA Photo Office)
PAGENO="0069"
65
C
i~C~
LABS WITHOUT WALLS---ERDA's
National Environmental Research
Parks (NERP) are protected out-
door laboratories, where scien-
tists can study the environmental
impacts of man's activities with
an eye toward minimizing harmful
effects. Each Park represents a
specific environmental region,
with wide varieties of plants,
wildlife and geological forma-
tions. Photo #1: About 100
pairs of Great Blue Herons make
their home at the Hanford (Wash-
ington) NERP, where scientists
study the behavior of this and
other animals. #2: Samples of
vegetation growing in the Los
Alamos (New Nexico) NERP are
taken to be tested for the pre-
sence of various chemical ele-
ments. #3: Los Alamos research-
ers create and measure seismic
waves to analyze underlying geo-
logical strata. (Photos avail-
able from EROA Photo Office,
Washington, D.C. 20545)
PAGENO="0070"
66
Mr. BROWN. We next have what we will consider a panel of two wit-
nesses-Dr. David Reichie from Oak Ridge and Dr. Burton Vaughan
from the Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Dr. Vaughan, I am hoping to visit the Hanford facility in ~ couple
of weeks. Maybe you can give us some clues as to what we could see up
there that would bear on the topic that we are discussing this morning.
Dr. VAUGHAN. We will be more than happy, Mr. Chairman. I think
that your assistant should request specifically the nature of the things
you would like to see so it gets routed right through our system.
Mr. BROWN. You gentlemen are welcome here this morning and we
look forward to hearing about your own particular perspective on
these matters. You may proceed in whatever fashion you. desire.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID REICHLE, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DIVISION, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. REICULE. Thank, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is David Reichle and I am the associate director of the En-
viromnental Sciences Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
I feel that as a former member of the Research Advisory Committee
to the National Science Foundation as well as being a current member
of the Environmental Studies Board of the Nationa.l Academy of Sci-
ences, that the opinions that I am going to give this morning reflect
those of a substantial portion of my professional peers.
I am a professional ecologist and have been involved in the research
on the ecological effects of environmental pollution since 1964 and am
responsible now for the scientific management of a multidisciplinary
research staff of some 160 professional scientists.
When you address the question of NERP's, it is important to dis-
tinguish ERDA's National Environmental Research Park from re-
lated concepts by referencing the land use terminology employed by
the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves.
The Federal committee defines Research Natural Areas or RNA's in
the sense of conservation reserves to protect unique and natural eco-
logical features for scientific reference. The Experimental Ecological
Reserves or EER's, which you will be addressing tomorrow, are essen-
tially synonymous in concept with ERDA's NERP's and are protected
landscape units where experimental, long term, and manipulative en-
vironmental research can be performed. This research is necessary to
the science of ecology in order to develop the methods and data where-
by the response of ecological systems to environmental stresses and
other man-induced perturbations can be evaluated. I think it is impor-
tant to note that the environmental sciences, and particularly ecology,
are outdoor sciences, and that the ecological sciences do not presently
have calibrated environmental laboratories equivalent to those of the
physical and atmospheric sciences, and that such facilities are abso-
lutely necesary to provide the baseline and time-trend responses of
ecological systems to changing environmental conditions.
This developing network system of ERDA's NERP's is in a sense a
forerunner of the Experiment.a.l Ecological Reserve network being
studied by the Federal Committee on Ecological ~eserves. A unique
feature of the NERP's is the capability to perform experimental re-
search on the landscape, with the data being available to local, State
PAGENO="0071"
67
and other Federal agencies that require such information to meet their
responsibihties in land-use management and environmental decision-
making. The environmental research parks already serve as a regional
focus for environmental assessment activity.
It is important to note that the Experimental Ecological Reserve, I
am using this term now synonymously with ERDA's NERP's, should
not be misconstrued as a public relations device by which the Federal
landholding agencies can retain lands which otherwise might be made
available for private use. The EER, the Experimental Ecological Re-
serve, represents an important scientific resource. Not all of the Fed-
eral agencies, which have resource management, regulatory, environ-
mental protection, or ecological health research responsibilities, not
all of them have the land and water resources necessary to carry out
the needed research and, equally as important, the baseline monitoring.
The scientific community does not have sufficient access to adequate
research sites to investigate ecological phenomena or, in particular, to
pursue long term ecological effects studies. Suitable research sites rep-
resentative of the important natural ecological systems across the Na-
tion are rapidly disappearing.
I would only emphasize your earlier question to Dr. Liverman re-
lated to the acid precipitation problem. This situation illustrates the
urgency of securing these sites and the historical record of data while
they are still available for our baseline information.
The collaboration of the many Federal agencies, each responsible
for various aspects of maintaining and protecting a quality environ-
inent, requires focal points necessary to protect their cooperative and
comprehensive programs. These points can be illustrated more
specifically.
Let us think first in the context of the ecological reserve as a unit
at individual sites. Special reference areas can be set aside as long-term
baseline monitoring points at which scientists can establish standards
for the performance of normal, natural ecosystems.
Routine, baseline measurements of natural and managed systems
can provide long-term tracking data and information on how these
systems have responded to chronic, low-level pollution or other anthro-
pogenic stresses.
Experimental, manipulative research, can be effected in contrast to
the purely observational activities. This research can be used to eluci-
date the functional mechanisms of ecosystem response to pollution
stresses. This leads toward predictive capabilities.
Information on environmental health trends and predictive knowl-
edge of ecosystem responses to perturbation can be utilized in evaluat-
ing and solving environmental problems in the biotic region in which
the experimental reserve exists.
Data and information management systems can be maintained to
effect the expedient transfer of this kowledge to users.
Of course, the ancillary benefits of scientific management of these
areas for protection of unique habitats, rare and endangered species, as
well as the education of the public and the training of a future genera-
tion of scientists exists.
Second, if you look at the experimental reserve as a network, there
are other advantages offered.
PAGENO="0072"
68
Within a network it is possible for the coordination of the reserves
located in different environments across the Nation which can bring
about early identification of critical environmental issues and initiate
the quest for necessary information on an early time schedule.
In many~ instances, background information on water quality, at-
mospheric pollution, land-use impacts, and ecosystem effects can pro-
vide insight to potential environmental problems before they arise, as
well as to suggest modes of action that will need to be taken to
ameliorate or otherwise deal with these potential problems.
Also, the present status of the health of ecological systems for all
regions of the country can be evaluated, as well as providing the basis
for understanding past changes in the biotic environment and pro-
jecting future trends.
Last, within a network, it is possible for coordination and utiliza-
tion of the land holdings of a variety of Federal agencies and other
institutions, while assuring at the same time the availability of the
scientific resources to the researchers and the transfer of informatibnto
decisionmakers.
ERDA's National Environmental Research Parks, as have been
explained this morning, were established because the Agency had a
mandate to fulfill certain environmental requirements. ERDA's envi-
ronmental goals were delegated in large part to its contractor-operated
national laboratories, each with a resident research staff and an experi-
mental reserve which uniquely qualified them to address a number of
critical environmental problems. As you know, this pattern persists
today, and it is important only to underscore the tact that the ability
of ERDA to exploit the potential of its NERP's has been due to the
presence of its resident research staff at each of the sites.
Mr. BROWN. May I interrupt you there, Dr. Reichie?
Is Oak Ridge, for example, a site operated by Thiion Carbide, as I
recall? Is it Carbide's responsibility to maintain and support the
NERP'S research staff or is it ERDA's responsibility?
Dr. REICHLE. Carbide acts as the contractor to ERDA. The funding
support for the research staff comes fundamentally from ERDA.
Mr. BROWN. I am trying to distinguish between the contractor em-
ployees and ERDA employees, and determine whether ERDA con-
tracts with~ Union Carbide for the management of the entire staff or
just the operation of certain facilities.
Dr. VAUGHAN. I might, Mr. Chairman, make a point in clarification
here; It has not happened, I believe, at Oak Ridge. but for example the
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, which I represent, is presently operated
by the Battelle Memorial Institute, but it has been operated by three
or four prior contractors. Operating contractors change. Many of the
people stay, so I do not know how you interpret that. The corpus of
people are essentially funded despite the upper management of the
organization.
Dr. REICHLE. I think the distinguishing point is that the employees
are employees of the contractor. The funding and programmatic goals
are established between the research managers and the Federal agency
in this case.
Mr. BROWN. We are talking about a fairly substantial number of
people. You mentioned 160.
PAGENO="0073"
69
Dr. VAUthIAN. I might just add, I have no doubt in my mind that if
our ERDA funding disa~peared we would have some several hundred
ecologists and related people out of work.
Mr. BROWN. That would be a tragedy-almost as bad as if we lost
our Congressmen. [Laughter.] 0
Sorry for the interruption.
Dr. RETOULE. The advantages of being a NERP are substantial, both
scientifically and administratively. I think it is important to identify
some of these advantages as they relate to the potential EER's yet to
be designated in other regions of the country possibly by other Federal
agencies.
Some of these advantages are:
The assurance of continuing programmatic funding support.
The fact that you have protection of the outdoor environmental re-
source for long-term research.
By designation you have visibility to the scientific community for
scientific cooperation and educational training.
That you have recognition by user groups and development of com-
inunication mechanisms as a result of this for dissemination of the in-
formation you are obtaining.
This usually requires the establishment of environmental informa-
tion you are obtaining.
This usually requires the establishment of environmental informa-
tion and data management systems to effect this.
Very importantly, you have a basis for emphasis on long-term re-
search and biological trend monitoring.
NERP's help in the attraction of an outstanding research staff.
NERP's represent a depository of an historical data base on normal
and perturbed systems in that region.
There are m~tny examples that you have heard this morning of how
ERDA NERP's serve to meet the mission objectives of that agency
and, in fact, how they have interacted with other agencies to serve as
a regional focus for environmental research.
I would like to give you a few examples from the Oak Ridge site. to0
illustrate this point.
The Ecological Sciences Information Center has been established
for the indexing, analysis, and dissemination of environmental infor-
mation at Oak Ridge. Recently, we have completed a project for the
Council on Enviornmental Quality in collaboration with the Office of
Biological Services in the Department of the Interior, with ER.DA,
and with the National Marine Fisheries Service. This project con-
sisted of a national inventory of biological monitoring programs by
Federal, State, and private institutions. This is an example of the
reg1onal focus which an NERP can provide.
Another example is the Oak Ridge Walker Branch Watershed,
which is one of the most precisely calibrate.d landscape research fa-
cilities in the country. It serves as one of the most detailed environ-
mental reference systems for the biogeochemical transport and fate of
pollutants at the landscape scale for the south central and southeastern
United States. We are located within the Tennessee. Valley region.
We have substantial combustion of fossil fuels in this region and acid
percipitation. Arid this watershed has contributed to our understand-
PAGENO="0074"
70
ing of some of these problems. It has already effected cooperative pro-
grams between ERDA, TVA. the Geological Survey, the Forest Serv-
ice, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation, all interested in
various aspects of these problems.
Another example is the Aquatic Research Laboratory located near
the Tennessee Valley Authority's Melton Hill reservoir, which is a
umque facility for applied ecological research on reservoirs in the
Southeastern United States. This facility has supported research for
ERDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Env~ironmental Sciences Division at the Laboratory has re-
cently served as the research manager of an over $11 million 7-year
research program for the National Science Foundation. Our role in
the International Biological Program involved the coordination of
research and interaction with 49 universities, institutions, and govern-
mental agencies m the deciduous forest region of the country. Some
of this research was performed at Oak Ridge which, incidentally, is
within sight of the surface mining activities in the coal fields of
Appalachia.
This background information has become invaluable to us in applied
problems in recent years in wildlife management, surface mining,
regional land use planning, and an assorted series of. water and atmos-
pheric pollution problems in the multistate region.
In the near future, we anticipate that the Government reservation
there will play an important role in R. & D. for ERDA's Division of
Solor Energy on the use of biomass for fuE~ls.
The ERDA Reservation is currently being utilized in a joint pro-
gram in wildlife monitoring and management with theTennessee State
Department of Wildlife Resources. This will include intensive, long-
term monitoring of the game and nongame wildlife resources in the
region.
These are but some examples, and I would like now to proceed to the
essence of your directive to us on suggestions for legislative
considerations.
Appropriate legislation, if enacted, should insure that the necessary
Experimental Ecological Reserves are established and protected for
scientificresearch. There are no comparable facilities available now. As
I have mentioned earlier, these are vital elements in developing the
data bases to assess the long-term integrity of our biological
environment.
Legislation could use the pattern of the ERDA NERP's to insure
that this research reserve network within ERDA can be augmented by
other Federal agencies to form a comprehensive national network. The
resource base offered by this network should be available to all groups
with responsibilities and concerns to maintain the quality of our
environment.
Specifically, legislation should include Or at least recognize the fol-
lowing issues:
That long-term data are essential for predicting and evaluating
changes in our environment. We cannot obtain a historical data base
quickly when needed. Lead time planning and thought to the future
is necessary.
PAGENO="0075"
71
As you have pointed out earlier in your questioning of Dr. Liver-
man, there is no formal mechanism even outside of ERDA's NERP's
to insure that any Experimental Ecological Reserves would be estab-
lished and protected.
I believe that protection and support of Experimental Ecological
Reserves will be necessary to insure their continuation once they have
been dedicated.
I think that it is very important in any legislation to understand
that the success of any expanded network of ecological reserve should
be responsive to the needs of the local management. The success of
these EER's depends upon the need of the supporting Federal agencies
to fulfill their mission objectives. The objectives of legislation should
not be to subvert these needs, but simply to make these resources of
these outdoor research facilities available to other user groups as well.
I think that there should be an identified funding basis to insure
persistence of these units and the overall network that is not vulnerable
to ephemeral funding.
I believe that serious consideration should be given to the concept of
environmental laboratories as you have developed in H.R. 35 and H.R.
6379, which could establish nonprofit centers for environmental re-
search that could be developed in conjunction with the regionally dis-
persed Experimental Ecological Reserves.
Lastly, I believe, that enabling legislation for a national network of
EER's should insure the mechanisms for cooperation among the Fed-
eral agencies so that our national resources are aggregated and used
optimally.
In summary, gentlemen, let me say simply that the scope and mag-
nitude of some of the environmental issues which we are facing today
are considerable. Many of us believe they can be addressed and most of
them resolved. The members of this subcoirnnittee are well familar
with these problems and our time is not well spent in readdressing
them this morning.
It is important to be aware of the fact that a diverse array of sci-
entific institutions and Federal organizations not only identify these
environmental problems and steps necessary to their resolution, but the
concept of the Experimental Ecological Reserve has either been
explicitly advocated by many or implied by most. I am submitting into
the record pertinent reference documents which support these
statements. (See appendix, starting with p. 303.)
Specifically, I would like to call to your attention the documented
entitled, "Experimental Ecological Reserves-A Proposed National
System," that was prepared by the Institute of Ecology for the Na-
tional Science Foundation. In his report, many of the questions which
you have asked are addressed. These include the evaluaticin of the
scientific needs for such a network; the recommendation of optimal
sites in the country; identification of the kinds of environmental prob-
lems which these EER's can uniquely address and recommendations
for management alternatives for such a national network.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Reichle.
I would like to proceed with Dr. Vaughan and then ask questions
of both of you.
PAGENO="0076"
72
STATEMENT OP DR. BURTON C. VAUGHAN, ECOSYSTEMS DEPART-
MENT, BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, PACIPIC NORTHWEST
LABORATORIES
Dr. `S,TATJGHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the opportunity
to present our views here. Some of what I have to say is similar to
what Dr. Reichie has said, here, but I think our geographic setting
is different.
As I indicated, Pacific Northwest Laboratory is an ERDA Labora-
tory administered by Battelle. I have been associated with ecological
sciences since 1969 and am responsible presently for all work in this
area for the Pacific Northwest Lab. We have about 120 scientists and
technicians not counting cooperating members from other depart-
ments and perhaps the same number again of support people.
About 40 percent of this effort lies in work related to the Hanford
NEIRP. The remaining 60 percent covers areas all over the country,
and out of the country, including places like Cape Thompson and
Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela.
A number of my staff members came to the Pacific Northwest Lab
over 30 years ago when the plutonium production plant was first
started. They are still with us and are still productive members.
Historically the concern was to docum~nt organisms in food chains
and to determine radioactivity contamination levels, with the tight
control pre~ent at Hanford it was soon obvious that this would be a
well-contained operation without any major worries. In the process
of doing this we developed an extensive data base for fish, plants,
wildlife and other biota and even soil microbial populations.
Therefore concern very soon shifted to other consequences Of large-
scale landscape intervention, and, in particular to possible impacts
on the Columbia River salmon fishery caused by the chemical and
heat discharge from the nuclear reactor. I would like to call to your
attention that in 1951, the first unclassified documents clearly indi-
cated that heat and chemicals were likely to cause the principal en-
vironmental impact. These factors were spelled out in some detail.
As a consequence of this work, a variety of long-term ecological
monitoring programs were established. These are programs we have
a great deal of difficulty in now maintaining in the present day cli-
mate of narrow application focus, and I would like to give you just
one small example, a rather straightforward one that deals with the
Canada Goose.
Here, we have for 25 years measured nesting conditions and repro-
ductive sucëess of the geese. The islands of the Columbia River area
still important breeding locations on their flyway and as the nine
plutonium weapons production reactors started up, one-by-one, we
tracked these very carefully. The concern was that something about
the heat or the chemical discharge might in a subtle way impair the
food base on which the geese depended during their nesting interval.
No such thing ever happened, and in fact, we found that the popula-
tions were maintained very well through the years of operation of
the nuclear reactors and even past the shutdown point.
Out of this two lessons were learned-there is usually a basis for
establishing real cause for environmental impact and second, nega-
tive data can be extremely useful in connection with monitoring ac-
PAGENO="0077"
73
tivities, but only provided the experimental design is there-that is,
they are statistically adequate and the proper specifics have been in-
vestigated. Also, a pretty good data base must have been amassed.
Twice we had both of those things we were able to make some sense
out of later declines in nesting sites which had to do with trespass by
recreational visitors and boaters.
What is the nature of the data base which we did establish 9~er
these years? I think probably six points-(1) the plant communities
were well identified. We had established an accurate history of prior
disturbance. As several people have said earlier this morning, none
of these sites is completely free of some degree of interference, but
we had very good records, very good verification of what the nature
of that prior disturbance was, and where we did in fact have pristine
sites.
Savannah River has mapped extensively its ecology reserves. (~)
We have done so also and have established numerous inviolate sites.
As an accident of western development, some of these sites are con-
sidered to be pristine, that is, they are probably undisturbed since
early, geologic time.
(3) We had in addition commence a microclimatic mapping effort
which is now sufficiently well along that the variability in prediction
climate is quite accurate over the ALE reserve. (4) The soils have
been mapped; (5) the animal populations, vertebrate and inverte-
brate, have been well classified. And (6) perhaps most important of
all, there exists within the Pacific Northwest Lab a real multidisci-
pline team we can call on. We do not su~pport the climatologists, we
get them from another department. We do not do the hydrography,
we get them from another department. And we have had the funding
in place to make possible these long-term associations, similarly the
soil scientists.
I would like to move now to the Arid Land Ecology (ALE) reserve
which in some ways was the more formal predecessor of the NERP.
This is an area of 120 square miles included within the 570 square
mile Hanford NERP. That `corresponds roughly to 400,000 acres for
the NERP and something on the order of 80,000 acres for the ALE
reserve. The ALE, reserve is a natural watershed area from the top
of Rattlesnake Mountain to the valley floor, from 3,500 feet to about
500 feet. It is surrounded by dryland wheat farming on one side and
the Hanford Reservation on the other side. Hanford is referred to as
a sage brush location. That is a little bit misleading. It is actually
a short grass prairie location,.~very useful for dryland wheat or for
grazing purposes. Sage brush is there. Bitter brush is there. Other
plants are there, but there is also quite a bit of grass land. And there
are locations within the reserve which were converted to cheatgrass
fields in the early settlement years, these locations, are apart from the
inviolate areas. .
In setting up the reserve we-lO or 11 years ago now-were obligat-
ed to do four things-to preserve the pristine locations indefinitely;
to have sites that were specifically dedicated for manipulative re-
search activities; to encourage outside university participation. and
this has been quite extensive as has Oak Ridge's; and, to very strictly
control access by casual visitors.
PAGENO="0078"
74
In 1971 the Arid Land Ecology Reserve also became the Rattle-
snake Hill's Research Natural Area under the 5-agency Federal Co-
operation Agreement, and as you well know the ke.y elements in that
designation was the idea of preservation of undisturbed sites and the
gene pools represented by organisms in those sites.
Later in 1977, Dr. Jerry Franklin of the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture examined suitable sites over the whole of the United States
for the Biosphere Reserve program, and I would like to quote one
statement he made-namely, "itwas seldom possible to identify a. sin-
gle area that satisfied all criteria for a biosphere reserve, namely, a
large strictly preserved tract for conservation of a full array of organ-
isms with a substantial history of research and monitoring and the
potential for major experimental treatments." And he added, "the only
area that is clearly of this type is the Arid Land Ecology Reserve at
Hanford."
To my best knowledge ERDA has not. nominated the ALE Reserve
for inclusion in the Biosphere Reserve program, but the stated ob-
jectives of the Biosphere Reserve program are exactly identical to the
ALE Reserve as a segregated portion of the Hanford NERP.
Now, you might ask at this point how the Hanford NERP differs
from the ALE Reserve. Well, fundamentally the main difference is
this: We agree that in other portions of the Hanford NERP, large
scale land intervention may take place. I t.hink this is an important
point. We have within the ALE Reserve most of the same plant com-
thunities and biotic representation that we have on the larger NERP.
It is possible to use that baseline as a way of tracking those changes
that happen, as we put energy production facilities on the larger
NERP.
The ecologists make a distinction between modulation experiments
and other kinds of experiments. Basically, a modulation experiment is
something that is essentially reversible. It might be overhead spray-
ing, controlled cattle grazing, certain types of stream modification. It
is not the kind of activity that irreversibly changes the character of
the land. We would propose to have only modulation experiments on
the ALE Reserve, but other kinds of experimentation could be allowed
on other portions of the NERP.
In my own mind, I do not think all things deserve to go on the
Hanford NERP. We remain one of the few loca;tions in the country
that meet very stringent EPA Air and Water Quality Standards. Our
sulfur concentrations are so low, they are of no consequence at this
point. Other a.ir quality parameters are fully met. The nuclear facili-
ties have operated with no significant ecological impact. The portion
of the Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Plant which leads to slight land
contamination is all strictly controlled and kept within further exclu-
sion areas on the Hanford NERP. We have never seen what would
be termed an impact on any biotic form caused by the operation of
those facilities. There are some residual concerns about food chain
transmission, but even these are at levels low enough to be no recog-
nized hazard to human health at the present time.
By contrast with that type of a technology, I would be very worried
about the prospect of a modern 3,000 megawatt coal fired plant. We
do know that if the sulfur concentrations exceed something on the
PAGENO="0079"
75
order of 300 micrograms per cubic meter, we can expect to see some
long-term changes on our type of ecologic system. There are other
concerns which have been touched on in assessment studies cited in
my reference list in the written material. They suggest that long-term
metal problems would affect organic productivity. I do not know
whether this is equally true in other parts of the .country. In a high
rainfall location, the problem may be less acute, than in a low precipi-
tation area as represented by much of the arid west.
But I would submit to you that we need to give further thought as
to the kind of technology that goes on some of these dedicated environ-
mental research parks.
I would like now to move to questions of what kind of short-term
measures are necessary to protect the NERP's. Following that, I
would like to touch on some of the long-term matters.
We do not need to go into too much detail here, but in terms of
short-term protection, I think, it is very important to have geographic
identity. If you have a fenced area that is indistinguishable, it is
almost impossible to police also an area of 120 square miles is too
lar~ge an area to foot patrol by any reasonable amount of money.
In our case, we have a natural watershed area on the southw~est
corner, and it is reasonably feasible to provide total surveillance by
airplane. We think aerial surveillance is a much more practical. tech-
nique than foot patrol, in many cases.
The second main point is that we need to have buffer zones. These
are primarily for fire protection.
The third point is particular policies on fire control. Most firefight-
ing is in the hands of fairly independent firefighting departments and
it is seldom that their policies are reviewed for impact on the ecology.
In our case, experience shows that bulldozer tracks from the firefight-
ing equipment will scar the landscape and allow invasion by cheat-
grass. This will persist for decades, whereas allowing the land to burn
and regenerate on its own will preserve the natural vegetation. So we
do not want bulldozers roaming over the reserve in a brush fire.
Also, if it becomes necessary to bring in spray planes, we do not
want borate used, for reasons which I do not want to go into here.
The remaining point on short-term protection is a very strict use
control policy. I have provided to the committee, in the written
record, for an example of the type of policy we have used for many
years for the ALE Reserve. We believe it is also applicable to the
larger Hanford NERP. Basicall'~, policy is to keep all casual visitors
off except at certain designated visit times during the year, and people
who enter, enter only bona fide scientific purposes.
So, recapping, we have the matters of geographic identity, buffer
zones, fire control policy, use control policy, and how you patrol.
I might make one quick comment about the patrol. There is a deli-
cate balance here between threat and actual force. In an area like ours
where the trespassers will usually be local residents, our ever-present
fear, is that an irate resident may decide to deliberately set a brush
fire if his perception of treatment at the hands of the patrol is too
heavyhanded. Across the rlver from Hanford we see this frequently.
It is a real problem. .
PAGENO="0080"
76
Let me move quickly to what may be necessary by way of the long-
term preservation of the Hanford NERP.
This is a much, more difficult problem. I think that we need to have a
clear sense of how the objectives of the NERP differs from EER.'s and
Biosphere Reserves. Mainiy.the difference is that there will be desig-
nated portions of NERP which are appropriate to technology and
other designated portions appropriate to let us say, Biosphere Reserve
purposes. In our case, the latter is the ALE reserve. I think the long-
term integrity of the NER.P is closely tied up to what happens to the
ALE Reserve.
Now, originally the ALE reserve caine into existence as a buffer
zone to prevent grazing and agriculture encroachment on the nuclear
fuel reprocessing plant. If reprocessing moves to another location in
the United States, or if the buried wastes at Hanford are dug up and
put somewhere else, I think the ERDA would find it impossible to
resist the pressures for agricultural development or for grazing. We
have seen many examples of this. In fact,~the NERP and the ALE re-
serve remain principally a matter of agency declaration, as Dr. Liver-
man has indicated to you. We have apprehended trespassers many
times, people who cut our fences to let cattle graze., land development
firms who have been on the reserve looking for water, and other
matters.
Perhaps most serious is the pressure of other agencies. The inter-
agency problem is a very difficult one to deal with, and at Hanford
NERP, we have had to give up significant pieces of land over the
years. General Services Administration, several years ago, for example,
insisted on the sale of a strip of land on the southeast border of the
ALE reserve which ERDA had been. regularly leasing to~ a dryland.
wheat farmer as a buffer zone. The concept of a buffer zone was just
not in GSA's scheme of things. When this land was released, it was
turned over to the State Department of Fish and .Game~ and they, in
turn, leased it to the county of Benton for use by recreational vehicles.
The potential for uncontrollable brush fires was just unbelievable.
Finally, after strong protest by our staff1 Fish and Game decided to
rescind its agreement. In my view, and this is just one small example;
the land would have been much better managed if it had remained
under ERDA control.
We have other pending matters: Bonneville Power Admihistration
wants a 100-acre strip through the only bitter brush-sagebrush plant
community we have within the reserve. There are other examples of
this vegetation on the Hanford NERP, but they are not declared in
protection status. I just do not know how we resist. nibbling away of
this kind.
As ~ou can appreciate, a cost-benefit argument for detouring a power
line reckoned against 100 acres out of 77,000 acres in our 15-year
research cost just does not hold water. We are on very shaky ground to
argue a matter like that, despite very strong cooperation from ERDA.
Some remaining matters which need to he looked into, and which I
am simply not informed on, affect the legal status of unused ease-
men~s and mineral rights on the land. This remains in the province of
the local office of ER.DA and they should be consulted on this matter.
PAGENO="0081"
77
I do not know whether we would be able to prohibit geologic explora-
tion on the ALE site, for example.
I think a remaining point, if I could beg your indulgence for about
3 minutes more, needs to be said. In addition to~ clarifying the objec-
tives, having a policy for clean technology on a NEIRP-perhaps
clarifying legislatively the legal administrative status of a NERP-
there has to be also a provision for long-term ecological monitoring.
I have provided for the record an example of a number of different
kinds of long-term projects we have. They represent a very small
fraction of our total program, perhaps less than 10 percent. These are
projects which have been going in some cases for 25 years and in other
cases for 5 to 10 years. We are under increasing pressure to discontinue
this kind of work because the prospect of somebody wading around
in hip boots to sample fish for coiu'imnaris bacteria in the Columbia
River, or somebody classifying grasshoppers and exotic beetles, or
counting Canada goose eggs can be very frivolous-appearing to the
uninformed taxpayer, to the biomedical scientist, or to the engineer
concerned with technology. Yet I am sure many members of this sub-
committee recognize that these very procedures may provide important
data for judging ecological impact. But we have great difficulty finding
those kinds of programs, and I am not awfully optimistic about their
long-term continuity.
I would like to make a couple of further points here. Traditionally
biological scientists, and this is certainly true of the biomedical corn-
munity, depend on laboratory approaches-bioassay approaches-by
comparison with field effort. Also, long-term ecological monitoring has
to be distinguished from the type of short-term monitoring necessary
to meet a licensing require~nent for EPA or for the agency's technol-
ogy. They basically have a different thrust.
Certain kinds of adverse impact can be forecasted on a 10- or 12-year
basis provided the right kinds of experimental design is there, but
members on our staff have published and pointed to the inadequacy
of many present day monitoring designs.
I think that there is something analogous to the epidemiological
approach used in medicine tlia.t needs to be applied to the environ-
ment; that is, looking at the wind rose data, finding appropriate plant
communities since plants will usually be your most sensitive indica-
tors, and tracking the nature of the changes.
You asked this question in connection with southern California
photo-oxidant problems. I am sure that there was in fact a basis for
predictin~ forest damage had the proper kind of monitoring been set
up more tnan 20 to 50 years ago.
Another thing that requires looking at is the streamlining of eco-
logical methods. I think ecologists themselves have done a poor job
of setting sampling priorities. Also they are usually required to meas-
ure too many species, construct insensitive diversity indices, some-
times, or follow arbitrary sampling designs that are inadequate.
In a terrestrial environment it might be far more important to get
a handle on a reference habitat change or on primary productivity.
In an aquatic environment it might be more important to track the
life history and reproductive success of only one or two valuable
species.
98-513 0 - 77 -
PAGENO="0082"
78
Even after a good many years of ecological research, we simply can-
not-and I think in principle we could know what the ultimate receiv-
ing capacity of a body of water is for mixed effluents. There is a basis
for getting at these quest-ions experimentally using ecosystems ap-
proaches, that is, holistic approaches, rather than approaching it
from a bioassays point of view.
And similarly in the terrestrial environment I think there is a way
of asking the question-will there be a significant impact on grazing,
on agriculture productivity, oron forest productivity?
Without saying more, I thank you for the opportunity to make
these points.
Mr. BROWN. Well, you have made them very well and very compre-
hensively, Dr. Vaughan, and you certainlyhave given us a clear pic-
ture of the scientific potential and value of these ecological reserves
or similar sites.
I will just ask one question about a subject that is touched on in
both of your statements, and that is-h-your relationship with other
agencies.
Each of you have indicated positive and negative aspects of inter-
agency relationships. You have indicated that you have been under
pressure from other jurisdictions, States, local, and other Federal
agencies. possibly to use these lands for other purposes. I think
both of you have also indicated that there has been considerable co-
operation between various agencies.
I am concerned a little bit as to how we can enhance the coopera-
tive relationships which exist and how we can inhibit the negative
pressures coming from these various sources. It may be that the di-
rection that we need to go will simultaneously solve both problems.
It seems to me that what we need to do is to get more agencies con-
cerned about supporting this kind of long-term scientific research.
To the degree that we can, we should enhance the cooperation and re-
duce the pressures for nibbling away at the research sites and other
things of that sort.
Now, to what extent can we do that? To what extent can we get the
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management-and we will take
this up with the Interior witnesses-State governments, and local
governments to even participate in this kind of research and to rec-
ognize how it impacts on their own particular problems. Maybe there
are cooperative programs already in existence that I do not know
about; you might comment on that.
I would think that, for example, the Forest Service with its various
National Forests, the Park Service with its parks, and the custodians
of the various Wilderness Areas might have programs similar to
those that you have discussed already. Perhaps we need to amplify
on those programs. -
Dr. VAUGHAN. Well, I would like to make one comment relative
to that. I think it would be excellent to try in any way possible legisla-
tively to broaden the agency understanding and the need for ecologi-
cal research however that can be done. But I think there is also a
fundamental philosophical difference in point of view. Everywhere
PAGENO="0083"
79
you turn in an agency charged with development responsibilities you
run into the engineer armed with cost benefit techniques. Unfortun-
ately it is very difficult to set a meaningful price, let us say, on what
is lost if you irreversibly change a preservation area. So, the point I
made with Bonneville Power Administration is typical of many such
discussions we have had. How you prevent nibbling away a reserve
because in some way somebody says, how much manpower have you
on this reserve? And what was the total invested research? And what
fraction of the total are we impacting? You have a nibbling process
that by degrees takes it away.
We cannot put into the equation at this point a meaningful cost
on sites necessary to examine the functioning, the holistic functioning,
of ecologic systems. We just do not know how to do that. Because of
that you get caught on this philosophical dilemma. So in my own
view I feel a legislative mandate is probably necessary, but I recog-
nize that it has to go beyond that. We have to convince people who
have a hard time understanding.
Dr. REICHLE. Let me proceed from the general to the specific ele-
ments of your statement. There are other Federal agencies which, in
concept and in operation, have similar ventures to ERDA's NERPs;
I think you will be hearing about some of those tomorrow. A number
of these installations have interacted and collaborated. To date the
collaboration occurs on a scientific level because of the scientific in-
terests and need for data and information.
Many of the agencies and organizations have difficulty in securing
or identifying a firm line-item funding base to support their EER's.
The expenses-as the EER report summarizes-are not as great as
you might thing, because the costs of EER's are in large part in pur-
chasing the land. Much of the needed land is already there. It is the
effective utilization for the long-term studies which needs to be
supported.
Cooperation needs to be effected in recognition of the environmental
problems which need to be addressed, and this is complicated by the
dispersion of environmental insterests and responsibilities among a
number of agencies. Sometimes the seemingly unwillingness to co-
operate is more a problem of identifying who really has the respon-
sibilities. One advantage that these central focus of EER's could pro-
vide, rather than each agency pursuing their own interests separately,
is a place where various agencies and institutions who have
an environmental mandate can come together and collaborate. At Oak
Ridge we have been very successful in cooperation with a number of
agencies.
I did not elaborate on the problems of losing land. In part that is
due to the fact that we do not have enough land to lose. While some of
the problems of the other NERP's lie in keeping what land they have,
Oak Ridge, if designated as a NERP will be the smallest of ERDA's
NERP's-perhaps one-tenth the size of any other. Yet within our
reservation boundary, we continue to try to expand our activities to
meet ERDA's mandate for the non-nuclear, energy technologies.
Within our boundaries we can look at the coal fields of Applachia, but
PAGENO="0084"
80
we do not have any controlled access to~t.hese lands at the present time
for long term research. There. has been a lot of focus on. western coal
extraction which is an important issue. The east also has a great deal
of surface mining activity. In fact, that is one of our particular con-
cerns, and I would like to raise in your consciousness the need to ac-
quire additional land for long term ecological research on surface
mining in Applachia under the aegis of the NERP/EER~ concept. We
should appreciate your assistance in this regard.
Mr. BROWN. Our hope is that these hearings will help raise the con-
sciousness of a number of people with regard to the significance of
what you are doing. Whether we like it or not, we are conducting a
number of unplanned inadvertent, experiments today throughout our
society which we would not conduct if we had a background of data
that would indicate the effects of some of these experiments. I am re-
ferring generally to the health and environmental impacts of small
quantities of foreign material, pollutants, poisons, what have you, in
the air, water and land. Since we have allowed, this to take place, we
are going to see a lot of our population have their lives shortened be-
cause we have not intensively studied the impact of many things on
our environment and our ecology, human and otherwise.
As we learn more about the results of some of these inadvertent ex-
periments, for example, the so-called carcinogens that are shown to be
in the Mississippi River. we are going to be more and more interested
in finding out the impact of perturbing factors on all sorts of systems
and how they operate.
Gentlemen, we have a time problem. We need to hear several more
witnesses this morning and because of that, I am going to forego any
further questioning at this point.
We do appreciate your testimony. It was extensive and detailed and
and will be extremely helpful to us as we pursue this subject further.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Drs. Reichle and Vaughan follow :J
PAGENO="0085"
81
TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 28, 1977
Hearings on Environmental Research Reserve Networks
DR. DAVID E. REICHLE
Associate Director
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory*
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
*
Operated by Union Carbide Corporation for the Energy Research and
Development Administration.
PAGENO="0086"
82
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Personal Qualifications
My name is David E. Reichle. 1 am Associate Director of the Envi-
ronmental Sciences Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. My
staff and I have been instrumental in developing the research plans for
initiation of a National Environmental Research Park on the ERDA Reser-
vation at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Also, I have assisted the ERDA Divi-
sion of Biomedical and Environmental Research during the past four
years in the development of their National Environmental Research Park
program. Prof. George H. Lauff of Michigan State University and I have
served as co-managers of a comprehensive analysis for the National
Science Foundation by The Institute of Ecology on Experimental Ecolog-
ical Reserves -- A Proposed National System" on which you will hear
testimony tomorrow. As a former member of the Research Advisory Com-
mittee to the National Science Foundation, current member of the Envi-
ronmental Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and
council member of the Ecological Society of Mierica, I can assure you
that the following scientific judgments and opinions reflect those of a
substantial portion of my professional peers. I am a professional
ecologist who has been personally involved in research on the ecologi-
cal effects of environmental pollution since 1964 and am currently
responsible for the research management of a multidisciplinary group of
over 160 scientists working in this field.
B. Definition of National Environmental Research Parks
A National Environmental Research Park (NERP) is an outdoor
experimental laboratory established by the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration to meet the nation's environmental goals, as estab-
lished by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 . It is
important to distinguish a NERP from related concepts through reference
to land-use terminology employed by the Federal Coninittee on Ecological
PAGENO="0087"
83
Research. The Federal Committee defines Research Natural Areas (RNAs)
in the sense of conservation reserves to protect unique and natural
ecological features for scientific reference; Experimental Ecological
Reserves (EERs) are synonymous in concept with the NERPs and are pro-
tected landscape units where experimental, long-term, manipulative
environmental research can be performed. This research is necessary to
the science of ecology in order to develop the methods and data whereby
the response of ecological systems (ecosystems) to environmental
stresses and man-induced perturbations can be evaluated. It is impor-
tant to note that the environmental sciences, particularly ecology, are
outdoor sciences; that the ecological sciences do not presently have
calibrated environmental laboratories equivalent to those of the physi-
cal and atmospheric sciences; and that such facilities are absolutely
necessary to provide the baseline and time-trend responses of ecologi-
cal systems to changing environmental conditions.
The Energy Research and Development Administration has established
a national network of Environmental Research Parks which currently con-
sists of four NERPs - Hanford (Arid Lands Reserve), Washington; Idaho
Falls, Idaho; Los Alamos, New Mexico; and Savannah River, South
Carolina. The Oak Ridge, Tennessee NERP implementation plan is pres-
ently under agency review. This developing network system was a fore-
runner of the Experimental Ecological Reserve (EER) Network being
studied by the Federal Committee on Ecological Research. The ERDA NERP
network envisages both broad geographic distribution and representation
of diverse ecosystem types, and encompasses a more than 20-year record
of baseline ecological conditions. A unique feature is the on-going
capability to perform experimental research on the landscape, with the
data available to local, state, and Federal agencies that require such
information to meet their responsibilities in land-use management and
environmental decision-making. Additionally, these parks are also con-
ceived as providing a regional focus for environmental assessment
activities.
PAGENO="0088"
84
II. THE ROLES OF EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGICAL RESERVES
Experimental Ecological Reserves should not be misconstrued as a
public relations device by which Federal land-holding agencies can
retain lands which would otherwise be made available for private use.
The EER represents an important scientific resource. Not all of the
Federal agencies which have resource management, regulatory, environ-
mental protection, or ecological health research responsibilities have
the land and water resources necessary to carry out the needed research
and/or baseline monitoring. The scientific coninunity does not have
sufficient access to adequate research sites to investigate ecological
phenomena or pursue long-term ecological effects studies. Suitable
research sites representative of important natural ecological systems
across the nation are rapidly disappearing. Collaboration of the many
Federal agencies, each responsible for various aspects of maintaining
and protecting a quality environment, requires focal points necessary
for the investitures of the agencies so that expenditures can be opti-
mized and comprehensive programs coordinated. These concepts can be
elaborated more specifically.
A. The Experimental Ecological Research Unit
At each EER site:
- Special, undisturbed (control) areas can be set aside as long-
term baseline monitoring points at which scientists can estab-
lish performance standards for normal ecosystems.
- Routine, baseline measurements of natural and managed (including
agronomic) ecosystems can provide long-term "tracking data and
information on how these systems have responded to chronic,
low-level pollution or other anthropogenic stresses.
PAGENO="0089"
85
Experimental, manipulative research, in contrast to purely
observational activities, can be performed on landscape units
of the environment, which integrate atmosphere, geology, and
hydrology with environmental biology, to elucidate the func-
tional mechanisms of ecosystem response to pollution stresses.
Information on environmental health trends and predictive knowl-
edge of ecosystem responses to perturbation can be utilized in
evaluating and solving environmental problems in the biotic
region which tho EER represents.
Data and information management systems can be maintained to
effect expedient transfer of knowledge to users.
Ancillary benefits result in the scientific management of
unique habitats and protection of rare and endangered species
occurring on the EER, regardless of ownership, as well as
education of the public and training of scientific specialists.
B. The Experimental Ecological Reserve Network
With an EER network:
Coordination of EERs located in environments across the nation
can effect early identification of critical environmental
issues and initiate the quest for necessary information on an
early time schedule.
In many instances, background data on water quality, atmospheric
pollution, land-use impacts, and ecosystem effects will provide
insight on potential environmental problems before they mate-
rialize, as well as suggest modes of action that will ne?d to
be taken to ameliorate or otherwise deal with the potential
problem.
The present status of the health of ecological systems for all
regions of the country can be evaluated, as well as providing
the basis for understanding past changes in the biotic environ-
ment and projecting future trends.
PAGENO="0090"
86
- Coordination and utilization of the land holdings of a variety
of Federal agencies and other institutions can be effected,
while assuring the availability of the scientific resources to
researchers and the transfer of information to decision-makers.
III. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARK
ERDAs National Environmental Research Parks were established
because the agency had a mandate to fulfill certain environmental
requirements and this was the most effective means to accomplish the
goals derived from this mandate. ERDA's requirements were to develop
the needed data base and to assess the potential environmental impacts
of developing energy technologies -- all aspects of nuclear and non-
nuclear fuel cycles, from mining through energy conversion to waste
management. ERDAs environmental goals were delegated to its
contractor-operated National Laboratories, each with a resident
research staff and an experimental research reserve which uniquely
qualified them to address critical environmental problems in their
regions. This pattern continues today, and the assistance that these
National Laboratories also have provided to other environmental
agencies has been substantial. It is important to note that the abil-
ity of ERDA to exploit the potential of its NERPs has been due to the
presence of a resident environmental research staff at the NERP site.
A. Institutional Advantages of Being a NERP
The advantages of being a NERP are substantial, both scientif-
ically and administratively, although to use the perspective of the Oak
Ridge site to illustrate these advantages understates the case. This
is because the presence of the 36,000-acre ERDA Reservation in Oak
Ridge has already enabled us through the years to develop as a NERP
prototype. It is important to identify the basic advantages of being a
NERP as they relate to potential EERs yet to be designated in other
regions of the country by other Federal agencies. These advantages are:
PAGENO="0091"
87
- Assurance of prograrmiatic funding support,
- Protection of the outdoor environmental resource for long-tern~
research (as opposed to conservation),
- Visibility to the scientific community for scientific coopera-
tion and educational training and to the public for better
understanding of environmentally related problems,
- Recognition by user groups and development of communication
mechanisms for information dissemination,
- Establishment of an environmental information and data manage-
ment system.
- Emphasis on long-term research and biological trend monitoring,
- Attraction of an outstanding, multidisciplinary research and
assessment staff, and
- Development of an historic data base on normal and perturbed
ecosystems.
B. Examples of NERP Activities at Oak Ridge
There are many examples of how the National Environmental Research
Parks serve to meet the mission objectives of ERDA and interact with
other agencies to serve as a regional focus for environmental
research. The following examples illustrate the potential roles that
other similar environmental reserves could also serve in meeting the
nations environmental research needs. As selected examples, at Oak
Ridge:
- The Ecological Sciences Information Center has been established
for the indexing, analysis, and dissemination of environmental
information. Recently, a project was'completed for the Council
on Environmental Quality in collaboration with the Office of
Biological Services (USD1), ERDA, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (USDC). This project consisted of a national
inventory of biological monitoring programs by Federal, state,
and private institutions. This is an example of the regional
outreach which the NERP focus can provide.
PAGENO="0092"
88
The Oak Ridge Walker Branch Watershed is one of the most pre-
cisely calibrated landscape research facilities in the
country. It serves as the most detailed environmental refer-
ence system for the biogeochemical transport and fate of pollu-
tants at the landscape scale (coupled atmosphere-geology-
hydrology-biology) for the deciduous forest biome of central
and southeastern United States. It has already effected
cooperative programs between the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the U.S. ForestService, the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National
Science Foundation.
The Aquatic Research Laboratory at Oak Ridge (with computer-
programed temperature regimes, experimental holding tanks up
to 0.25 acres, living streams, and the only large-scale experi-
mental entrainment research facility in the southeast) is
located near the TVA Melton Hill Reservoir, and represents a
unique facility for applied, ecological research problems on
reservoirs of the southeastern United States. This facility
has supported research for the Energy Research and Development
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commi ssi on.
The Environmental Sciences DivisiOn at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory served as the research manager of the $11.4 million,
7-year, eastern forest component of the National Science
Foundations International Biological Program. This role
involved coordination of research by and interaction with 49
universities, institutions, and governmental agencies. Some of
this research was performed at the Oak Ridge site, and this
background information has become invaluable to applied prob-.
lemsof wildlife management in southeastern forests, surface
mining in the mountainous regions of Appalachia, regional land-
use planning, and water and atmospheric pollution problems in
the multi-state region.
PAGENO="0093"
89
- In the near future it is anticipated that the Oak Ridge Reserva-
tion will play an important role in the research and develop-
ment program of the ERDA Division of Solar Energy on production
of forest biomass for fuels. This program could utilize the
unique resources of the Oak Ridge experimental reserve -- land
for experimental R & D, extensive data on forests of the
region, and extensive collaboration with contributing research
institutions in the region.
- The ERDA Oak Ridge Reservation is currently being utilized in a
joint program in wildlife monitoring and management with the
Tennessee State Department of Wildlife Resources. This program
will include intensive, long-term monitoring of the game and
nongame wildlife resources in the region.
IV. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Appropriate legislation should be enacted to ensure that the
necessary Experimental Ecological Reserves (EERs) are established and
protected for scientific research. There are no comparable facilities
available now. These facilities will be vital elements in developing
the necessary data base to assess the long-term integrity of our bio-
logical environment in the face of accelerated changes in the environ-
ment induced by human activities. Legislation should ensure that the
prototype environmental research reserves established by ERDA are aug-
mented by other Federal agencies to form a comprehensive national net-
work. The resource base afforded by this network should be available
to all groups with responsibilities and concerns for maintaining the
quality of our environment. Appropriate legislation should include or
recognize the following issues:
- Long-term data are essential for predicting and evaluating
changes in our environment. These data cannot be obtained
quickly -- lead time planning for the future is necessary and
once the opportunity is lost, it often cannot be regained.
PAGENO="0094"
90
- No formal mechanism outside of the ERDA NERPs currently exists
to ensure that Experimental Ecological Reserves will be estab-
lished and protected.
- Protection and support of Experimental Ecological Reserves will
be necessary to ensure their continuation once they have been
dedicated.
- Legislation establishing an EER network should be responsive to
the needs of the local site management. The success of the EER
depends upon the need of the supporting Federal agencies to
fulfill their mission objectives . The objective must not be
to subvert these needs, but to make these resources available
to other user groups.
- There must be an identified funding basis to ensure persistence
of the individual EER sites and the overall network that cannot
be vulnerable to ephemeral financial plans of the supporting
Federal agencies or the Office of Management and Budget.
- Serious reconsideration should be given to the concept of
National Environmental Laboratories (Serial No. 92-3, 1971), as
developed in HR35 (Environmental Research Centers Act of 1975)
and HR 6379 (Environmental Research Act of 1977), to establish
non-profit center(s) for environmental research that could be
developed in conjunction with the regionally dispersed EERs to
ensure their effective and optimal utilization.
- Enabling legislation for a national network of EERs must ensure
the mechanisms for cooperation among Federal agencies so that
our national resources (institutional, scientific, and fiscal)
are aggregated and used optimally.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The scope and magnitude of the environmental issues which our
nation faces today are considerable, but all can be addressed and many
resolved. The members of the Subcomittee on Environment and the
Atmosphere are intimately familiar with these issues and our time today
PAGENO="0095"
91
is not well spent readdressing these. A diverse array of scientific
institutions and Federal organizations have identified these environ-
mental problems and steps necessary to effect their resolution. The
concept of the Experimental Ecological Reserve has been explicitly
advocated by many and implied by others. I am submitting pertinent
reference documents into the record of these hearings as supporting
evidence. Evaluation of the scientific needs for a network of EERs,
recommendation of optimal EER sites, identification of the kinds of
environmental problems which can be addressed with EERs, and reconiiien-
dations for management alternatives for a national network are set
forth in a document prepared by The Institute of Ecology for the
National Science Foundation entitled Experimental Ecological Reserves -
A Proposed National System.
VI. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE HEARING RECORD
The Role of Ecology in the Federal Government. 1974. Response of
Committee on Ecological Research. Council on Environmental
Quality and Federal Council for Science and Technology. U.S. GPO
Stock No. 038-000-00202.
Effects of a Polluted Environment - Research and Development Needs.
1977. Analytical Studies for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
The Nature Conservancy News. Spring 1977. Prairie Preserves as
Research Facilities, pp. 26-27, by Paul G. Risser.
Proceedings of the National Environmental Research Park Symposium.
1974. Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Experimental Ecological Reserves - A Proposed National System. 1977.
The Institute of Ecology. U.S. GPO Stock No. 038-000-00321-6.
Environmental Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1976.
UCC-ND-1976. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Report on GAO Land Use Planning and Control Symposium. 1976. Resources
and Economic Development Division, General Accounting Office.
PAGENO="0096"
92
Preserving Sites for Long-Term Environmental Research. 1976. Mosaic
7:29-33. National Science Foundation.
The National Biological Monitoring Inventory. 1977. Biological
Indicators of Environmental Quality, J. 3. Reisa (ed). Council on
Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. (in press).
PAGENO="0097"
93
TESTIMONY OF BURTON E. VAUGHAN, JULY 28, 1977, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOM-
MITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ATMOSPHERE, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECH-
NOLOGY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE HONORABLE GEORGE E. BROWN
PRESIDING.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:
I have been asked to give my views on several questions relating to
operation of the National Environmental Research Park (NERP) at Hanford,
Washington (1). Although Hanford's NERP was dedicated in March 1977, major
elements of the NERP Program have been in place for over a decade. The pro-
gram has even earlier antecedents; therefore, I would like to outline briefly
our experience and events leading to dedication of Hanford's NERP.
B~~CKGR0UND ON THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY
Hanford's NERP is administered, of course, by the ERDA, with its prin-
cipal research programs conducted by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory operated
by Battelle Memorial Institute. I am an employee of Battelle, with management
responsibility for all programs in the ecological sciences (2). Beyond the
programs I represent, PNL is a multiprogram national laboratory, employing
about 2,000 people. Ecological sciences programs are funded principally by
ERDA's Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research, although we also do
work for other ERDA components and some other agencies. Programs in the
ecological sciences support about 120 scientists and technicians, with 40% of
the effort directly or indirectly related to the Hanford site. Several of
our staff came to Hanford over 30 years ago when AEC's plutonium production
plant ~as first established. Despite an initially nuclear orientation, an
understanding of arid lands ecology grew out of these long associations with
the Hanford region.
Primary concern, historically, was to document organisms in food chains
toat might lead to man and to determine radioactivity contamination levels.
Th developing the data base for fish, plants, wildlife and other biota,
concern soon shifted to other consequences of large-scale landscape inter-
ference, for example possible impacts on the Columbia River salmon fishery
caused by discharge of chemicals and heat from the nuclear reactors. I
believe it important to note that in 1951, our fishery ecologists recognized
other reactor residuals as having far greater potential for causing environ-
mental damage than did radioactivity itself (3). Consequently, several long-
term ecological monitoring programs were established that helped substantially
to develop at Hanford a nuclear industry which was comparatively free of
environmental problems. Let me give you one small but straightforward
example.
For 25 years, we measured nesting conditions and reproductive success of
the Canada goose on islands in the Columbia River at Hanford (Figure 1). This
is still an important breeding location on the flyway for spring and fall
migrations of the geese. As nine plutonium weapons reactors started up,
reaching peak operation from 1944 to 1956, goose breeding was maintained--the
concern was that subtle impairment of the food base on which the nesting geese
depended might have occurred indirectly as a consequence either of reactor
operations or nuclear fuel reprocessing activities. No such thing occurred,
although several years after the last reactors were shut down several declines
in Canada goose population were noted. These declines, occurring as they did
after weapons reactor operation ceased, were traced to two extraneous factors;
98-513 0 - 77 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
SUCCESSFUL
0 TOTAL
NO
COYOTE
I-
~ 100 CONTROL RECREATIONAL ACCESS
LU
U-
0
LU
=~
Z5~ ~ ~
~II~'~ _
54. 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 IYCARS
(NO. OF
7 8 8 8 9 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 ~REACTORS
FIGURE 1. Number of Canada Goose Nests Established On Island 6 (Locke Island)
Hanford Reservation and The Number of Successful Nests, 1953-1977.
PAGENO="0099"
95
namely, the opening of formerly restricted river locations to recreational
boating and the suppression of long-practiced measures to control coyote popu-
lations (Figure 1). Out of this long-term monitoring effort two lessons were
learned: 1) there is usually a basis for establishing cause of environmental
impact, and 2) negative data as to another, presumptive cause of impact can be
extremely useful. These points will be true only if the ecological monitoring
project was properly designed at the outset and a good background of informa-
tion had been amassed about ecological relationships of other organisms. For
the example given, my predecessors' foresight in looking beyond narrow, immedi-
ate concerns, and the long-term continuity of effort set the stage for pro-
perly attributing consequences of other, unrelated developments.
ARID LANDS ECOLOGY RESERVE - RELATION TO OTHER NATIONAL SITES
With the above example in mind, I would like to turn, now, to consid-
eration of the Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve. This is an area of 120
square miles included within the 570 square miles of the Hanford NERP (4).
The ALE Reserve comprises the watershed area along the western border of the
Hanford site from the top of Rattlesnake Hills (3,500 ft) to the valley floor
(500 ft). It is an island of natural vegetation surrounded by expanses of
cultivated field under dryland or irrigated management regimes, on the south-
west side, and the Hanford nuclear facilities on the northeast side (Figure 2).
In several ways the ALE Reserve is the forerunner of our present NERP. It was
set aside 10 years ago by administrative decisions of the local office of AEC,
now ERDA, in Richland, Washington. An important consideration at the time was
to provide buffer area for the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant such that
grazing and agricultural encroachment on the Hanford site would be minimized.
This consideration coincided fortuitously with desires of our research spon-
sors to more systematically categorize this desert shrub-steppe ecosystem,
common to a substantial part of the arid West where the AEC had many of its
facilities. With support from the local office, steps were taken to map,
fence, and patrol the ALE Reserve. Key elements of understanding were:
* Pristine locations within the Reserve would be preserved indefinitely
* Other sites within the Reserve would be dedicated for manipulative
research activities
* Outside university participation would be encouraged in the research
program
* Casual access would be strictly controlled.
(For any part of the landscape to be pristine, in 1968, was something of a
geological and climatic accident--the weather generally was too hostile for
early Washington settlers to be attracted to this site.)
In 1971, the Arid Land Ecology Reserve also became the Rattlesnake Hills
Research Natural Area, as part of a five-agency Federal cooperative agreement.
A key element in that designation was the idea of preserving undisturbed sites
and the gene pools represented by all types of organisms found naturally at
PAGENO="0100"
96
L /~ / 7~ --
/
-
V
-
/ /
FIGURE 2. The Hanford National Environmental Research Park
PAGENO="0101"
97
those sites, especially rare and endangered or threatened types (5). These
goals were consistent with the prior intent in establishing large segments of
the ALE Reserve. In 1977, Dr. Jerry Franklin, of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture examined suitable sites over the whole of the U.S. for the Bio-
sphere Reserve Program (Figure 3) (6). He stated that..."It was seldom
possible to identify a single area that satisfied all criteria--a large,
strictly preserved tract for conservation of a full array of organisms with a
substantial history of research and monitoring and potential for major experi-
mental treatments. (The only area that is clearly of this type is the Arid
Lands Ecology Reserve at Hanford, Washington).. ." To my best knowledge, ERDA
has not yet nominated the ALE Reserve for inclusion in the Biosphere Reserve
Program. However, the stated objectives of the Biosphere Reserve Program are
fully congruent with those in effect on the ALE Reserve, as a segregated
portion of the Hanford HERR. One should note that policies for the ALE
Reserve are more restrictive than those for other parts of the Hanford NERP.
HOW DO REQUIREMENTS OF A BIOSPHERE RESERVE DIFFER FROM THOSE OF THE HANFORD
NERP?
The ALE Reserve at Hanford fulfills the three main objectives of the
Biosphere Reserve Program: 1) conservation of unique landscape elements,
2) a place where long-term ecological monitoring and research are in progress,
and 3) education. Excluded on the ALE Reserve are those large-scale land
interventions which would permanently alter its character. Manipulative
research is conducted at the ALE site--what the ecologists term `modulation
experiments. These experiments may involve overhead spraying, controlled
cattle grazing, stream modification and other procedures whose effects are
generally reversible. The extent and location of such experiments are further
controlled, with buffer areas also provided. In this way, modulation experi-
ments do not impinge on the areas designated for long-term preservation as
required for our status as a Federal Research Natural Area, or as would be
required for the Biosphere Reserve Program.
In contrast to the ALE Reserve, the larger Hanford site (NERP) includes
areas where there exist new facilities for commercial nuclear electric power
generation, the Federal nuclear production and reprocessing plants, and other
high technology developments. Huge stretches of the 570 square mile NERP site
also remain comparatively undisturbed. To date, possible radiological emis-
sions from the nuclear facilities have been very tightly controlled so that
measurable environmental impact of radiation has neither been expected nor has
ever been detected. Also, operation of these facilities has been remarkably
free from other adverse ecological impact on this region; e.g,, thermal efflu-
ent discharges from the nuclear reactors. Nevertheless, it would be inappro-
priate for the entire Hanford NERP to be dedicated as a Biosphere Reserve.
Only the ALE Reserve should be so dedicated. In my judgment, large sections
of the present Hanford NERP can be used for clean technologies, like the
nuclear facilites, whose operation is unlikelyto significantly impact natural
ecosystems. On the other hand, some different technologies could be inappro-
priate and might lead to long-termdeterioration of the ALE Reserve. Studies
in our laboratory and elsewhere indicate, 1~or example, that long-term operation
PAGENO="0102"
4.
Co
FIGtJRE3. Location of Presently Established (dots) Biosphere Reserves.
Reproduced with Permission of Science 195:263; 1977.
PAGENO="0103"
99
of large-scale coal-fired steam electric plants might cause impairment in
organic productivity (7). To date, I am unaware of any definite policies as
to type of technology to be allowed on the Hanford NERP. We shall probably
have to pay close attention to this matter in future developments.
Many ecologists believe that one of the most useful indicators of bio-
logical potential of land is the mosaic of natural plant communities that
occur with changes in elevation, topography, and soil substrates. Eight major
plant communities have been characterized on the Hanford NERP. All are
represented within the ALE Reserve except streamside communities, which lie
along the Columbia River shore (4). The streamside communities provide
principal habitat for many of the large animals of the Hanford NERP, and they
are not currently in a protected status like that of the ALE Reserve. As
several such sites lie outside areas committed to technology development, they
should, in, my view, be accorded Reserve status and be preserved indefinitely;
e.g., White Bluffs and Old Hanford Townsite.
Apart from classification of the plant communities as indicated above,
several other important classes of information are needed. These are needed
also under the Biosphere Reserve concept, in order to use data effectively for
baseline (reference) purposes. These ancillary needs have been met to a large
extent on the ALE Reserve (5). Specifically, soil has been typed, chemically
characterized and mapped; microclimatic variations have been measured and
mapped over the past decade; an accurate history of prior disturbance has been
established; vertebrate and, to a lesser extent, invertebrate fauna have been
characterized; and the geology of the site has been established. Of these
features, perhaps most useful to the ecologist has been the microclimatic
mapping (8) and soil characterization (5) made possible by cooperating members
from atmospheric sciences and soil science departments of. the Pacific North-
west Laboratory. Where possible, baseline research as envisioned under the
Biosphere Reserve concept can be greatly strengthened if there exists nearby
multidiscipline capability, which may be called upon to put together an
integrated team.
Below I have summarized objectives as outlined to us in the directive
establishing the Hanford NERP, by Dr. Jamas A. Liverman, Assistant Adminis-
trator for Environment and Safety, ERDA. Of the 12 objectives specified, the
7 starred objectives are well underway on the ALE Reserve and are appropriate
to that location. Four of the remaining 5 objectives are more appropriately
carried out at other locations within the Hanford NERP. In particular,
demonstrations of alternative uses of land seem to me inappropriate for the
ALE Reserve, or, for a Biosphere Reserve.
PAGENO="0104"
100
NERP OBJECTIVES
A. Establishing Baselines
* Characterize landscape components
* Establish field laboratory repositories (`preserves') for
seedstock, plant types, and communities of organisms
* Develop quantitative methodology for measuring population and
system changes
* Compile the ecological data base ("data center"); monitor for
long-term changes
B. Determining Response to Man-made Disturbance
* Manipulate ecosystems in designed experiments
* Measure successional events, changes in habitat, or loss of key
species
Study multiple interaction events; e.g., chemical stressors
acting on the environment
C. Predicting Systems Change
* Build models for organizing knowledge of local ecosystems
Develop estimation techniques for assessing effects in absence
of full-life history on key organisms
Correlate successional events with residuals affecting the
ecosystem
D. Demonstrating Environmental Management Principles
Develop areas to publicaily demonstrate the long-term ameli-
oration of ecological effects with costs of alternative options
Demonstrate alternate uses of land
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS IN PROTECTING THE LAND?
In developing the ALE Reserve, we have found five points to be very
important:
o Geographical Identity - this should also be ecologically meaningful,
e.g., a natural watershed area
* Buffer Zones
* Special Policy on Fire Control
(Strict) Use Control Policy
Aerial Surveillance and Patrol
PAGENO="0105"
101
The idea of a Biosphere Reserve requires policing to ensure both the
security of preservation areas and the integrity of experimental sites. This
can be a very complicated problem since each of the points above are at times
related. However, we have found that an aerial patrol flying 5 to 7 days per
week maintains adequate policing, with only rare need for foot patrol or
armed patrol.
Persistent pressures at Hanford have come from cattlemen and hunters who
cut our fences to trespass, and from myriad civic groups wanting to use the
ALE Reserve for their own purposes (hiking, photography, garden clubs, school
outings, etc.). A fenced area, by itself, is little assurance against tres-
pass, particularly if the region has no distinct geographical identity. If
the area is large, as is the ALE Reserve (120 square miles), then the addi-
tional problem of patrolling can be unreasonably expensive unless means more
efficient than foot patrol are used. There are also other disadvantages to
foot patrols because we have to maintain a delicate balance between actual
force and threat.
Trespassers are almost always lodal citizens. If their perception is
one of being unfairly or too severely treated for trespass, unfortunate
consequences have been known to occur. Our fear is of brush fire deliber-
ately ignited by an irate citizen--something which has happened across the
river outside Hanford often enough to be a constant concern. An aerial
patrol avoids confrontations at the same time that it provides visible evi-
dence of constant policing. Cattle trespassing through fences deliberately
cut constitute special problems; this may be a uniquely Western problem.
Therefore, cattle removal is done by a local rancher, under contract to us,
who has suitable equipment for this purpose. Since instituting overflights
however, this has been a minimal problem. We have maintained over the years
records on the number of intrusions and our patrol can usually identify
vehicles, number of people, and cattle. We find that intrusions decline in
proportion to the number of weekly overflights.
The matter of buffer zones can be difficult. Here, again, we are mainly
concerned about fire. We have dealt with this problem with the help of the
local ERDA office. ERDA has facilitated exchanges of small parcels of land
such that a dry-land wheat farmer now owns most of the land along the long
southwest border of the ALE Reserve. Since the farmer's own interests are at
stake--we have a comon reason to exclude trespassers--he protects us on the
south as we protect him on the north. The arrangement has beenquite
practical.
Civic groups and others wanting recreational use of the ALE Reserve have
been controlled by having a firmly declared policy specifying the purposes
for which people may enter the ALE Reserve.
Basically, access to the ALE Reserve is restricted to all but persons
engaged in bona fide scientific work and maintenance personnel properly
instructed as to disturbing the land. Additionally, in the interest of good
PAGENO="0106"
102
public relationships, we admit other visitors from time to time on a per-
sonally escorted basis. Since such visits can significantly tie up the time
of our scientific staff, we try to keep them confined to one or two times
each year. Visitors must be escorted, in our experience, otherwise rather
ill-considered actions sometimes follow; e.g., killing snakes, digging holes
(which may act as pit-traps), disturbing instrumentation arrays, etc.
For remaining portions of the Hanford NERP, apart from the ALE Reserve,
we believe a similar use policy can be implemented. This matter is currently
under discussion with the local ERDA office and will be resolved shortly.
One point to keep in mind, however, is that there needs to be clear under-
standing about landlord responsibility when extramural people use the NERP.
Not all areas of the Hanford NERP lie within Battelle's contractual responsi-
bility to ERDA. Those areas may remain the responsibility of ERDA or of
another contractor.
A remaining matter of policy concerns firefighting practice. This has
been troublesome, over the years, as regards preservation of pristine sites
within the ALE Reserve. Firefighting practice is usually decided by a fire
department in biosphere reserve locations. Firefighting practices should be
reviewed and they should reflect particular geographic and ecological con-
siderations. At Hanford, for example, past experience has shown that fires at
elevations above 1,200 feet on the ALE Reserve have very little lasting impact
on vegetation and wildlife. However, the bulldozer marks and new roadways
constructed during firefighting operations leave tracks on the landscape that
persist for decades. With due regard to potential harm to government property
and personnel, we believe that fires as they occur above 1,200 feet should be
controlled at the 1,200 foot road and along the outer boundaries of the
Reserve; i.e. no equipment should leave the existing roads. Also plain water
and not borate should be used when spray planes are required.
WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE LONG-RANGE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF THE NERP?
In answer to this question, I see four goals that still need to be met at
Hanford, for example:
1. Objectives for different regions of the NERP must be clarified
and delineated.
2. A poli:y for technology facilities built on the NERP must be
established on a compatible basis with preservation objectives.
3. Legislation is needed to clarify the legal and administrative
status of the NERP.
4. Provision must be made for long-term ecological monitoring.
PAGENO="0107"
103
The first goal deals with both scientific and technological issues, at
Hanford. It is clear that preservation objectives and the construction of a
technology facility are not mutually compatible on the same square mile piece
of real estate. Our industrial sponsors frequently misunderstand this point,
if only because local impacts.may be slow in appearing or because they may be
partially ameliorated by special effort. The Hanford NERP, as discussed at an
earlier point, is actually large enough to accommodate both objectives, pro-
vided they are situated at appropriate locations. At least that has been our
experience with the nuclear energy facilities. The second goal is related
and was also discussed at an earlier point. What is to prevent the future
decision to install perhaps 3,600 MW of generating capacity using coal-fired
steam electric plants on the large Hanford site? Both fossil and nuclear
energy development responsibilities rest with different components of ERDA.
In my judgement such a decision could have real ecological impact in an area
that presently meets EPA's stringent air and water quality standards, an area
that shows no significant environmental impact from nuclear facilities. When
a unique ecological reserve exists, as it does here, meeting all criteria for
a biosphere reserve, it would seem to serve ERDAs best interests to restrict
development on the Hanford NERP to clean technologies. In my opinion, this
ought to be a matter of declared agency policy.
On the third goal, I believe that long-range integrity is tied closely to
the fate of the present ALE Reserve, which is already dedicated to Biosphere
Reserve Program objectives. If the Reserve is to serve for baseline monitor-
in!J purposes, against which we may gauge landscape changes at similar dis-
turbed sites nearby, then it requires a stronger degree of protection than is
presently within ERDA's or Battelle's capacity to ensure.
As I stated earlier, the ALE Reserve was originally set aside as a
buffer zone for the nuclear reprocessing plant. While we have enjoyed full
support from ERDA, and AEC before it, to maintain integrity of the Reserve,
its legal status is unclear so long as it remains solely ~a matter of agency
declaration. If, for example, the nuclear waste materials buried at the
Hanford site were removed to another location, I doubt that ERDA could with-
stand pressures from urban and agricultural interests to convert to other
land use. Several years ago, for example, we were forced to allow use of
three or four thousand acres of land on the northwest corner of the ALE
Reserve by a vintner, for growing grapes. Recently, the regional cattlemen's
association has requested that ERDA allow grazing on portions of the ALE
Reserve during the recent northwest drought. Also recently, we have had
requests to allow off-road vehicles to use the Reserve, and we have had tres-
pass by unauthorized persons from a commercial land development firm who
were scouting for water on the Reserve. While I believe such requests would
be declined by ERDA, they are-indicative of public pressure.
More difficult to deal with are interagency pressures. The General
Services Administration (GSA) several years ago insisted on the sale of a
strip of land on the southeast border of the ALE Reserve, which ERDA had
been regularly leasing to a dry-land wheat farmer as a buffer zone. Eventu-
ally, this piece of land was ceded to the Washington State Department of
PAGENO="0108"
104
Fish and Game, who in turn leased it to the County of Benton for use by
recreational vehicles. The potential for uncontrollable brush fires was so
great that the State eventually agreed to rescind its agreement with the
County, after strong argument by our staff. This land would have been better
managed it if had remained under ERDA control; however, the concept of such a
buffer zone was not recognized by GSA. in another matter pending, Bonneville
Power Administration has asked for a power transmission strip along the
southwest border of the ALE Reserve. The strip would impact 50 acres of a
bitterbrush-sagebrush plant community only 100 acres in extent on the ALE
Reserve. While there are other bitterbrush locations on the Hanford NERP,
they lie in areas not subject to preservation objectives. We, of course,
lose any time another agency compares its cost/benefit data. For example
detouring a power line, against our 15-year research costs reckoned propor-
tional to 100 acres out of 77,000 acres. In this way, the Reserve could be
readily nibbled away, 5,000 acres at a time~ On the larger Hanford NERP,
similar problems often have been faced. ERDA has had to give up portions of
Wahluke Slope, on the north, to the Bureau of Reclamation; and other areas,
on the northeast, to the Washington State Department of Fish and Game. These
slope areas were part of the natural watershed shown in Figure 2. In my
judgment, management by the other agencies of these areas adjacent to Hanford
NERP has been considerably less than satisfactory. Richland Operations
Office of ERDA should be consulted on details, but my examples are suffici-
ently indicative of the problem of dealing with other Federal agencies.
Because of these problems, primarily, I believe a legislative mandate is
necessary to assure long-term integrity of the NERP sites.
Remaining matters possibly affecting legal status of the Hanford NERP
concern unused easements and mineral rights. These are matters which also
should be discussed with the ERDAs Richland Operations Office. I am not
aware of any such rights presently outstanding on the ALE Reserve, but it is
not clear how the rest of the Hanford NERP may be affected. In any event,
rights such as these may be appropriately negotiated or purchased outright by
the government, if any remain outstanding. Such rights would not appear to
stand in the way of legislatively establishing the NERP or other biosphere
reserves.
Since a NERP has different objectives than a national park--objectives
which lie close to those for a biosphere reserve--it is important the lona-
term ecological monitoring programs be established, as indicated aboveas the
fourth goal. This was done many years ago at the Hanford NERP. However, it
is becoming progressively difficult to continue these kinds of effort as
pressures within ERDA tend towards a narrow application focus for the research
programs. As discussed earlier, one such study, on the Canada goose, proved
valuabJe in documenting the preservation of normal environmental quality
during the years of nuclear reactor operation. Other similar studies still
underway are indicated below:
PAGENO="0109"
105
LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
(HANFORD NERP-RELATED ONLY)
STUDIES--25 YEARS AND OVER
* Movement of Radiostrontium and Radiocesium in Old Abandoned Fields
* Nesting and Reproductivity of Canada Goose
* Susceptibility and Virulence Changes in the Synecology of Columnaris
Disease (Fish)
* Succession in Old Fields - Suppression of Alien Weeds and Small
Mammal s
STUDIES--5 to 10 YEARS
* Micrometeorological Mapping of ALE Reserve
* Plant Succession at Burned Sites
* Salmon Redd Counts in Columbia River System Under Managed Hydro
Regimes
* Baseline Organic Production and Carbon Flow Pathways Before and
After Climatic Stress (Desert Steppe-Shrub Ecosystem)
* Avian and Raptor Census
* Home Range of Small Animals
STUDIES--3 to 5 YEARS
* Vegetative Recovery After Controlled Grazing
e Blue Heron Habitat
o Coyote, Mule Deer and Elk--Herd Size and Range
PAGENO="0110"
106
The work above represents less than 10% of our research budget in the ecolo-
gical sciences, but we are under great pressure to justify its continued
existence. Wading into the Columbia River in hip boots to sample fish for
the Columnaris bacterium, classifying grasshoppers and exotic beetles, or
counting Canada goose eggs may appear very frivolous to the uninformed tax-
payer, to the biomedical scientist, or to the engineer on the technology side
of ERDA. Yet, I am sure, members of this Subcomittee will recognize that
these procedures may provide key data for gauging the seriousness of envi-
ronmental impact, when it occurs. If NERPs are established by legislation,
I then, believe that long-term ecological monitoring should be distinguished
from other research needs by similar legislative action.
KINDS OF LONG-RANGE RESEARCH APPROPRIATE TO NERP OBJECTIVES
Traditionally, biological scientists have approached effluent releases
from a laboratory viewpoint, using selected plant or animal species as biolo-
gical indicators, and identifying substrate and tissue concentrations of
various materials needed to induce death or impair normal function. This is
essentially a piecemeal approach, which gives little, if any, information on
holistic performance of ecosystems. These approaches, in fact, represent
the largest portion of present funded work in our laboratories and elsewhere.
Long-term ecological monitoring is needed. Long-term ecological
monitoring also needs to be distinguished frommonitoring for present
licensing requirements for standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The latter efforts are not adequate to detect long-range changes. This is
obvious by statistical evaluation of current assessment methodology. Certain
kinds of adverse impact can be forecasted even for the 10-year, 20-year, or
30-year build-up situation based on modeling and indicators of early response
(7). For the energy technologies, lead time is needed to allow modifications.
Ignoring the long-term build-up situation and relying only on present standards
could lead to costly retooling, for example with new energy installations. The
historical record of Western development amply illustrates this mistake (10).
Pollutants from different sources are often found to cause specific types
of damage; e.g., changes due to smelting, urban oxidants, or aluminum ore reduc-
tion can be differentiated from presumptive changes due to coal combustion.
Sampling design is critical; e.g., dose relationship to plant proximity must
be established, in addition to species and specified damage. This is the
environmental analogue of epideniiological studies for human health purposes.
Negative data can be extremely valuable for environmental impact judg-
ments, but only if sampling is carefully designed to test a meaningful hypo-
thesis. Much of current pre- and post-operative monitoring is now discred-
ited (9); from the standpoint of statistically controlled design, it is
insensitive. Also, the usual question is meaningless: "Is there any effect
on the ecosystem?' (there often is, but it may be unimportant). The mean-
ingful question depends on knowledge of what is important or unique in a
particular system--Will the salmon fishery be impacted? Will grazing pro-
ductivity of this grassland be impaired? Will an endangered or threatened
PAGENO="0111"
107
species at that site be knocked out? As not all such questions are obvious,
one must depend on descriptive ecologists who have strong experience in the
region in question.
Methods may require streamlining, based on knowledge of the specific
ecosystem; they likely cannot be prescribed generically. Ecologists have
done a poor job on setting sampling priorities. Also, they have been required,
too often, to measure too many species, construct insensitive diversity
indices, and follow sampling designs that are inadequate. In a terrestrial
environment, it may be far more important to get a handle on an important
habitat change, or on primary productivity; in an aquatic environment, it may
be more important to track the life history and reproductive success of only
one or two valued species. In both cases, measurements should be followed on
an adequate statistical basis over a substantial period of time; e.g., 5 to
10 years, including several preoperational sampling years. Some of the most
valuable data for impact assessment purposes have represented comparatively
simple determinations, carried on for as long as 25 years.
In terrestrial ecosystems, we currently need to know whether greatly
increased burdens of airborne metals and organic compounds anticipated with
the development of coal technology will lead to slow deterioration of forest,
agricultural, or other terrestrial productivity. Predictive modeling is
needed, not as an end in itself, but rather as an adjunct for evaluating the
importance of individual organism sensitivity to projected burdens (plant,
animal, or microbial). For definitive answers, landscape `manipulations' are
required that may involve experimental watersheds of several hundred acres.
Systems structural or productivity changes will be the key variables. Manipu-
lation of the environment may be achieved in several ways, including compari-
sons before and after the startup of an industrial facility.
In aquatic environments, we need to know at what point pollutant burden
damages either organic productivity or ecosystems structure sufficiently to
render such bodies of water unsuitable either for visual esthetic or recre-
ational purposes. Despite a good many years' research since NEPA, we often
do not know the ultimate receiving capacity of lakes or other bodies of water
for energy residuals as magnitude of operation is scaled up. The answers to
these questions cannot be predicted from water quality measurements alone.
Three types of approaches are required to answer these questions: 1) labora-
tory studies to establish the case for synergistic action of several pollu-
tants on reference organisms, 2) systems data from designed intermediate-
scale aquatic ecosystems subjected to effluent perturbation, and 3) studies
based on modeling to predict intermediate scale system effects when scaled up
to the size of natural bodies of water (which it would be infeasible to
directly pollute). In addition, food chain data may be required, but the
latter are for biomedical concerns not primarily environmental impact
concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to express my views on
Federal research reserves.
PAGENO="0112"
108
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. 1977. National
Environmental Research Park, Hanford. (Brochure) Richiand Operations
~c~ich1~
2. Vaughan, B. E. 1977. Pacific Northwest Laborator Annual Re ort to
ERDA, Division Biomedjca and Environmenta Research, Part 2, Ecological
Sciences. BNWL-2100, Battelle, Richland, WA 99352 (In Press)
3. Foster, R. F. April 15, 1952. Biological problems associated with the
discharge of pile effluent into the Columbia River. In: ~jç~]ç~gy Research -
Annual Report for 1951, H. A. Kornberg (ed.) HW25021, NTIC, Oak Ridge,
TN.
4. Rickard, W. H., and B. E. Vaughan. 1977. A Descri tive Summar of the
as a National Environmentai Research Par, BNWL- 99,
5. Anon. 1972. Federal Research Natural Areas in Oregon and Washington:
A Guidebook for Scientists and Educators - Rattlesnake Hills Research
D.C. 20402
6. Franklin, J. F. 1977. The biosphere reserve program in the United
States. Science 195:262-267.
7. Vaughan, B. E. at al. 1975. Review of Potential Impact on Health and
~
WA.
8. Thorp, J. H. and W. T. Hinds. 1977. Nicroclimates of the Arid Lands
Ecology Reserve 1968-1975. BNWL-SA-6231, Battelle, Richiand, WA.
9. Ebernardt, L. L. and J. H. Thomas. 1975. Biostatistical aspects of
impact evaluation, pp. 13-15. In: Pacific Northwe~t Laborator Annual
R~porttoERDA, Division of Biomedica, and Environmental Research, Part 2,
Ecological Sciences. BNWL-2000, Battelle, Richiand, WA. 99352
10. Niller,P. R. and J. R. McBride. 1975. Effects of air pollutants on
forests. In: Res onses of Plants to Air 701 1ution, 3. B. Mudd and
T. T. Kozlowski ted. Academic Press, NY
PAGENO="0113"
109
BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND
BURTON E. VAUGHAN
Manager, Ecosystems Department
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington 99352
EDUCATION
A.A. University of California 1947
Berkeley
A.B. Physiology University of California 1949
Berkeley
Ph.D. General Physiology University of California 1955
Biophysics, and Berkeley
Radiation Biology
EXPERI ENCE
Dr. Vaughan has maintained a broad interest in biology dating from under-
graduate training at Berkeley. Graduate studies were split between biophysical
studies at Donner Laboratory and more extensive environmental studies at White
Mountain High Altitude Research Stations and in the Antarctic (McMurdo Sound).
His published work has covered radiation biology, plant physiology, mammalian
physiology, and ecology. He has also served on the teaching faculty of
Stanford University; and more recently, as an affiliate (associate) professor
of radiology at the University of Washington. Dr. Vaughan has published about
51 papers in reports and journals of national scholarly societies of which he
is a member.
At an administrative level, Dr. Vaughan has been directly responsible for the
mission and performance of ecological research at Battelle's Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, where he is Manager of the Ecosystems Department. Under his
direction, a broad spectrum of ecological and environmental research has been
developed through support derived from a number of Federal agencies and indus-
trial groups (ERDA, NIH/NIEHS, U.S.A. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville
Power Administration, NOAA/BLM, Electric Power Research Institute, American
Petroleum Institute, EPA and others). These include programs on the envi-
ronmental behavior of transuranic elements, the dynamics of arid landscapes,
land rehabilitation, the ecology of heavy metals, marine and freshwater pol-
lution effects, theoretical biology, sampling theory, and food-chain pathways.
Outside professional activities, Dr. Vaughan has been very active in public
school affairs, serving on several Boards of Education in the California
school system. He is currently active in museum exhibit and public education
activities as a trustee of the Pacific Science Center Foundation in Seattle
and Chairman of its Science Council . Dr. Vaughan has had an abiding interest
in music, being especially active over the past six years in a chamber music
sponsoring society. -
98-513 0 - 77 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
110
Mr. BROWN. Next, we have a panel of three representatives from
the Department of Interior and I would like to ask all three of you
gentlemen to come up-Mr. Marcus Nelson, who is Chief of Division
of Wildlife Refuges; Dr. Theodore W. Sudia of the National Park
Service, Chief Scientist; and Mr. James W. Monroe, Bureau of Land
Management.
Now each of you gentlemen represent important bureaus which have
extensive responsibilities in this area, and we appreciate your willing-
ness to spend some time with us this morning and help to put this mat-
ter in aiittle better perspective for us.
You may proceed in the order in which I listed your names if you
wish, or if you have any prepared order you may follow that.
Do you want to start off, Mr. Nelson? Your full statement will ap-
pear in the record and you may proceed to read it if you wish or sum-
marize it.
STATEMENT OP MARCUS C. NELSON, CHIEF, DIVISION OP WILD-
LIFE REFUGES, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. NELSON. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today and discuss the role of the U.S. Fish and Wildiife Service in
wildlife research on lands administered by the Service.
The overall mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is broad
in scope and diverse in character. It ranges from the protection and
management of continual waterfowl populations ~to providing assist-
ance to inner city residents in nuisance bird control; from the mainte-
nance of the anadromous fishery to the control of importations of
endangered wildlife species.
Research is essential to determine the basic rec~uirements of differ-
ent species, the interactions of wildlife species with each other and
with their habitats, the effects of human activities upon wildlife, and
the human needs that are fulfilled by wildlife. Our research centers
around waterfowl management, other migratory birds, wildlife ecol-
ogy on public lands, pesticide-wildjife relations, diseases and para-
sites, animal damage control, life history studies on birds and mam-
mals, endangered species, and foreign wildlife investigations.
The majority of Fish and Wildlife Service land lies within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. The System includes over 32 mil-
lion acres in 384 units in 49 States and 8 territories. I would like to
add one more note that is not in my paper-the Wildlife Refuge Sys-
tem was begun in 1903 with the acquisition of Pelican Island off the
east coast of Florida. Probably the System's greatest period of growth
was in the 1930's. . . .
Although research is not the highest priority on refuges, it is an im-
portant objective and supplies facts necessary in making management
decisions.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Nelson, may I interrupt you just a moment to
clarify your statement about the acquisition of land.
Do I understand that all of this land is held in fee-that it is
owned, in other words? .
Mr. NELSON. No, it is not, sir. WB have about five kinds of land.
Mr. BROWN. All right, does your statement go into that later on?
PAGENO="0115"
111
Mr. NELSON. It does not describe them. I can very quickly do it.
Lands acquired in fee title, either purchased or donated.
Land acquired by withdrawl from public domain.
Land administered under cooperative agreement with another
Federal or State land-owning agency.
Land set aside by special Executive order.
Less than fee interest lands.
There may be other arrangements, but those `are the major ones.
Mr. BROWN. The Bureau has effective control over all of them re-
gardless of the type-
Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir, but subject to primary jurisdiction, rn some
cases, by the owning agency.
Mr. BROWN: All right. Thank you.
Mr. NELSON. Although research is not the highest priority on re-
fuges, it is an important objective and supplies facts necessary in mak-
ing management decisions. Service policy encourages and supports
wildlife oriented research on units of the system.
Refuge lands, water, and facilities may be used for research by non-
Service entities when this research does not conflict with other refuge
programs or responsibilities `of greater value or priority. Studies de-
signed to help resolve wildlife management problems of individual
refuges, or of the refuge system as a whole, are especially encouraged.
All research or study proposals to be conducted on refuges must be
approved by the refuge manager to insure that due consideration is
given at the resource level to biological, social, and economic aspects
of the study, and that potential conflicts with other programs are
recognized and resolved. A publication, "Research Opportunities in
the National Wildlife Refuge System," is available if anyone would
like it. I would be pleased to supply copies.
Mr. BROWN. We would like to have a copy for the record if you do
not mind.
Mr. NELSON. I would be glad to.
[The publication follows:]
PAGENO="0116"
112
RESEARCH
OPPORTUNITIES
IN THE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE SYSTEM
DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Wildlife Refuge System is composed of 378 National Wildlife Refuges and 20 Wetland
Management Districts, totaling 34,136,101 acres. These areas are managed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service of the U.S. Department of Interior and represent unique opportunities for wildlife and
wildlands-oriented research. The purpose of this publication is to describe some of the types of
areas to be found, objectives and research needs of the sefuges, and procedures to be followed in
obtaining approval to conduct field research on them.
A wide variety of biomes is to be found within the National Wildlife Refuge System. South-
west desert, arctic tundra, coastal rain forest, prairie pothole, timbered swamplands, eastern hard-
wood forest and estuarine marsh are but a few examples. Most of the refuges encompass wetlands
supporting large numbers of waterfowl, but some have been set aside to preserve habitat for
threatened species; yet others concern themselves with ungulates once endemic to large areas of the
continent, and still others with colonial nesting sea birds.
Objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System's mission is to provide, manage and safeguard a na-
tional network of lands and waters sufficient in size, diversity and location as to meet people's
needs for areas where the entire spectrum of human benefits associated with migratory birds, other
wild creatures, and wildlands are enhanced and made available. To meet this overall mission, the
system is concerned with perpetuation of endangered plant and animal species, supporting popula-
tions of migratory birds at desired levels, demonstrating wildlife and wildiands management prac-
tices, and expanding an understanding and appreciation of wildlife and wildlands ecology. The
System contains a mosaic of wilderness areas, research natural areas, and lands and waters where
vegetation is manipulated through various management practices. Providing wildlife diversity is an
important consideration. Surplus refuge animals are often removed through public hunting. Histor-
ical, geological, archeological, and other scientific sites are given special consideration. The role of
refuges in providing an ecological monitoring service to the nation has a high priority.
PAGENO="0117"
113
Research Needs and Support
Especially encouraged on National Wildlife Refuges are management-oriented research projects or
studies which will lead toward solving management problems of individual refuges or the System
as a whole. Refuge managers in charge of each area are aware of their research needs and can inform
potential researchers of the most important needs. Research Natural Areas have been established
on many refuges to provide unique habitat types to be used primarily for research purposes.
The Fish and Wildlife Service seldom provides funds for research projects conducted by non-service
personnel on refuges. Funds are supplied only for critical refuge management problems and for
these studies, the Division of Wildlife Refuges of the service sometimes has contracts with Cooper-
ative Wildlife Research Units located on various college campuses or with universities having ex-
pertise in the area of concern. The Refuge System may, however, provide sites and coordinate
research on refuges.
One of the objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to allow people to appre-
ciate and receive enjoyment from wildlife resources. Some of the System's most critical research
needs involve people and avoidance of conflict between people and the resources they come to en-
joy and study. Therefore, studies on determining compatibility between public-uses and wildlife
use are among the most critical needs at present. Refuge objectives are developed according to de-
mands and capabilities on a sustained basis, and developing means for avoiding conflict between
objectives is a challenge. There is a need not only to better define the capacity of individual refuges
for various types of public uses but also for more information on anticipated demands for the
years ahead. Maintaining quality in the public use program is paramount. Some examples of needed
studies include quality versus quantity waterfowl hunting demands and capabilities; design and
location of self.guided nature trails and auto tour routes; maintenance of threatened or unique non-
game species in harmony with game species and public use; manipulation of vegetation to maintain
desired plant succession for key wildlife species; and aquatic vegetation distribution, density and
succession as related to water levels, soil and water chemistry, muskrats and grazing.
How to Obtain Permission to Conduct Studies on Refuge Lands
Individuals wishing to conduct research studies on individual refuges are invited to make direct con-
tact with the Refuge Manager. Among the requirements to conduct research on a National Wildlife
Refuge will be a study proposal in the following format:
1. Title of study (state concisely).
2. Objectives: (number each objective, defining it clearly and concisely, limiting each state-
ment to a goal of possible accomplishment.)
3. Justification: (outline extent of knowledge and background; describe briefly how the
study will contribute to better management of the area or its importance to other fields.)
4. Procedure:
a. Literature review.
b. Data collecting (cover techniques and location of activities; describe any markers,
structures, or other material to be placed on the refuge and affirm that such material
will be removed by the investigator; describe in detail any capture, markings, or tag-
ging techniques. Be sure to cover who is to do what, when, where and how.)
c. Data analysis and interpretation.
5. Cooperators: (List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals,
if any.)
6. Responsibility: (Set forth work and supervision responsibilities.) Indicate role to be
played by the refuge, especially anything in addition to providing the study area.
PAGENO="0118"
114
7. Cost: (Costs, if any, to the Service should be broken down by fiscal year and include
man-years, equipment, supplies, etc., to accomplish the study.) Most studies will not in-
volve any direct costs to the service. Financial support for the study should be clearly
indicated.
8. Schedule: (Estimate starting and completion dates. If a portion of any given study is to
be accomplished separately, the recommended starting and completion dates of each
phase should be shown.)
9. Reports: (Establish due dates for progress and final reports and indicate the number of
copies to be furnished to Refuge Manager.) When Service funds are involved reports will
be furnished the Refuge Manager for the Regional, Area, and Washington Offices.
10. Publications: (State plans, if any.)
11. Submitted by: (If student study, major responsible professor should also sign.)
Date:
12. Approvals:
A. When Service Funds not involved,
(1) RefugeManagerApprovaL__
Date *
B. When Service Funds involved,
(1) Refuge Manager approval
Date -
(2) Regional Office, Refuges, approval -
(3) Research Division, review by___________________________________________
Date
(4) Regional Director approval
Date
The Refuge Manager may require additional information over and above the proposal such as entry
and registration, vehicle licenses, permits etc. The marking, collecting, capture and other activities
must be in accordance with state and federal law.
Whom to Contact
Further information may be obtained from a Refuge Manager, or by writing a Regional Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with one of the following addresses;
REGION 1 - P. 0. Box 3737, Portland, Oregon 97208
(California, Idaho, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington)
REGION 2- P. 0. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
(Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
REGION 3 - Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
REGION 4- 17 Executive Park Drive, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30329
(Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky. Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)
PAGENO="0119"
115
REGION 5 - John W. McCormack Post Off ice and Courthouse, Boston, MassachusettsO2lO9
(Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia)
REGION 6 - 10597 West 6th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80215
(Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
ALASKA - 813 "ID" Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
January 1976
PAGENO="0120"
116
Mr. NELsoN. During 1976, 392 studies were èonducted on 129 refu-
ges. Of these, approximately 68 percent were conducted by non-Service
people.
National wildlife refuges are protected by law, and additional legis-
lation to insure long-range protection of sites now available for
research is not necessary. In addition, further protection is afforded
sites administratively designated as Research Natural Areas or legis-
latively designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
In response to growing national recognition of the need to preserve
natural environm~nts and ecosystems, the Service is cooperating with
other Federal land managing agencies in the identification, classifica-
tion, and establishment of Federal natural areas.
The National Wildlife Refugee System has 181 Research Natural
Areas on 88 National Wildlife Refuges. Research Natural Areas on
refuge land may be as small as a few acres or as large as several thou-
sand, depending on the ecosystem they represent. These areas, set aside
for scientific and educational purposes, total nearly 2 million acres
within the refuge system.
In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Research Natural Area is an
area where natural processes are allowed to predominate. These areas
may include typical or unusual faunistic and/or floristic types, asso-
ciations, or other biotic phenomena., or characteristic or outstanding
geologic, pedologic, or aquatic features and processes.
Research Natural Areas provide important baselines against which
man-caused changes can be measured. They are useful for evaluating
the improvement or impairment resulting from the intervention of
man in the otherwise natural environment. The urgency for setting
aside and protecting these areas becomes greater as our expanding
population increases our demands on the land; as our concern for soil,
water, and atmospheric pollution grows; and as far-reaching environ-
mental controls, such as weather modification, become a reality.
In many cases, Research Natural Areas and other refuge lands have
been further protected by the designation of a wilderness. These may
be protected from encroachment by fences or signs, but normally the
unobtrusive character or isolated location of these research natural
areas offers adequate protection. Research on these areas must be non-
destructive and reasonably consistent with the purpose and charac-
ter of the surrounding land.
Studies that require manipulation of the environment are normally
done elsewhere. Scientists and educators are encouraged by the Fish
and Wildlife Service to use these areas. Restrictions are applied only
to preserve the natural values of the area and to protect any research
projects already underway. A written permit is required, and a sum-
mary report must be submitted upon completion of a research project.
Biosphere Reserves, which I think you will talk about tomorrow,
have been established on two iNational Wildlife Refuges-the San
Aiidreas National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico and the Aleutian
Islands National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. They were designated
by the International Coordinating Council of UNESCO. These
areas conserve specific biotic communities and provide opportunities
for baseline ecological and environmental research.
PAGENO="0121"
117
In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service
maintains lands in the National Fish Hatchery System and at wild-
life research centers. Fish hatchery `lands are not generally useful as
environmental research reserves, since the land and water is developed
primarily to provide controlled environments for fish propagation
and fishery research. Lands associated with the research centers, al-
though well protected and necessary to wildlife research, are not
classified as environmental research reserves, and would not benefit
by having their flexibility to accommodate a variety of controlled
research projects impaired. It may be of interest, however, that at the
Patuxent `ViTildlife Research Center over in Laurel, Md., over 2,000
acres have been maintained in a natural state for many years prior to
acquisition by the Service. Since 1944 long-term ecological research
has been conducted by the Service on this tract which today is rather
unique in this part of the country. `While most of the research is in-
house, the area is available for approved studies by other Federal
agencies, universities, and independent researchers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that insofar as Fish and
`Wildlife Service lands are concerned, adequate authority exists for
the `U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to preserve and protect the lands
and waters under its jurisdiction as natural areas and to make such
areas available for useful and desirable research.
This concludes my prepared statement. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. I think that gives
us a good picture of what your Service is doing in that field.
Next, we would like to hear from Dr. Sudia, Chief Scientist, Na-
tional Park Service.
STATEMENT OF DR. THEODORE W. SUDIA, CHIEF SCIENTIST,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Dr. SUDIA. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to appear before
you to discuss environmental research networks. This program is of
great interest to the National Park Service since the use of parks for
scientific purposes, including environmental education, research, and
monitoring, is part of thebasic mission of the National Park Service.
It is the policy of the National Park Service that inasmuch as:
Natural and social science information is necessary for the management of
the National Park System; the National Park Service will conduct a program
of natural and social science, for the purpose of supporting management in
carrying out the mission of the service by providing decision assistance in all
aspects of planting, development, and management of the units of the system.
The Service also encourages the use of parks by others for scientific studies
when such use shall be consistent with the purposes for which the' parks were
established.
The entire system of national parks, monuments, and recreation
areas serves as a network of research reserves which are protected in
perpetuity, in accordance with the Organic Aet of August 1916, which
calls for the parks to be maintained "unimpaired for future
generations."
The annual report of the Chief Scientist of the National Park
PAGENO="0122"
118
Service for 1975 lists 1,271 natural and social science projects which
were ongoing in the park system during the calendar year.
Research in the parks is conducted by Service as well as nonservice
scientists and falls into the following categories: research on animal
species, geology, plants and vegetation, general ecology, freshwater
biology, human impact, marine studies, hydrology, sociology, fire
ecology, meteorology, and other miscellaneous topices.
In general, independent investigators tend to work in parks where
strong Service-supported research is going on, partly because of the
information base available for their own studies and partly because of
the enhanced capability for logistical support available in parks
with strong research programs.
Service-conducted research in the National Parks is performed to
support the basic mission of the parks as outlined in the general man-
agement plan for the park, the park's statement for maimgement, the
resources management plan, the interpretative plan, and the visitor use
plan.
Research in the parks is aimed at resource preservation and man-
agement, interpretation of the parks to the visiting public as a means
of enhancing visitor experiences in the parks. For the most part, the
enabling acts establishing the parks call for the preservation of the
natural values of the parks, by generally calling for the maintenance
of the park in its natural condition. This is interpreted in the manage-
ment policies of the National Park Service to mean the management of
the parks to maintain the natural ecosystem processes which in turn
produce and the wonders and curiosities fOr which the parks are
notable.
The current efforts in the natural landmarks program of the
National Park Service are to identify outstanding natural areas
in all the physiographic provinces and vegetation types of the United
States for possible recognition as national natural landmarks or for
recommendation for inclusion in the National Park system, in accord-
ance with the General. Authorities Act of 1976. If the process of
rounding out the park service were to continue, parks should even-
tually be established in every major physiographic province and
vegetation type of the United States.
The National Park Service is a participant in the TJNESCO Man
and the Biosphere program and cooperates with many Federal agen-
cies, universities, and other reseaTch organizations for the performance
of research in the national parks.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just add as a footnote an explana-
tion of the two documents that I brought along which certainly need
not be included in the record but which might be of interest anyway.
Part II of the National Parks System Plan is the recipe by which the
national landmarks program works and is at the present time examin-
ing essentially all of the physiographic province$ of the United. States
with the idea of locating outstanding areas to be either natural land-
marks firstly, or secondly for possible recommendation as a National
Park. This obviously is kind of a precursor to the study which is
now going on at the National Heritage Trust and certainly if
something comes out of the National Heritage Trust, it undoubtedly
will be related to this ftmction.
PAGENO="0123"
119
There is a map in the brochure itself which indicates the present
coverage of the national parks, monuments, recreation areas, and so
on, in the United States as a whole, and in general, the darker the
green the better the representation, the lighter toward white, the
poorer the representation, until finally the white itself is very little
representation. So it goes without saying that we have a long way
to go in getting adequate representation, but as the process is estab-
`lished the question of course is one of adequacy. Anybody that has
been familiar with the attempts t.o establish a grasslands national park
in the United States, recognized the great difficulty in simply saying,
well, we want a million acres of this prime farmland.
The second document is the Annual Report of the Chief Scientist
and will give you the flavor of both the kinds of research, the insti-
tutions who are conducting it, and the geographical extent. Some
80 or 90 parks have active research programs. Many of them, you
might be interested to know, essentially are supported by almost
entirely outside funding. Shenandoah National Park which is very
close to us here in Washington has a very active research program
very little of which is Service-supported. So there is a great deal of
interest in universities and other organizations in working in the
parks simply because there is some assurance that these areas will
be available at another time to come back and see what may have
happened as the course of the activities go on.
Mr. BROWN. We would like to have those documents for the com-
mittee file.
Dr. SuDIA. They have been made available to you.
That concludes what I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Monroe?
STATEMENT OP ~1AMES W. MONROE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LEGISLATION, BUREAU OP LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. MONROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here
and discuss what the Bureau of Land Management is doing in re-
gard to environmental research reserves.
Mr. BROWN. Tell us what you are doing with all that desert land
in California.
Mr. MONROE. Thanks to COngress, Mr. Chairman, that in its wisdom
last year approved the creation of the California Desert National
Conservation Area, we are moving out in a good program of land
use planning and management of the California desert. It is a very
competitive area as you well know. Special interests are competing
with us for the use and some say destruction of the southern Cali-
fornia desert, so we are doing our best with Congress help.
Overall the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for some
470 million acres of public land and its resources largely in the Western
States, including Alaska. F'or many years, we have managed this
land under the principles of multiple use and `sustained yield. As I
have mentioned, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that
is the, parent legislative authority for the California Desert Con-
servation Area, solidifies and makes mandatory the principle of
retention of these lands in Federal ownership to be managed for
PAGENO="0124"
120
multiple use and sustained yield. Of course, multiple use includes
many of the things you may have referred to-off-road vehicle use,
livestock grazing, mineral exploration, timber harvests, as well as the
identification and protection of scenic values and other research or
scientific values.
The lands are also very valuable as watersheds for many of the
communities in the West.
We use the land use planning system which starts with a resource
inventory by qualified biologists, recreation specialists and planners
of all types-with all disciplines represented. We go into a land use
planning program broken down into some 450 to 500 geographic
areas or planning units as we call them.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the so-called organic
act of the Bureau, does require that we utilize the land use planning
system to carry out the management function of the Secretary with
regard to the public land. Of course, we also use the National Environ-
mental Policy Act in our administration of the public lands.
Getting specifically to environmental research reserves, a number
of years ago-largely in connection with the livestock management
program-we established a number of exciosures, fenced areas, where
nothing was allowed to enter. No impact by man or animals other than
those that naturally occurred in the area. WTe were able to use these
areas t.o build a base of knowledge~ in a sense baseline monitoring,
to allow some comparison as to what happens to those areas that were
intensively utilized by livestock, those where there was good intensive
management of livestock grazing. and the exclosures where there was
no livestock intrusion allowed.
This obviously is a continuing program; over the years we have
been utilizing the type of data that we have gathered from those areas.
Later, under authorities existing at that time, we started establish-
ing Research Natural Areas and outstanding natural areas along with
what we call primitive areas that were judged on the basis of their
wilderness characteristics. T~he Bureau has established, or the Secre-
tary has, 19 Research Natural Areas and 23 outstanding natural areas
throughout the `Western States.
Research areas are established for the primary purpose of research
and study of the environment, some successional trends in the biologi-
cal structure and other natural phenomena of scientific inte.rest. They
contain typical or unusual types of fauna and flora associations or
other biotic phenomena. There is also some outstanding geologic or
aquatic. features or processes that have been identified and are being
studied.
Outstanding natural areas possess scenic values and areas of natural
wonder. Primary management objectives of those is preservation of
those features in their natural condition~ Some of the Research Natural
Areas are Big Sage Natural Area, about 160 acres in Arizona; and the
McElmo Reptile Natural Area, some 445 acres in C&orado.
One of our best known natural areas is the Snake River Birds of
Prey Natural Area in Idaho. 26,000 acres of public land designated
in 1971 to protect eagles, hawks. falcons, owls, and vultures. It attracts
more nesting raptors than any other known location of similar size in
North America and provides an Opportunity for continued research
and study.
PAGENO="0125"
121
Recently, in fact, we introduced the endangered peregrine falcon
into the area, reintroducing it by substituting peregrine chicks for
prairie falcon chicks. At last report they were doing very well.
Several thousand acres of adjacent Federal lands, while not included
in the formally designated birds of prey area, are under use as a
research area under controlled conditions against any intrusions that
might come in so that we can discover the feeding patterns and dis-
tances the raptors travel in the birds of prey area. We found one
hawk that is going out 14 miles to do his feeding. We use a lot of
telemetry and scientific devices so that we can really track the bird.
The Bureau planning system necessitates continuing consideration
of the impact of one resource use on all other resources in the given
area. This again brings in the interdisciplinary approach. Then, of
course, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, if we
have any action that is a major Federal action, such. as the development
of a coal mine and conversion of the coal to electricity, we must look at
the overall cumulative impacts of this proposed action.
In the last year we did well over 10,000 environmental assessme,nts
under NEPA and initiated some 200 full Environmental Impact State-
ments governing all of the proposed actions that we are responsible
for initiating ourselves plus those that are initiated by non-Bureau
motion.
Also, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, we have
direction in our inventory process to early identify areas of critical
environmental concern. These could be areas where there may be
natural hazards that require some work to protect the visitors or areas
where we would just pmvent any degradation at all of the resource.
Or again, areas that may need some manipulation by man to restore
them or to protect further from further degradation.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act has a number of
provisions that are discussed in the prepared statement. I will not
detail those at this time but they do provide the mechanisms and the
management tools for managing nublic lands.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act does not apply to
the Outer Continental Shelf, where the Bureau of Land Management
is responsible for baseline environmental studies as well as the oil and
gas leasing and followup environmental studies to that activity. Leas-
ing is entirely discretionary and I believe adequate regulatory author-
ity is provided under the present law and especially under the pending
legislation in both the Senate and the House on the OCS Act amend-
ments.
We do not feel any additional authority is needed to protect areas
for environmental research on the Outer Continental Shelf.
We also are participating in the National Heritage Trust Pro-
posal Development that Dr. Sudia and others have already referred to.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we have taken some steps toward estab-
lishing a system of environmental research areas on public lands ad-
ministered by the Bureau. Pursuant to NEPA, the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act, and direction from the President and Secretary
of the Interior we will continue to identify and designate these areas
that are suitable for environmental research. Our current authority,
we believe, is sufficient to accomplish these objectives as well as to pro-
tect the areas that are already established
PAGENO="0126"
122
Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you.
Gentlemen, I presume that you were here earlier this morning and
heard the testimony from the ERDA people with regard to their
activities in this area. I am interested to know how you perceive the
differences between what they are doing and the kind of research and
the methods of organization that you have in each of your agencies,
not only in terms of the nature and types of research being done, but
also the nature and kind of resources applied to it.
The Oak Ridge and Hanford operations both seem to include a
rather large number of professionals engaged in the ecological re-
search, and I do not know whether your agencies maintain a compara-
ble ecological staff or not, but I think that would have some bearing
on the extent to which we are able to generate a flow of scientific in-
formation for these operations. Could you comment on that?
Mr. NELsoN. I should like to comment for the Fish and Wildlife
Service. I did not mention this in my statement, but you are probably
aware of the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a Division
of Wildlife Research. They also have the Office of Biological Services,
which was mentioned by one of the gentlemen who is also within the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Our recent Assistant Secretary, Mr. Reed, made a strong effort dur-
ing his administration to establish the Fish and Wildlife Service as
"the biological arm of Government." We are deeply involved in wild-
life research in many areas and have been for many years. Probably
the beginning of research in the Fish and Wildlife Service came about
many years ago in the attempt to develop methods of controlling pred-
ators. It goes way back to when we were the Bureau of Biological
Survey, back around 1~3O.
From Our point of view, however, our research is designed primarily
to further our capability of taking care of the migratory bird manage-
ment program and the refuge land management program. Our re-
search programs are related primarily to furthering our own respon-
sibility, not necessarily to broadening some of the concepts that were
mentioned this morning.
I was speaking to our own land management philosophy in my
statement.
Mr. BROWN. Obviously, one reason that ERDA moved into this fleid
is because their mission was to evaluate the impact of a new, strange,
and to some degree fearful form of energy on human beings and the
environment. So they undertook a very broad impact assessment pro-
gram to see if they could evaluate these effects.
Your mission is not the same. Yours is, as you have indicated, to
protect fish and wildlife and understand their interaction with the
environment. That explains, of course, most of the differences in the
way you operate.
* I am still trying to understand the degree to which we are moving
toward the kind of research~ the broad gauged analysis of a complete
ecological system, that ERDA was compelled to by the nature of their
circumstances.
Mr. NELSON. May I add one more thing? We do overlap and we do
work with, well, let us say, the long-term research programs in the
PAGENO="0127"
123
sense that we have been deeply involved in pesticides or pesticides
monitoring. In this area we do get away from the wildlife factor. We
move through the wildlife factor and the fish factor on into human
relations.
Mr. BROWN. Could you just offer a brief comment about the approxi-
mate level of personnel that you could reasonably say are working on
ecological research of the sort that we have been discussing here?
Mr. NELSON. Our research division includes-a rough guess off the
top of my head right this minute-possibly 600 people.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Sudia?
Dr. SUDIA. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can address your question
at two levels, one more general than the other.
I think, from the discussion earlier this morning and `from some of
the other things that are happening now, that one problem is the man-
agement of the land, and, in terms of these large sites EIRDA is now
managing for nuclear technology, that it is a land management prob-
lein with some overlying considerations. The primary thing is the nu-
clear technology. The secondary one is the effects of this development.
I think that this is a general problem. The question is one of manag-
ing land in such a way that the impacts to that land could be readily
understood for whatever mission the land is dedicated. I think that in
many cases what you will be able to see is that the difference in what
happens to the land is either the mission or the agency or the purpose
for which it was dedicated and that consequently determines what hap-
pens later. For instance, the Park Service's basic mission is to preserve
large areas for recreation, pleasuring grounds, and so on.
We have to be very careful about the impact of development and
we are more or less obsessed with this question of the impact of de-
velopment, the encroachments of civilization, and the impact of people
on these natural areas. We have devised a system, which is not fully
implemented but which again is in process, of basic inventories of
resources and a general planning process which takes into account
the basic ecology/enviromnental considerations before any planning
is done. This includes things such as the geology, the hydrology, the
vegetation, the animal species, endangered species and so forth.
After the general management plan is done, then the park is con-
strained to follow resources management plan, interpreter plan, visitor
use plan, where the management actions are going to be spelled out and
the need for information is appropriately documented.
I think that if one were to look at the process without worrying spe-
cifically about the type of land dedication or the specific activity that
was going on, you would see a great similarity between what ERDA
is doing at its nuclear installations and what the Park `Service is doing
with parks and what I presume might be happening with the refuges
and other areas that are `managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Another consideration, aside from the land managing one, is the
appropriateness of research itself for these activities or for these pur-
poses. I think in the first instance when one looks at the question
of land management, this is a very finite problem. Land is going to be
dedicated for certain purposes; we need a certain amount of infor-
mation in order to carry out that objective.
PAGENO="0128"
124
Now, to go further beyond that point and to determine what the
general effects are of some factor or what the ecosystem is doing at any
particular time without reference to specifics. this very easily could
become an open-ended type of research activity for which funding
might increase logarithmically if unchecked.
Now. what we have essentially done is view our mission as that of
the land manager and have utilized information necessary to do that,
and by allowing the parks to be used in ways consistent with their
purposes by anybody that wants to. lYe find that, for instance, two-
thirds of all research that is clone in the parks is done by investigators
who are not Park Service people. We encourage this by a system of
permits which allow people to work in the parks. lYe further encour-
age it by providing services in kind rather than in money, that is,
logistical support-housing in some cases, transportation, safety con-
siderations, the notion of rescue and whatnot. In some places where
their work will be particularly hazardous, such as in the inner Grand
Canyon where rescue might be essential. this support is guaranteed.
Our mission becomes a notion of what the specific requirements are
for land management purposes. and, in addition. what else can be done.
I think we~ encourage both. but limit our own activities to the one.
Mr. Bnowx. Well, I think this is the distinction that we need to
draw. Every agency will need to conduct certain information gather-
ing or research activities in performance of its mission.
As the fundamental justification for the Environmental Research
Park, there is a growing awareness that we need systematic studies
of a wide variety of ecosystems on a long-term continuing basis to give
us some basis for judging what has happened to particular environ-
ments. Each research activity is important, but the latter one is rela-
tively new. The idea of having an Environmental Research Park or
maintaining a system of them for these baseline studies over a long
period of time is much newer than the National Park Service, for ex-
ample. or the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think what the record needs
to show is the importance and relationship of these research parks
to the research that all of you gentlemen are presently engaged in and
possibly how the two concepts can be interrelated and made more
mutually productive, if this is possible.
Mr. Monroe, how do von lerceive the difference between the re-
search that is going on in land management and what the ERDA
people were describing?
Mr. MONROE. I think we are fortunate in BLM that we have the
large land mass that we have responsibility for that we are doing a
lot of what ERDA is doing. too. We have direct research by. several
hundred of our own employees. We hire contractors who do it based
on our specifications. and we also permit others, Federal agencies, insti-
tutions, or individuals to come onto the. land to do research type work.
I think in many areas we are able to do a lot of the same things ERDA
is doing but we just do not call it the same thing. We do not have a
NERP~ if that was the termS that would be established, lYe do have
these smaller identified outstanding natural areas, primiti~ areas,
Research Natural Areas and those are just designed for that purpose.
But our objective under the law is to provide a balance in this miil-
tiple use~ mix of how the land is to be managed. how it is to be used,
PAGENO="0129"
125
how it is to be protected-and rë~earch is a very key part of this. And
we have to do it or we will be lost. The baseline is good. We have estab-
lished that in many areas over a number of years.
Mr. BROWN. In principle, do any of you gentlemen see any reasons.
why there should not be some sort of an information network which
would allow the pooling of your research and some degree of common
planning for achieving certain research objectives to which each of
several different agencies might contribute? Or is this inherently im-
possible in our system of government?
Mr. NELSON. No, I do not think so.
Mr. MONROE. Probably not impossible but maybe unworkable, get-
ting awfully monolithic.
Dr. SUDIA. Let me make a clarifying point and then I will try to
answer your question.
In the area of land management the purpose of the Park Service
is to maintain the parks in their natural condition, which really
entails understanding `basic ecosystem processes. So, part of our basic
mission is to do essentially what the ERDA people are trying to do,
namely, understand basic ecosystem processes. When you go away
from that, like wildlife management, which may not involve `basic
ecosystems processes, but wildlife enhancement, you depart from that
kind of thing, `but the motions really *are quite similar and quite
compatible.
Mr. BROWN. How does thi's relate to s'omething like Yellowstone or
Yosemite? You want to understand the ecosystems but you still have
umpteen million people tramping through that park every year.
Dr. SUDIA. Well, part of the thing that is pretty misunderstood
about parks is that very little of their area is used by the public.
Two or three percent of Yellowstone, maybe five percent of Yosemite
is used by the public and the rest of it i's back country. In order to
understand some of the larger questions, say, concerning fire or the
ecology of the grizzly bear, it is really quite necessary to consider
almost the totality of the pai± plus other adjoining lands as being t'he
necessary ecosystem to study. The inner-agency grizzly bear study
considers, for instance that Yellowstone is at the heart of about a 5-
million acre tract that has to be looked at in order to understand
grizzly bears.
Mr. BROWN. I read occasionally something about Yellowstone and
the grizzly situation, but obviously Yellow~tone has been `altered as
a result of its use by `human beings. That is what it was intended to
be used for. It is a great attraction. But have you made the studies
that `allow you to say, over a period of years that. the park has been
under your jurisdiction, what the change.s in the ecology are `as a result
of human intervention?
Dr. SUDIA. We can answer some of those quesMons. The early altera-.
tion of the park affected the grizzly bear primarily allowing the grizzly
to use human garbage and food. Since the termination of that we feel
that we have restored the grizzly population to its natural ecological
condition and renewed one human impact. At the time this was done it
was thought that nobody would ever see a grizzly bear again. The fact
of the matter is that this is not true. It has not happened.
98-513 0 - 77 -`9
PAGENO="0130"
126
The other thing that I was trying to say is that even a park as large
as Yellowstone-2l/2 million acres-is not enough to contain, say, the
total migration of the elk. The elk migrate out of the park, some to the
south and some to the north. So the question of how much is enough
in many cases really cannot be answered, but for instance in the elk
question, we are attempting to understand the natural ecological con-
dition of the elk and to understand the forces that normally control
those populations rather than human intervention. In that instance
we have not had a human intervention elk reduction for a number of
years. We now feel that we understand to a greater extent what the
natural ecological conditions are.
To address your question of the information, I think that our agen-
cies at least are going through something at about the same time. In
response to NEPA, in response to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
most agencies now have to pretty welt document what they are doing.
Agencies may or may not have documented what they did in the past.
For example-we have had Yellowstone since 1872-can we say that
we really have a record of change out there since 1872? In many cases
we do not, but in many cases we do, and in the cases where we do, it is
happenstance. It is not due to orderly, planned, 100-year research proj-
ects. But I think that particularly if one looks at the various clauses
of the National Environmental Policy Act, we are now no longer
allowed the luxury of ignoring what it is we do and the consequences
of our acts. I can say certainly for the Park Service that comprehensive
systems of inventorying, utilizing in many cases modern technology
such as remote sensing satellites is in fact occurring and we are be-
ginning to get quantitative information on large parcels of land that
we have never had before. In addition to this, it means that the infor-
mation that we are getting occurs in such vast quantity that it has to
be reduced to computer technology for analysis and in many cases
even for display.
I think that what is happening now in the land management activi-
ties is that there is enough scientific expertise maturing in this area,
that with very little effort such as adoption of similar standards by
various agencies, a common pool of information of this kind would be
readily available and readily accessible, that is to say, utilizing a com-
puter based data information system should be readily accessible from
agency to agency.
We meet regularly with the Forest Service and other agencies and
discuss our common research problems and in many cases this is the
issue that comes up-how we can pool not only the information that
we have, but also pooi information about what we are going to do so
that we do not keep reinventing the wheel or keep doing what some-
body else is doing. I think that because of the demands required for
comprehensive data analysis, in the not too distant future this kind
of information exchange should be readily available.
Mr. BROWN. Well, there will be increasing pressures on you to de-
velop the kind of systems that will allow for the exchange of data.
There will also be increasing pressures on you to have available for
policy purposes and other purposes a much broader range of informa-
tion. Unreasonable Congressmen or the unreasonable laws that they
PAGENO="0131"
127
pass are going to require some of these things, just as NEPA, and
later acts which mandate enhanced or increased planning for BLM,
Forest Service, and all of the agencies are going to require this kind
of data. We are going to get to the point where we need to know things
like the CO2 uptake of all the vegetated areas of the United States, or
how much sunlight is being reflected or something like that. And it is
going to put tremendous demands on you, thus emphasizing the im-
portarice of taking a very broad look at your research mission, more
comprehensive I think than we have been accustomed to taking in the
past.
Gentlemen, I am afraid I am going to have to start answering some
of these roll calls that are coming up. Let me say again that I very
much appreciate your helping us with the perspective that you have
* presented this morning. We hope to keep in touch with you about this.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Nelson, Mr. Monroe, and Dr.
Saudia follow:]
PAGENO="0132"
128
STATEMENT OF MARCUS C. NELSON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGES, U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE ON THE ADEQUACY OF
FEDERAL LANDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, JULY 28, 1977.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the
role of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in wildlife research on
lands administered by the Service.
The overall mission of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is broad in
scope and diverse in character. It ranges from the protection and
management of continental waterfowl populations to providing assistance
to inner city residents in nuisance bird control; from the maintenance
of the anadromous fishery to the control of importations of endangered
wildlife species. Research is essential to determine the basic requirements
of different species, the interactions of wildlife species with each
other and with their habitats, the &ffects of human activities upon
wildlife, and the human needs that are fulfilled by wildlife. Our
research centers around waterfowl management, other migratory birds,
wildlife ecology on public lands, pesticide-wildlife relations, diseases
and parasites, animal damage control, life history studies on birds and
mammals, endangered species, and foreign wildlife 1'nvestigations.
The majority of Fish and Wildlife Service land lies within the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The system includes over 32 million acres in
384 units in 49 States and 8 Territories. Although research is not the
highest priority on refuges, it is an important objective and supplies
facts necessary in making management decisions. Service policy encourages
and supports wildlife oriented research on units of the system.
PAGENO="0133"
129 S
Refuge lands, water, and facilities may be used for research by non-
Service entities when this research does not conflict with other refuge
programs or responsibilities of greater value or priority. Studies
designed to help resolve wildlife management problems of individual
refuges, or of the refuge system as a whole, are especially encouraged.
All research or study proposals to be conducted on refuges must be
approved by the refuge manager to insure that due consideration is given
at the resource level to biological, social, and economic aspects of the
study, and that potential conflicts with other programs are recognized
and resolved. A publication, "Research Opportunities on National Wildlife
Refuges," is available to persons interested in using refuge units as
researct~ sites. I would be pleased to supply a copy of this publication
for submission to the record of this hearing.
During 1976, 392 studies were conducted on 129 refuges. Of these,
approximately 68 percent were conducted by non-Service people.
National wildlife refuges are protected by law, and additional legislation
to insure long-range protection of sites now available for research is
not necessary. In addition, further protection is afforded sites administra-
tively designated as Research Natural Areas or legislatively designated
as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
In response to growing national recognition of the need to preserve
natural environments and ecosystems, the Service is cooperating with
other Federal land managing agencies in the identification, classification,
and establishment of Federal natural areas.
PAGENO="0134"
130
The National Wildlife Refuge System has 181 Research Natural Areas
(RNA's) on 88 National Wildlife Refuges. Research Natural Areas on
refuge land may be as small as a few acres or as large as several
thousand, depending on the ecosystem they represent. These areas, set
aside for scientific and education purposes, total nearly 2 million
acres.
In the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Research Natural Area is an
area where natural processes are allowed to predominate. These areas
may include typical or unusual faunistic and/or floristic types, asso-
ci~tions, or other biotic phenomena, or characteristic or outstanding
geologic, pedologic, or aquatic features and processes.
Research Natural Areas provide important baselines against which man-
caused changes can be measured. They are useful for evaluating the
improvement or impairment resulting from the intervention of man in the
otherwise natural environment. The urgency for setting aside and
protecting these areas becomes greater as our expanding population
increases our demands on the land; as our concern for soil, water, and
atmospheric pollution grows; and as far-reaching environmental controls,
such as weather modification, become a reality.
In many cases, Research Natural Areas and other refuge lands have been
further protected by the designation of a wilderness. These may be
protected from encroachment by fences or signs, but normally the un-
obtrusive character or isolated location of the areas offers adequate
protection. Research on these areas must be non-destructive and reason-
ably consistent with the purpose and character of the surrounding land.
PAGENO="0135"
131
Studies that require manipulation of the environment are normally done
elsewhere. Scientists and educators are encouraged by the Fish and
Wildlife Service to use these areas. Restrictions are applied only to
preserve the natural values of the area and toprotect any research
projects already underway. A written permit is required, and a summary
report must be submitted upon completion of a research project.
Biosphere Reserves have been established on the San Andreas National
Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico and the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife
Refuge in Alaska. They were designated by the International Coordinating
Council of UNESCO. These areas conserve specific biotic communities and
provide opportunities for baseline ecological and environmental research.
In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service maintains
lands in the National Fish Hatchery System and at wildlife research
centers. Fish hatchery lands are not generally useful as environmental
research reserves, since the land and water is developed primarily to
provide controlled environments for fish propagation and fishery research.
Lands associated with the research centers, although well protected and
necessary to wildlife research, are not classified as environmental
research reserves, and would not benefit by having their flexibility to
accommodate a variety of controlled research projects impaired. It may
be of interest, however, that at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
in Laurel, Maryland, 2,000 acres have been maintained in a natural
state for many years prior to acquisition by the Service. Since 1944
long term ecological research has been conducted on this tract which
today is uniqite in this part of the country.
PAGENO="0136"
132
While most of the research is in-house, the area is available forapproved
studies by other Federal agencies, universities and independent researchers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that adequate authority exists for
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to preserve and protect lands and waters
underits jurisdiction as natural areas and to make such areas available
for useful and desirable research.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have. Thank you.
PAGENO="0137"
133
POLICY UPDATE NO. 3
DATE: November 1, 1973
POLICY ON RESEARCH ON LANDS AND WATERS
OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Policy
It is the policy of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to
encourage and support wildlife-oriented research on units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Bureau funds, labor and/or material,
when available, may be corrmiitted where there is a high priority need
for significant management-oriented information. Refuge lands, water
and/or facilities may be made available for research by non-Bureau
entities when not in conflict with other refuge system outputs or
responsibilities of. greater value or priority and a mutual benefit may
be obtained.
Objecti yes
The primary objective of the Bureau is "to promote harmony between man
and his environment." As the basic biological agency of the Federal
Government. the Bureau is responsible for contributing to this "harmony."
Especially encouraged on national wildlife refuges are management-
oriented research projects or studies which will lead toward solving
management problems on individual refuges or the System as a ~,hole.
Some of the System's most critical research needs involve promoting the
understanding and enjoyment of refuge lands through public use and
eliminating or minimizing public abuse
PAGENO="0138"
134
All research must have clearly defined objectives and justification.
Primary consideration is given to research which is needed and re-
quired in the Refuge System. Eliminated from consideration are
hobby, cursory, "masters degree mill ," and related projects that have
little or no significance in furtherance of refuge objectives.
C. Delegation_of Authqj~j~y
This policy update further expands 4 AM 4.9, Delegation by the
Director - Wildlife Matters, to authorize refuge managers to approve
research, refuge management studies or investigations on units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) by Bureau or non-Bureau personnel
when Bureau expenditures are not required and no significant conflict
exists with other Bureau objectives. Regional Directors are authorized
to approve research requiring expenditure of Bureau funds.
D. Guidelines
All research or study proposals that are to be conducted on NWRS units
must be approved the refuge manager. This will insur~e
that at the resource level due consideration is given the biological,
social, and economic aspects, and that.potential conflicts with other
Bureau programs are recognized and resolved.
Proposals will normally be in accordance with the following format:
1. Title of study (state concisely).
2. Objectives: (number each objective, defining it clearly and
concisely, limiting each statement to a goal of possible
accomplishment).
PAGENO="0139"
135
3. Justification: (outline extent of knowledge and background;
describe briefly how the study will contribute to better management
of the area or its importance to other fields).
4. Procedure:
a. Literature review.
b. Data collecting (cover techniques and location of activities,
describe any markers, structures, or other material to be placed
on NWRS unit and affirm that such material will be removed by the
investigator; describe.in detail any capture, markings, or tagging
techniques. Be sure to cover who is to do what, when, where, and
how. If animals (including birds, reptiles, etc.) or their eggs
are to be collecte4 ~r sacrificed, the plan should note the
official status of the species involved (rare, endangered, etc.),
indicating what impact on the species is expected to result from
the proposed research).
c. Data analysis and interpretation.
5. Cooperators (list other participating institutions, agencies, organizations,
or individuals, if any).
6. Responsibility: (set forth work and supervision responsibilities.
Indicate role tobe played by the NWRS. unit, especially anything in
addition to providing the study area).
7. Cost: (costs, if any, to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
should be broken down by fiscal year--July 1 to June 30--and include
man-years, equipment, supplies, etc., to accomplish the study).
PAGENO="0140"
136
8. Schedule: (estimate starting and completion dates. If a
portion of any given study is to be accomplished separately, the
recomended starting and completion dates of each phase should be
shown).
9. Reports: (establish due dates for progress and final reports and
indicate the number of copies to be furnished to the refuge manager.
When Bureau funds are involved,copies of reports will be required by
the offices outlined in E. Procedures, paragraph no. 1.)
10. Publications: (state plans, if any)
11. Submitted by: (if student study, major responsible professor should
also sign).
Cooperator(s) endorsement(s) Date:
Approved: Date:
12. (a) Recornended by:_______________________________________________
Refuge Manager
(b) Recomended by:______________________________________________
Regional Supervisor
(c) Reviewed by:_______________________________________________
Research, Wildlife or Fisheries (when Bureau
funding involved)
(d) Approved by:_____________________________
Regional Director
PAGENO="0141"
137
E. Procedures
When Bureau funds are involved, the refuge manager will submit the
proposal (four copies) to his immediate supervisor with a brief,
concise supporting statement. The supervisor will weigh the
proposal according to competing priorities. He will then forward
three copies to the Regional Director with his recommendations
and one copy to the Central Office Division Chief of Wildlife
Research or Fishery Research (as appropriate) for review and
cormient. It is anticipated Regional Directors will have the
benefit of research review prior to his consideration. -
The Regional Director will approve or disapprove the proposal,
providing an informati~n copy of approved proposals to the
Division of Wildlife Refuges in the Central Office, retaining one
copy for Regional files, returning an approved copy to the refuge.
When the approved project is completed, the finalized results will
be forwarded through the same chain of command. Reviewers at all
levels will evaluate the results and offer comments or recommendations
to the next level. It will be the ultimate responsibility of the
Regional Director to place the evaluation in proper perspective and
make arrangements for dissemination of the data to the persons, units,
or organizations which stand to benefit most by the information gained.
This policy update does not supersede or alter any operating procedure
currently operative in Divisions other than Wildlife Refuges. it is
intended to insure that research conducted on Bureau lands is of high
priority, has benefit of review of ~c~e appropriate Research Division,
and adequately considers the objectives of the NWR System.
PAGENO="0142"
138
PPBE HANDBOOK WRH-4, III OUTPUTS AND RBUs
APPENDIX 3
RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS *
In response to growing national recognition of the need to preserve
natural environments and ecosystems and to help achieve one of the
goals of the International Biological Program, the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife is cooperating with other land administering
agencies of the Government in the identification, classification, and
establishment of Federal Natural Areas.
The Interdepartmental Natural Areas Coninittee has developed objectives,
definitions, a classification system, and minimum criteria for
selection, management, and protection of Research Natural Areas. These
follow, as well as the form to be used in submission to the Director
of proposed Research Natural Areas.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assist in the preservation of examples of all significant
natural ecosystems for comparison with those influenced by
man.
2. To provide educational and research areas for scientists to
study successional trends and other aspects of the natural
environment.
3. To serve as a gene pool and help to preserve native and
endangered species or other varieties of plants and animals.
DEFINITION
An area where natural processes are allowed to predominate and
which is preserved for the primary purpose of research and edu-
cation. Such may include:
1) Typical or unusual faunistic and/or floristic types,
associations, or other bioti c phenomena.
2) Characteristic or outstanding geologic or aquatic
features and processes.
* Adapted from Mr. Tunison's memorandum of July 13, 1966, with
attachments
WILDLIFE REFUGES JUNE 1972
PAGENO="0143"
139
PPBE HAN3BOOK WRH-4, III OUTPUTS AND RBUs
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION CRITERIA
While a project leader wfll normally be responsible for proposing
the establishment of a Natural Area, any employee may suggest an
appropriate area for consideration.
Research Natural Areas are established by the Director. Informa-
tion requested on the submission form is all that is presently
needed to propose a Research Natural Area for establishment by
the Director. However, personnel at each region Or project on
which a Research Natural Area is located should be prepared to
maintain records and files containing information in considerably
greater detail than called for on the attached form. Instructions
and guidelines for these regional and field records and files will
be forthcoming.
Approved Research Natural Areas, through 1967, are shown in
Research Natural Areas, 1968, compiled by the Federal Committee
on Research Natural Areas. Each field station received a copy
of this publication and should use it as a reference.
The types listed on pages 89-104 of Research Natural Areas, 1968
attempt to be all-inclusive, but it is not intended that this
list be considered closed. If there are additional types that
should be represented, please name, briefly describe, and appro-
priately number them. We are particularly concerned that types
for desert, semi-desert and wetlands areas are not complete.
Natural Areas should be of such size and extent that they afford
an adequate degree of protection and preservation for the type
or feature being preserved. Although no arbitrary acreage figure
can be laid down for the size of a Natural Area, it is generally
difficult to maintain essentially unmodified conditions in areas
smaller than 25 acres unless they are buffered by scenic or
other areas that are maintained in a relatively unmodified
condition.
WILDLIFE REFUGES JUNE 1972
PAGENO="0144"
140
PPBEHANI)BOOK WRH-4, IlL OUTPUTS AND RBUs
APPENDIX 3
Two types of Research Natural Areas are recognized under Management
Criteria. In one, succession is allowed to advance towards climax
without interference. These areas conform to the commonly accepted
concept of Research Natural Areas. In the other, appropriate
management is applied to hold succession at a desired natural
stage that would otherwise advance towards climax. Such areas
would normally be established where it is apparent that natural
dis-climaxes are disappearing because of man's activities. An
example is the grasslands on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada
which have largely been lost because of fire control and changes
in land use. In the designation of each Research Natural Area
and in documents and instructions relating to its management and
protection, it should be made very clear, of course, for which of
these two purposes it is established.
The third paragraph under protection criteria indicates that public
use on Research Natural Areas will be discouraged. This is some-
what at variance with the penultimate paragraph of Section 1316
of the Wildlife Refuges Manual, which permits nature trails in
Natural Areas. This supersedes the Refuge Manual. It may be
desirable to change boundaries to exclude nature trails. In the
delineation of Research Natural Areas, take into consideration
that a significant segment of the public enjoys using natural
environments for purposes other than prescribed here. If the size
of a natural ecological type permits, it may be advisable to set
part of it aside for use by the general public as a Public Use
Natural Area through development of nature trails, identification
signs, maps, and other devices, as well as having an adequate
portion of it separately designated as a Research Natural Area.
Only the latter, of course, would be described on the Research
Natural Area form, and no publicity would be given the Research
Natural Area.
It is not possible to provide hard and fast guidelines for the
condition of a Natural Area at the time of,its selection. However,
it is expected that a site suggested for natural area status would,
at the time it is proposed, conformto a reasonably close degree
with the definition of a natural area as presented above. In
addition, at the time it is established a Natural Area should be as
free of man-caused disturbance as possible.
WILDLIFE REFUGES JUNE 1972
PAGENO="0145"
141
PPBE HANDBOOK WRH-4, III OUTPUTS AND RBUs
APPENDIX 3
The present development of a Natural Areas System comes at a time when
candidate Wilderness Areas are being delineated and studied for possible
inclusion in the Wilderness System. Since some Bureau lands may qualify
for both Wilderness and Natural Areas, the following points may assist
you in deciding which category areas best qualify:
1. All qualified islands and areas of 5,000 acres and more must be
studied as candidate for inclusion in the Wilderness System. No
requirements have as yet been imposed for study of areas for possible
establishment as Natural Areas.
2. Wilderness Areas have protection of congressional action. Natural
Areas are established by the Director.
3. One or more Natural Areas may be established in a Wilderness Area.
The reverse is generally not contemplated. However, an entire
Wilderness Area on a National Wildlife Refuge could be managed as
a natural area, under wilderness regulations, for the preservation
of ecosystems and wildlife species (such as the grizzly bear) having
large space requirements.
4. Public recreation, under strict ground rules, is generally permissible
on Wilderness Areas. General public use is discouraged on Research
Natural Areas.
5. Wilderness Areas are unmanaged from the standpoint of habitat
manipulation. Natural Areas may be managed, if necessary, to
maintain the type or stage of succession for which it was
established. (see above)
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
A Natural Area must be protected against activities which directly or
indirectly modify natural ecological processes or alter the type or
feature which is being preserved. Manipulative practices such as
grazing, prescribed burning, timber cutting and the use of chemicals
for plant, insect and disease control are not permitted unless such
are necessary to maintain the type or process for which the Natural
Area was established or unless necessary to prevent the spread of
WILDLIFE REFUGES JUNE 1972 ~
98-513 0 - 77 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
142
PPBE HANCBOOK WRH-4, III OUTPUTS AND RBUs
APPENDIX 3
insects or disease to adjacent areas. Natural Areas should be withdrawn
from mineral and oil entry when possible within existing legislation.
Generally speaking, no permanent physical improvements such as roads,
fences, or buildings should be permitted within a Natural Area. Tempo-
rary facilities needed for research, such as instrument or personnel
shelters, may be installed with the approval of the office which
granted permission for the research activity. Except as essential for
control of wildfire no buildings or roads should be constructed at the
boundaries of a Natural Area.
PROTECTION CRITERIA S
Studies wf thin a Natural Area will be restricted to approved and respon-
sible res!arch projects which do not materially alter the ecosystem or
the natural values for which the area was selected. Visitation by
ecologist5, botanists, zoologists, or other competent scientists will
be permitted. Educational or interpretive visits will be permitted on
a group basis on selected Natural Areas when suitable advance arrange-
ments have been made to assure proper supervision.
Natural area boundaries need not be fenced unless necessary for protec~
tion against livestock or excessive unauthorized human use. Signs which
would tend to attract sightseers, recreationists, and casual visitors
should be avoided. However, if roads or trails pass along the boundary
or through the Natural Area, limited posting may be needed toprotect
the area..
It is not contemplated that Natural Areas will be for general public use.
However, it is recognized that some public entry is unavoidable. Project
leaders should attempt to discourage public entry in such a manner &s t.~
cause as little attention as possible to be directed to the area.
Normally, wildfires within a Natural Area should be extinguished as
quickly as possible, but no cleanup, fire hazard reductionS reforestation,
or revegetation should be undertaken. Insect or disease-killed trees
and plants are a part of the Natural Area and should not be felled or
removed.
WILDLIFE REFUGES J~iNE 1972
PAGENO="0147"
28 APRIL 1977
(Neely)
RESEARQI
NATURI~L AREAS
ON
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LANDS
REFIXE OR RANGE NATURAL AREA PRIMARY TYPE ACRES
REGION 1
Anaho Island Anaho Island Z-16 Birds (nesting pelicans,
corinorants) 247
Col*mthia Drumheller Sagebrush steppe K-55 Sagebrush Steppe 465
Desert Basin SAF-237 Interior Ponderosa Pine 650
Desert Hayford Peak SAF-209 Bristlecone Pine 2,000
Desert Deadhorse K-53 Graina"Galleta Steppe 3,000
Desert Pinyon-Juniper SAP-239 Pinyon Juniper 500
Desert Papoose Lake E-40 Salthush 23,680
Hart Mountain Poker Jim Ridge SAP-238 Juniper SageL~ush 640
Hawaiian Islands French Frigate Shoals Z-16 Birds (seabird colonies) 107,772
Hawaiian Islands Gardner Pinnacles Z-l6 Birds (seabird colonies) 6
Hawaiian Islands Laysan Island Z-l6 Birds (Laysan teal, Laysan
finch, seabird colonies) 1,010
Hawaiian Islands* Lisianski Island Z-l6 Birds (seabird colonies) 383
PAGENO="0148"
ACRES
REFUGE OR RANGE
REGION 1 (Corit)
Hawaiian Islands
Hawaiian Islands
Hawaiian Islands
NATURAL AREA
Necker Island
Niohoa Island
Pearl & Hermes Reef
San Joaquin Desert
Baird Basin
PRIMARY TYPE
Z-16 Birds (seabird colonies)
Z-15 Blunt-nosed Leopard-Lizard;
Z-l7 San Joaquin Kit Fox
SAF-2l4 Ponderosa Pine, Larch-
douglas-Fir
SAF-212 Larch-douglas Fir
A-26 Saline Lake
A-26 Saline Lake
SAF- 233. Oregon White Oak
A-19 Large shallow lake
45
170
95,582
2,260
160
160
1,555
30,000
129
10,000
160
197
80
38
100
239
Z-16 Birds (seabird `colonies)
Z-l6 Birds (Nioha millerbird,
Nihoa finch, seabird colonies)
Kern
Little Pend Oreille
Little Pend Oreille
Malheur
Malheur
Ridgefield
Ruby Lake
Turnbuil
Turnbull
Willapa
William L. Finley
William L. Finley
William L. Finley
Varline Grove
Stinking Lake
Harney Lake
Blackwater Islands
Ruby Valley Marsh
Pine Creek SAF-237 Interior Ponderosa Pine
Turnbull Pines SAF-237 Interior Ponderosa Pine
Diamond Point SAF-225 Sitka Spruce-Western Hemlock
Pigeon Butte SAF-233 Oregon White Oak
Maple Knoll OVT (Bigleaf Maple)
Willamette Flood Plain OVT Prairie and Oregon Ash
PAGENO="0149"
* ACRES
REFUGE OR RANGE
REGION 2
Anahuac
Bitter Lake
Bitter Lake
Bitter Lake
Bosque del Apache
Bosque del Apache
Bosque del Apache
Bosque del Apache
Bosque del Apache
Brazoria
Buffalo Lake
Cabeza Prieta
Cabeza Prieta
Cabeza Prieta
Cabeza Prieta
Hagerman
Hagerman
Havasu
NATURAL AREA
Lone Tree Bayou
Bitter Lake
Lake St. Francis
Ink Pot
cthupadera
San Pasqual
Rio Grande Marsh
Apache Camp
Jornada dcl Muerto
Christmas Point
High Plains
Antelope Flat
Sierra Pinta
Pinacate
Kearney Sumac
Dickey-Hagerman
Brooks-Hagerman
Bill Williams
PRIMARY TYPE
A-7 Tidal Salt Marshes
A-26 Saline Lakes
A-30 Sinkhole Lakes
A-30 Sinkhole Lakes
K-58 Graina Tobosa Scrubsteppe
K-58 Grazna-Tobosa Scrubsteppe
K-49 Tule Marshes
SAF-235 Cottonwood-Willow
OVT (Giant Dropseed)
K-78 Southern Cordgrass Prairie
K-65 Grama-Buffalo Grass
K-4l Cresote Bush
K-43 Palo Verde-Cactus Shrub
K-4 3 Palo Verde-Cactus Shrub
OVT (Kearney Sumac)
SAF -40 Post Oak-Black Oak 40
SAF-40 Post Oak-Black Oak
SAF-235 Cottonwood-Willow
200
300
700
2
5,300
3,200
97
220
10,000
175
320
57
5,120
5,120
23,040
C;'
50
440
PAGENO="0150"
REFUGE OR RANGE
REGION 2 (Con't)
Kofa
Kofa
Laguna Atascosa
Laguna Atascosa
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Maxwell
Salt Plains
Salt Plains
Salt Plains
Santa Ana
Wichita Mountains
REGION 3
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Fishtail Canyon
Palm Canyon
South Texas Cordgrass Prairie
Granjeno
Vegosa
Gallinas
Maxwell
Dog Ranch
Sand Creek
Powell' Creek
Texas Ebony
North Mountain
Post Oak Flats
Crab Orchard Creek Bottoms
Devil' s Kitchen Dam
Big Grassy Creek
OVT (Palms)
OVT (Palms)
K-78 Southern ~ordgrass Prairie
K-60 Mesquite Savanna
K-65 Grama-Buffalo Grass
SAF-239 Pinyon-Juniper
K-65 Grama-Buffalo Grass
SAF-235 Cottonwood-Willow
I(-74 Blues tern Prairie
A-29 Swamps and Marshy Areas
OVT (Texas Ebony)
K-69 Bluestem-Grama Prairie
SAF-40 Post Oak-Black Oak
SAF-65 Pin Oak-Sweet Gum
SAF-59 Yellow Popular-White
Oak-Northern Red Oak
SAF-52 White Oak-Red Oak
130
42
NATURAL AREA
PRIMARY TYPE
ACRES
200
225
50
125
537
385
80
100
250
100
68
3,900
22
105
PAGENO="0151"
REFUGE OR RANGE
REGION 3 (Con't)
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
Crab Orchard
thautauqua
chauta~xjua
Necedah
Necedah
Ottawa
NATURAL AREA
Area 10
Crab Orchard Cemetery
Little Grassy Creek
The Oxbow
Devil's Kitchen Lake
Devil's Kitchen Well
Pigeon Creek
Post Oak Flats Addition
Wolf Creek Bay
Wolf Creek (East Tributaries)
Cameron
Rountree
Necedah Jack Pine
Sandstone Natural Area
West Sister Island
SAF-95 Black Willow
SAF-46 Eastern Red Cedar -.
SAF-6l River Birch-Sycamore
SAF-95 Black Willow
G-l7 Unglaciated Sandstone Bluffs
SAF-52 White Oak, Red Oak,
Hickory, Walnut
SAF-52 White Oak-Red Oak'-Hickory
SAF-40 Post Oak-Black Oak
SAF-63 Cottonwood
SAF-52 White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory
SAF-62 Silver Maple-American Elm
OVT - Black Oak-Mockernut Hickory
SAF-l Jack Pine
K-8l Oak Savanna
PRIMARY TYPE
40
70
20
160
136
42
40
50
40
330
177
26
80
240
OVP Hackberry
82
PAGENO="0152"
!!~!UGE OR RANGE
REGION 3 (Con't)
Rice Lake
Seney
Seney
Seney
Seney
Tamarac
Tamarac
Upper Mississippi
Upper Mississippi'
Upper Mississippi
Upper Mississippi
REGION 4
Big Lake
Blackbeard
Cape Romain
NATURAL AREA
Rice Lake
Northern Hardwood
Red Pine
Hemlock
Strangmoor Bog
Height of Land
Sugarbush
Nelson-TreVino
Reno Bottoms
Thomson-Fulton Sand Prairie
Twelve Mile Island
Big Lake Bald Cypress
Blackbeard Island
Bulls Island
PRIMARY TYPE
SAF-30 Tamarack
SAF-25 Sugar Maple-Beech-Yellow
Birch
SAF-l5 Red Pine
SAF-23 Hemlock
G-32 Unusual Geologic Phenomena
SAF-26 Sugar Maple Basswood
SAF-26 Sugar Maple Basswood
SM'-62 Silver Maple-American Elm
SAF-62 Silver Maple-American Elm
K-74 Bluestem Prairie
SAF-62 Silver Maple-American Elm
SAF-lOl Bald Cypress 500
SM-OS Slash Pine-Hardwood 450
SAF-74 Sand Live Oak-Cabbage 500
Palmetto ` `
ACRES
100
500
640
SO
640
73
l3~
3,740
1,980
300
900
PAGENO="0153"
ATURAL AREA
Bulls Island
Bulls Island Red Cedar
Carolina Sandhills
Choctaw Water Tupelo
Hog Thief
Norberg
Honey Creek
Loxahatchee Slough
Salyer's Ridge
Morgan Hill
Old Robinson Road
Black Jack Island
Cowhouse Island
Floyd's Island
PRIMARY TYPE ACRES
SAF-82 Loblolly Pine-Hardwood 500.
REFUGE OR RANGE
N4 (Con't)
Cape Romain
Cape Romain
Carolina Sandhills
Choctaw
Holla Bend
J. N. "Ding" Darling
Lake Woodruff
Loxahatchee
Mattainuskeet
Noxubee
Noxubee
Okefenojcee
Okefenokee
Okefenokee
SAF-73 Southern Red Cedar
SAF-7l Longleaf Pine - Scrub Oak
SAF-l03 Water Tupelo
SAF-63 Cottonwood
A-8 Red and Black Mangrove
K-78 Southern Cordgrass Prairie
K-92 Everglades
SAF-81 Loblolly Pine
SAF-49 Eastern, Red Cedar-
Pine-Hardwood
SAF-lOl Bald Cypress
A-29 Swamp and Marshy Area
SAF-89 Live Oak
SAF-72 Southerr~ Scrub Oak
80.
554.
35.
100.
150.
1,140.
2,560.
75.
67.
.46.
15,027.
10.
160.
PAGENO="0154"
REFUGE OR RANGE
REGION 4 (Con't)
Okefenokee
Okefenokee
Okefenokee
Okefenokee
Piedmont
Sabine
St. Marks
St. Marks
Tennessee
Wheeler
White River
Yazoo
NATURAL AREA
Sweet Bay
Pine Island
Pond Cypress
Territory Prairie
Five Points
Blue Islands
Otter Lake
St. Marks Tidal Marsh
Britton Ford
Bluff city
White River Sweetgum
Swan Lake Black Willow
PRIMARY TYPE
SAP-lO4 Sweethay-Swamp
Tupelo-Red Maple
SAF-98 Pondpine
SAF-lOO Pond Cypress
A-29 Swamps a Marshy Area
SAF-8O Loblolly Pine -
Shortleaf Pine
10-78 Southern Cordgrasa Prairie
SAF-71 Longleaf Pine - Scrub Oak
A-7 Tidal Salt Marsh
SAF-48 Eastern Red Cedar-Hardwood
SAF-46 Eastern Red Cedar
SAF-92 Sweetgum-Nuttall Oak-
Willow Oak
SAF-95 Black Willow
ACRES
2,560
90.
14,989.
1,450.
118.
112.
93.
1,066.
750.
13.
973.
400
PAGENO="0155"
REF~E OR RANGE NATURAL AREA PRIMARY TYPE ACRES
REGION 5
Bombay Hook Marshall Island A-7 Tidal Salt Marshes 120
Brigantine Little Beach Island A-2 Exposed Coastline with 1,250
Unconsolidated Sediment
Brigantine Egg Island Z-l6 Birds laughing gulls 600
and clapper rails
Brigantine Lilly Lake Bog OVT-Losels Twayblade Orchid 3.
Chincoteague Chincoteague Natural Area SAF-80 Loblolly Pine-Short- 150
Leaf Pine
Eastern Neck Hail Point A-i Tidal Salt Marsh 149.
Erie Lake Creek A-29 Swamps & Marshy Areas 700
Erie Muddy Creek A-29 Swamps a Marshy Areas 1,072
Erie Jacob Guy SAP-25 Sugar Maple-Beech-Yellow Birch 160
Great Swamp M. Hartley Dodge SAF-52 White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory 746.
Iroquois Milford Posson SAF-25 Sugar Maple-Beech Yellow 15.
Birch
Missisquoi Shad Island SAF-39 Black Ash-American Elm- 114.
Red Maple
PAGENO="0156"
REFUGE OR RANGE NATURAL AREA PRIMARY TYPE * ACRES
REGION 5 (Con't)
Montezuma Beach-Maple Knoll SAF-60 Beech-Sugar Maple 8
Montezuma Swamp Woods SAF-39 Black Ash-American Elm- 100
Red Maple
Moosehorn Edmunds Unit SAP-33 Red Spruce - Balsam Fir 160
Moosehorn Hobart SAF-37 Northern White Cedar 10
Moosehorn Camp Two SAR-5 Balsam Fir 40
Moosehorn Moosehorn Meadows 5-16 Birds (managed woodcock habitat) 50
Moosehorn Sunken Bog A-25 Sphagnum-Bog Lakes 10
Moosehorn Bertrand 5. Smith SAF-2l White Pine 160
Parker River Ludlow Griscom Dune OVT Bayberry-Beach Plum American 150
Beachgrass
Patuxent Wildlife Research Patuxent Natural Area SAF-65 Pin Oak-Sweet Gum 710
Center
REGION 6
Bear River Greasewood Knolls K-40 Saltbrush-Greasewood 680
Benton Lake Mullan Trail K-66 Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 392
Charles M. Russell Grand Island 5AF235 CotthnwoodWillOw 160
Cearles M. Russell Prairie Dog Island 5-17 Black-tailed prairie Dog 15
Cearles M. Russell Dillon Island SAF-235 Cottonwood-Willow 80
PAGENO="0157"
REFUGE OR RANGE NATURAL AREA
REGION 6 (Con't)
Charles M. Russell
Crescent Lake
Crescent Lake
DeSoto
Fort Niobrara
Hutton Lake
Kirwin
Medicine Lake
Medicine Lake
Medicine Lake
Medicine Lake
Mingo Cypress-Tupelo
Mingo Elm, Ash, Maple
Two Calf Island
Hackberry Lake
Goose Lake
DeSoto
Fort Niobrara
Laramie Plains
Solomon River Grasslands
Big Island
Bruce's Island
Homestead
Tepee Hills
PRIMARY TYPE
SAF-235 Cottonwood-Willow
K-75 Nebraska Sandhil]s Prairie
K-75 Nebraska Sandhills Prairie
SAF-63 Cottonwood
SAF-237 Interior Ponderosa Pine
K-66 Wheatgrass-Needlegrass
K-69 Bluestem-Grama Prairie
Z-16 White Pelican
K-68 Wheatgrass-Grama
K-64 Grama-Needlegrass-Wheat Grass
G-29 Human
SAF-102 Bald Cypress-Water Tupelo
SAF-39 Black Ash-American Elm-Red
Maple
SAF-65 Pin Oak-Sweet Gum
ACRES
30.
172.
904.
358.
200-
27.
120.
251.
367.
39.
38.
80.
80.
180.
Mingo
Pin Oak
PAGENO="0158"
REFUGE OR RANGE NATURAL AREA PRIMARY `~YPE ACRES
REGION 6 (Con't)
Mingo Cherrybark SAF-9l Cherrybark Oak-Swamp 60
Chestnut Oak
Mingo Oak Hickory SAF-52 White Oak-Red Oak Hickory 140
Mingo Overcup Oak SAF-96 Overcup Oak-Water Hickory 45*
Mingo Willow Oak SAR-92 Willow Oak-Sweet Giun-NUttall Oak 40
Monte Vista Spring Creek K-40 Greasewood-Salthush 14
Quivira Santana K-74 Sluestem Prairie 362 ~
C;'
Red Rock Lakes Sheep Mountain SAF-2l0 Interior Douglas Fir 85
Squaw Creek Bluejoint-Slough Grass Prairie K-73 Northern Cordgrass Prairie 250
Squaw Creek Loess Hills G-8 Eolian Land Form 100
Swan Lake Yellow Creek SAF-62 Silver Maple-American Elm 1,000
Valentine Valentine Natural Area No. 1 K-75 Nebraska Sandhills Prairie 530
Valentine Valentine Natural Area No. 2 K-75 Nebraska Sandhills Prairie 459
Waubay Hillebrand Lake SAP-236 Bur Oak 75
ALASKA
Kenai J.l~ Lake SAF-20l White Spruce 20
PAGENO="0159"
REFUGE_OR RANGE NATURAL AREA PRIMARY TYPE ACRES
ALASKA (Con't)
Kenai Bedlam Lake SAF-202 White Spruce-Birch 10
Kenai Andrew Simon SAF-202 White Spruce-Birch 830,000
Kenai Bottinentnin SAF-16 Aspen 20
Kenai Nikolai Bay SAF-12 Black Spruce 20
Kodiak Mount Glottof Z-17 Kodiak Brown Bear 88,000 ~
Arctic Shublik OVT Arctic Tundra 34,540
Arctic Firth River - Mancha Creek OVT Arctic Tundra 520,000
Aleutian Islands Agattu Island Z-16 Birds 55,535
Aleutian Islands Buldir Island Z-16 Birds 5,000
1,943,793
181 RNA's
88 Refuges
PAGENO="0160"
156
JUL 261977
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MONROE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGISLATION AND
PLANS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE, COMMITTEE
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH RESERVES.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss Bureau
of Land Management programs relating to environmental research, reserves.
The Bureau of Land Management has responsibility for management of about
470 million acres of public lands, the vast majority of which are
located in the eleven western States and Alaska. For some years, the
Bureau has operated under the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield and manages these lands for a variety of values and uses,
including: domestic livestock grazing, mineral development, watershed
values, timber, recreation, and scenic value protection. In carrying
out our responsibilities, we utilize a land use planning system which
inventories the lands and their resources and considers all potential
uses of the land. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
approved this past October, specifically requires that the public lands
be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield and
that such management be in accordance with, land use plans. This Act
is often referred to as the "BLM Organic Act." It contains a number
of other provisions relevant to the Subcommjtteets inquiry this morning
regarding environmental research reserves. Those provisions will He addressed
later in my prepared remarks.
PAGENO="0161"
157
With responsibility for such a vast acreage and such a variety of
resource programs, many of which are development-oriented, we have
long recognized the need for environmental and scientific research efforts
in order to determine the impacts of Bureau programs on the productivity
and other characteristics of the lands. For example, many years before
enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bureau fenced areas,
referred to as "exclosures", to ascertain the effect of excluding certain
activities from a certain tract. While these areas were small in size
and may not have been scientifically established and monitored, this
practice furnished, valuable data when interpreted with data from otherwise
roughly comparable araas where there had been no such exclusion of
uses.
The Bureau has also attempted to preserve areas worthy of scientific
research and study as well as outstanding scenic values within the framework
of the limited regulatory and enforcement authority which existed until
enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. In this
regard, a total of about 19 research natural areas and 23 outstanding
natural areas have been designated. Research natural areas are established
and maintained for the primary purpose of research aed study of the
environment, successional trends and other nat*iral phenomena of scientific
interest. They may contain lands having t~y7ical. or unusnal types of fauna
and flora, associations or other biotic,phenomena. There may also be . ,
outstanding geologic or aquatic features ~r processes identified -
and studied. Outstanding natural areas are established to preserve
985130 77 11
PAGENO="0162"
158
scenic values and areas of natural wonder. The primary management
objective is preservation of these features in their natural
condition.
Examples of research natural areas are the Big Sage Natural Area
consisting of 160 acres in Arizona and the McElmo Reptile
Natural Area consisting of about 445 acres in Colorado.
One of our best-known natural areas is the Snake River
Birds of Prey Natural Area in Idaho. This area, containing 26,000
acres of Federal lands, was designated in 1971 to protect eagles,
hawks, falcons, owls, ospreys and vultures. It attracts more nesting
raptors than any other known location of similar size in North America
and provides myriad opportunities for study and observation.
Recently, the endangered peregrine falcon was reintroduced into the
area by substituting peregrine chicks for prairie falcon chicks
in active nests. Adjacent Federal lands, while not included in the
formally designated Birds of Prey Natural Area, are managed as a study
area in conjunction with the natural area. We are presently reviewing
this situation to determine whether additional lands are needed for
the area and what, if any, additional protection is needed for the
resources in the area.
PAGENO="0163"
159
Other examples of outstanding natural areas are Square Butte, Montana,
consisting of 1,900 acres to protect unusual geologic formations and the
Escalante Canyon, Utah, consisting of about 129,000 acres.
Use of the Bureau's planning system necessitates continuing consideration
of the impact of one resource use on other potential resource uses; however,
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act requires an even
greater focus on environmental research efforts. In response to NEPA,
about 11,400 Environmental Assessment Records were commenced this past
fiscal yeai~ as were about 200 full Environmental Impact Statements. It
is obvious that if we are to perfect our processes and to fully achieve the
objectives of NEPA, both with respect to ascertaining the impacts of a proposed
action and designing and implementing mitigating measures, we must provide
follow-up monitoring to determine the accuracy of our predictions and
effectiveness of the mitigating measures. Existence of some exemplary
samples of unaltered systems upon which to measure change in impacted areas
would be most beneficial to that effort.
In addition to the need for such areas in connection with our NEPA
responsibilities, adequate protection of existing areas with environmental
and scientific values as well as designation of new areas is authorized
and required by the Federal Land Policy and M~r(agement Act of 1976, or
"FLPMA."
Many of the relevant provisions of FLPMA relate to "areas of critical
environmental concern." These are defined as areas within public lands
"where special management attention is required . . . to protect and prevent
PAGENO="0164"
160
irreparable damage to important historic, cultural or scenic values,
fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or
to protect life and safety from natural hazards".
Section 102(a) (8) of FLPMk expresses a policy that the public lands be
managed in a manner that will protect scientific,ecological, environmental
and certain other values.
Section 102(a)(ll) expresses a policy that regulations and plans for
protection of public land areas of critical environmental concern be
promptly developed.
The definition of multiple use in the Act specifically recognizes management
for scientific values.
Section 201 of FLPMA requires that in preparing an inventory of all public
lands and their resource values, priority be given to areas of critical
environmental concern. Section 202(c)(3) provides that in the development
and revision of land-use plans, priority must be given to the designation
and protection of areas of critical environmental concern. We anticipate
that many areas suitable for environmental and other scientific research
will be identified and designated pursuant tothese provisions. The BLM
is presently in the process of developing field criteria and guidelines
for inventory of such areas. These guidelines should be available for use
in the next few months.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act also contains authority to
manage and protect these areas once they are established, including
comprehensive regulatory and enforcement authority, withdrawal authority,
and acquisition, exchange, and permitting authorities.
PAGENO="0165"
161
Other provisions of some interest with respect to environmental research are:
- provisions requiring a wilderness review and submission of
recommendations for additions to the National Wilderness
Preservation System. With respect to our present research
and outstanding natural areas such review and recommendations
will be completed on a priority basis.
- provisions for use of public lands by other Federal agencies where
the proposed use is similar to or closely related to programs of
the Secretary for the lands involved.~ - -
- authority to conduct studies and experiments alone or in
cooperation with others involving management, protection or
development of the public lands
- authority to enter contracts and cooperative agreements
involving management protection and development of public
lands.
While NEPA applies to all Federal programs, the activities and
authorities in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that I
have discussed thus far are not applicable tq the Outer Continental
Shelf. With respect to the OCS, no areas have been set asidé'or
designated for environmental research. Since leasing is entirely
discretionary and adequate regulatory authority is ~rovided under
the present law and the House and Senate versions of the OCS Lands
Act Amendments, we do not feel that any additional authority is needed
to protect areas for environmental research on the OCS. Further, it
is our understanding that such research reserves could be established
PAGENO="0166"
162
under the Marine Sanctuaries Act which is administered by the
Department of Commerce. We look forward to working with the Office
of Coastal Zone Management in that Department with respect to any
such designations on the OCS.
In addition to our own Bureau programs, we are participating in a
Departmental study somewhat related to environmental research areas.
Currently, there is within the Department-stemming fran the President's
Environmental Message--a task force developing a National Heritage
Trust proposal. This task force incl~es private citizens, conservation
organizations, and government agencies. The objective is to define
and develop mechanisms to preserve and protect examples~of America's
cultural and natural heritage. Management objectives would include
provision for consistent and compatible scientific, educational
and other public use as well as insuring that significant information
on America's cultural and natural heritage is not lost.
In susnnary, we have already taken some steps toward establishing a system
of environmental research areas by designating our present natural
areas. Pursuant to NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
and the President's Environmental Message, ~we plan to identify and
designate other areas suitable for environmental research. Our
current authority is sufficient to accomplish these objectives, as
well as to protect the areas established.;
PAGENO="0167"
163
STATEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ATMOSPHERE, HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH NETWORKS.
July 28, 1977
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS A PRIVILEGE FOR ME TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TO
DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH NETWORKS. THIS PROGRAM IS OF GREAT
INTEREST TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SINCE THE USE OF PARKS FOR SCIENTIFIC
PURPOSES, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND MONITORING, IS
PART OF THE BASIC MISSION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE THAT INASMUCH AS:
`NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM; THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WILL CONDUCT A
PROGRAM OF NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING
MANAGEMENT IN CARRYING OUT THE MISSION OF THE SERVICE BY PROVIDING
DECISION ASSISTANCE IN ALL ASPECTS OF PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND MANAGE-
MENT OF THE UNITS OF THE SYSTEM."
"THE SERVICE ALSO ENCOURAGES THE USE OF PARKS BY OTHERS FOR SCIENTIFIC
STUDIES WHEN SUCH USE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE
PARKS WERE ESTABLISHED."
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS AND RECREATION AREAS
SERVES AS A NETWORK OF RESEARCH RESERVES WHICH ARE PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORGANIC ACT OF AUGUST 1916, WHICH CALLS FOR THE
PARKS TO BE MAINTAINED "UNIMPAIRED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS."
PAGENO="0168"
164
THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF SCIENTIST OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE FOR 1975 LISTS 1,271 NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PROJECTS WHICH
WERE ONGOING IN THE PARK SYSTEM DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR.
RESEARCH IN THE PARKS IS CONDUCTED BY SERVICE AS WELL AS NON-SERVICE
SCIENTISTS AND FALLS INTO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: RESEARCH ON ANIMAL
SPECIES,GEOLOGY, PLANTS AND VEGETATION, GENERAL ECOLOGY, FRESHWATER
BIOLOGY, HUMAN IMPACT, MARINE STUDIES, HYDROLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, FIRE ECOLOGY,
METEOROLOGY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.
IN GENERAL, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS TEND TO WORK IN PARKS WHERE
STRONG SERVICE-SUPPORTED RESEARCH IS GOING ON, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE
INFORMATION BASE AVAILABLE FOR THEIR OWN STUDIES AND PARTLY BECAUSE OF
THE ENHANCED CAPABILITY FOR LOGISTICAL SUPPORT AVAILABLE IN PARKS WITH
STRONG RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
SERVICE-CONDUCTED RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL PARKS IS PERFORMED TO
SUPPORT THE BASIC MISSION OF THE PARKS AS OUTLINED IN THE GENERAL MANAGE-
MENT PLAN FOR THE PARK, THE PARK'S STATEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT, THE RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE INTERPRETATIVE PLAN,: AND THE VISITOR USE PLAN.
RESEARCH IN THE PARKS IS AIMED AT RESOURCE PRESERVATION AND MANAGE-
MENT, INTERPRETATION OF THE PARKS TO THE VISITING PUBLIC AS A MEANS OF
ENHANCING VISITOREXPERIENCES IN THE PARKS. FOR THE MOST PART, THE
ENABLING ACTS ESTABLISHING THE PARKS CALL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE
NATURAL VALUES OF THE PARKS, BY GENERALLY CALLING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
PAGENO="0169"
165
THE PARK IN ITS NATURAL CONDITION THIS IS INTERPRETED IN THE MANACEMENT
POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO MEAN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PARKS
TO MAINTAIN THE NATURAL ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES WHICH IN TURN PRODUCE THE
`WONDERS AND CURIOSITIES" FOR WHICH THE PARKS ARE NOTABLE.
THE CURRENT EFFORTS IN THE NATURAL LANDMARKS PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE ARE TO IDENTIFY OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREAS IN ALL THE
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES AND VEGETATION TYPES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
POSSIBLE RECOGNITION AS NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS OR FOR RECOMMENDATION
FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1976. IF THE PROCESS OF ROUNDING OUT THE PARK SERVICE
WERE TO CONTINUE, PARKS SHOULD EVENTUALLY BE ESTABLISHED IN EVERY MAJOR
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE AND VEGETATION TYPE OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE UNESCO MAN IN THE
BIOSPHERE PROGRAM AND COOPERATES WITH MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES, UNIVERSITIES
AND OTHER RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF RESEARCH IN THE
NATIONAL PARKS.
The subcommittee will be adjourned until tomorrow.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.]
PAGENO="0170"
I-
PAGENO="0171"
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH RESERVE NETWORKS
FRIDAY, IULY 29, 1977
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
C0MMITrEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE,
Washingto'm, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2325,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., chair-
man, presiding.
Present: Representatives Brown and Watkins.
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today is the second day of the Environment and Atmosphere
Subcommittee's hearings on environmental research reserve networks.
Yesterday we heard from representatives of the Energy Research
and Development Administration and the Department of the Interior.
They discussed attempts to create a network of research reserves
within each agency and explained the basic levels of research which
are being conducted on their lands. The examples of research reserve
networks which we will be addressing today are the Biosphere Re-
serves and the Experimental Ecological Reserves.
The first panel today will include Mr. Tom Gilbert of the National
Park Service, Dr. Stanley Krugman of the Forest Service and Mr.
Oscar Olson of the Department of State. They will explain their
roles in the Man and the Biosphere Program and Project 8: Biosphere
Reserves. Dr. Krugman will also comment on the well-established ex-
perimental programs within the Forest Service.
Next, a panel will discuss the Experimental Ecological Reserves and
the `role of the Federal Committe.e on Ecological Reserves. We wel-
come Drs. Betsy Clark, John Brooks and Paul Whitson of the National
Science Foundation and Dr. George Lauff from Michigan State Uni-
versity's Kellogg Biological Station.
Dr. Paul Risser from the University of Oklahoma and Dr. Jerry
Franklin from the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest near Corval-
lis, Ore., have both been involved in several attempts to create a
network of research reserves. From their perspective as researchers,
they will hopefully give us some recommendations regarding the ad-
vantages of the different approaches.
Finally, Dr. Lee Talbot of the Council on Environmental Quality
will testify. The President has requested a task force to develop a Na-
tional Heritage Trust program, and it would be constructive to the
subcommittee to learn how we might be able to work together to accom-
plish the worthy goal of estthlishing a coordinated network of environ-
mental research reserves.
I might also say the committee has considered over a period of some
time, several years in fact, different mechanisms for improving the
(167)
PAGENO="0172"
168
quality of enviromnental research. I recognize that environmental and
ecological are not synonymous, but they relate to each other, certainly.
Throughout the coimtry, we are still struggling with mechanisms to
accomplish that, and these hearing~ will throw considerable light on
one important aspect of the needs for a suitable program.
We have also been concerned with similar kinds of problems in other
fields. I cite as an example, although you may not necessarily agree
with me, the needs in the area of climate research, which call for
coordinated global networks of information gathering systems, and
for some coordinated effort to analyze this information within a sys-
tematic framework. We do not know how to accomplish this in the best
way, either. We do not know how to set up a global earthquake pro-
gram, for example, to enhance our ability to understaiid movements
in the earth's crust.. and take whatever suitable actions might be
desirable.
In other words, there are a. number of significant problems involving
global phenomena which need to be organized as effectively as possible,
and in a sense, what we are dealing with today sheds light on and sets
in perspective all of these problems. In a sense, we are exploring the
broadest of these, the concept of biospheric, ecological research, which
involves all life within the thin shell that will support life on earth,
so it is my hope that the record that we will create here will be one
that we can refer to for assistance and wisdom in formulating ap-
proaches to solutions in a number of different areas aside from the
one we are addressing most specifically.
Despite the difficulties that we will have because. of the House being
in session, and the attendance of other members being intermittent,
I propose to start and move along as rapidly as possible, because, as
I think is obvious to all of you, we have a substantial number of very
able witnesses who have contributions to make, and we want to get the
maximum benefit from them, within the handicaps of time pressures
that we have. So, 1 will proceed, and we willtry to make the best. of the
situation. I beg the indulgence of all of the people who are con-
tributing to the hearing because of the circumstances.
Our first witness will be Mr. Vernon C. Gilbert. Associate Chief
Scientist, National Park Service, and also we would like to have Dr.
Stanley L. Krugman, Principal Research Forest Genetist, USDA
Forest Service, and Mr. Oscar J. Olson.~ Jr.. Executive Director, U.S.
Man and the Biosphere. Department of State.
I must say, gentlemen, I am getting a tremendously useful education
out of all of these presentations, and I trust that the record will en-
lighten a lot of other people also.
STATEMENT OP OSCAR J. OLSON, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S.
MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OP STATE
Mr. OLsoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are all learning together.
Mr. Chairman, I am Oscar J. Olson, Jr., Executive Director, U.S.
Man and the Biosphere Program, Department of State, and it is a
pleasure for us to be here before you this morning, particularly with
my two colleagues working in the MAB program, from two agencies
that have been most enthusiastic participants in the program.
PAGENO="0173"
169
Man and the Biosphere (MAB) is a UNESCO Program of environ-
mental research~ aimed specifically at finding solutions to natural re-
source management problems. It approaches these problems in an
interdisciplinary manner, through applied research, and also has a very
strong training component. It is aiming at providing useful informa-
tion to resource managers, to decisionmakers.
Eighty-two countries members of UNESCO now are participating
in the Man and the Biosphere Program, and I think it is worth noting
that over the last couple of years, there has been' a particular increase
in interest in the developing countries in the program.
They are working within an international framework of some 14
project areas, which are listed in the statement, but also here one set
of project areas includes the natural ecosystems, the mountains, the
forests, et cetera, and another, set concerns processes not tied to any
particular natural geographic region.
This morning we will be interested primarily in Project 8, under
which the network of Biosphere Reserves has been organized. Its official
title in MAB is "conservation of natural areas and of the genetic mate-
rial they contain".
Objectives which UNESCO set up for this particular project area
are: to conserve for present and future human use the diversity and
integrity of biotic communities of plants and animals within natural
ecosystems, and to safeguard the genetic diversity of species on which
the continuing evolution depends; and, second, to provide as far as is
consistent with the first objective, areas, including managed or experi-
mental areas, which may be used for ecological and environmental re-
search including baseline studies, both within or near these reserves.
And, third, to provide facilities for education and training. There-
fore, the research is a very important component, which makes this an
appropriate subject for the hearings on environmental research
reserves this morning.
The global network of biosphere reserves now numbers 1,18; some 27
countries have designated these. And almost that many again have
been proposed, that are in the pipeline, under consideration.
The United States has thus far named 28 Biosphere Reserves, and
you will see them, or perhaps you cannot see them on the map on the
right, the blue dots. I believe you have been provided the excellent ar-
ticle on the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program from Science Magazine
that Dr. Franklin has written, and he is also with `us this morning..
That also has a map of the U.S. Biosphere Reserves.
The U.S. concept of selecting Biosphere Reserves has been one of
pairing or clustering, since the program is two-pronged, conservation
and research. In many cases, or in most, it brings together nearby
areas, one large natural area, often a national park, for the conserva-.
tion purposes, and then a nearby site with a history of research and
manipulation, often an experimental forest.,
Thus, it is that the National Park Service `and the Forest Service,
together have taken. the lead in developing U.S. participation in this
Proiect 8 of Man and the Biosphere.
These two agencies have sponsored a series of regional workshops
that have brought together land managers from the particular Bio-.
sphere Reserves in each region, together with scientists from these
areas, bringing them together to look at possibilities for further re-
PAGENO="0174"
170
search, monitoring and training activities, using the Biosphere
iReserves as sites.
I think this points also to an example of one of the great strengths of
the entire Man and the Biosphere Program, the fact it is able to pro-
vide a mechanism to facilitate planning and research, bringing to-
gether representatives ñxnn many disciplines on the scientific side;
bringing together the academic scientists with their counterparts in the
Federal agencies, the scientists there, the administrators, and the land
managers; and even among the Federal representatives, providing a
facility or mechanism for collaboration in research and scientific
programs.
In developing the U.S. program, it was early determined that there
was a need for a basic inventory of, first of all, research already under-
way within the Biosphere Reserves that have been designated, and also
a listing of the characteristics of those Biosphere Reserves. And so an
information synthesis project was begun, and is being continued and
carried out by the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Risser, who is in
charge of that project, is also appearing before you this morning.
The Biosphere Reserves then, as sites representative of the' various
natural regions of the country, are obviously candidates for sites of
baseline monitoring of pollutants in the environment. The directorate
or group working with Project 8 is developing a pilot research proj-
ect with EPA support on a limited number of Biosphere Reserves in
order to provide a realistic and systematic approach to monitoring.
Probably a likely beginning for this would be in the cluster including
the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in the Southeast, and `also
in cooperation with the Division of Environmental Sciences of the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
We have just received from UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, from
the office concerned with the Man and the Biosphere Program, a letter
asking for further cooperation on an international monitoring proj-
ect for biosphere reserves.
I would like to read excerpts from this letter from UNESCO Head-
quarters, for the record.
[The letter follows:]
* * * We believe that the worldwide network of MAB biosphere reserves could
be effectively utilized for environmental monitoring, particularly for both re-
search into monitoring methodology and for the measurement of baseline values
of ecologically significant variables * * `~. In view of the great deal of monitor-
ing experience in the United States, and the considerable interest in the bio-
sphere reserve concept which has been shown by the U.S. MAB Programme, we
would like to explore the possibilities of utilizing this experience and interest
to help us launch an active international programme of monitoring in biosphere
reserves * * ~. In this respect, we would like to propose a small workshop, con-
vened somewhere in the United States, with the participation of specialiSts from
the United States, UNEP, and up to 5 or 6 from other countries, to draw up a
concrete and realistic action plan for this activity.
Mr. OLsoN. We will of course be responding very positively to that
letter.
Mr. BROWN. May I comment on that. Mr. Olson.
We have been concerned for some time about the need for a
comprehensive improved monitoring system on a very broad basis,
as far as the urgent environmental pollutants are concerned, in both
water, air. soil, and any place else it might happen to occur. We have
been ~roping for some way in which the committee and the Oongress
could facilitate the development of this system.
PAGENO="0175"
171
We have had the Library of Congress survey the literature and
offer suggestions, and one of their suggestions made a year or so ago
was the convening of some sort of a seminar, similar to what you are
suggesting. I would hope that you would proceed with this kind of a
project, and that we could be kept informed as it progresses.
I think it would help us in our thinking about what kind of legis-
lative support needs to be given to these concepts. We are particularly
aware of the leadership that the United States can play in the inter-
national monitoring sphere, and in assisting~ underdeveloped coun-
tries in this kind of program, so we think it is an important mitia-
tive, one that the State Department ought to be and probably is well
aware of, as a way of enhancing our role in the world community.
Mr. OLsoN. Yes, and as I had indicated, the developing countries
are more and more looking to the Man and the Biosphere Program
in UNESCO as an opportunity for collaboration, and for learning
and cooperation with the more advanced countries.
Mr. BROWN. They suspect we are monitoring in their countries
anyway, so we might as well do it in a proper fashion.
Mr. OLsoN. That we can more easily share.
In closing, I simply agree, Mr. Chairman, with the characteriza-
tion of the Man and the Biosphere Program that appeared in a recent
article in the New York Times, concerning the Biosphere Reserves,
and that was to the effect that the program does indeed have an am-
bitious goal, and that is to keep the Earth fit for human beings and
for nature.
The program has garnered increasing scientific and political sup-
port around the world, I believe, because basically it goes beyond
existing programs and natural reserves, natural parks, and the like,
both by emphasizing research as well as conservation and by provid-
ing international exchange of information and personnel.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BROWN. All right. Do you other two gentlemen wish to offer
your comments at this time?
STATEMENT OF VERNON C. aILBERT, ASSOCIATE CHIEF SCIENTIST,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
*Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir, I would, particularly in relationship to the
Biosphere Reserve effort in developing countries.
One very significant program here in the United States is the Smith-
sonian Peace Corps program. In the Biosphere Reserves in the United
States we are planning programs to train Peace Corps volunteers in
such things as resource management and environmental research and
monitoring. This training will be put to good use in the parks and
reserves in developing countries.
In this program there are currently 227 volunteers assigned to
natural resources and environmental projects, working in the develop-
ing countries, and there will be 150 more placed by the end of October.
I think this has been an extremely significant effort, and another ex-
ample of cooperation among Government agencies here.
One other thing I would like to mention, I got a call just the other
day from the executive director of the Canadian program, Dr. Patricia
Roberts Pichette. She said that Canada is finally establishing their
first Biosphere Reserve, and they hope by the next meeting of the In-
ternational Coordinating Council of Man and the Biosphere which
PAGENO="0176"
172
will be held in October, that Canada will have three or four Biosphere
Reserves, and we hope to plan cooperative projects with them in the
iiext year.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY L. KRUG-MAN, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH
FOREST GENETICIST, USDA, FOREST SERVICE
Dr. KRUGMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wOuld like to cover very briefly
some aspects of the domestic program, and, if I may, relate our
program to that information that we heard yesterday.
I think perhaps there are some linkages that would be useful. The
whole benefit of the "Man and the Biosphere" Program in the United
States is, of course, to bring together diverse groups working in some
common format.
Now, as we notice from yesterday's testimony. most of the agencies
are ini~ion-oriented, with certain constraints, both congressional and
Presidential. which means that only a certain amount of information
can be obtained, and that limits their programs. But under this pro-
gram (MAB), we have an opportunity to bring agencies together, as
well as nonagèncy ersonneL which is equally as important, that is,
the university communities, State. and private individuals.
In developing our program, we have held a series of regional work-
shops to determine priorities, directions, and goals for each region
of the country.
To date we have held three such regional workshops, starting in the
East, in the West, in the Southwest, and very shortly in the Rocky
Mountains.
For instance, in the Eastern program, which involves the eastern
forest biosphere. which includes, Coweeta Experimental Forest, North
Carolina, the Forest Service, and the Great Smoky Mountains Na-
tional Park, the Park Service, colleagues from a number of univei~it.ies
and our ERDA colleagues joined us in a~ regional meeting, because the
land problems and issues are very common.
We each have something to contribute. In the Pacific Northwest,
we have a different mix of people. different interests, and somewhat
different problems, and that is one of the advantages of the programs,
in that for each region. we can bring together on a continual basis,
or even on a temporary basis, certain groups to address limited or
long-term problems.
Now, in relationship to some of the issues that were brought up yes-
terday, for instance, ERDA is interested of course in tropical for-
estry.
The particular area that they are interested in happens to be ad-
ministered by the U.S. Forest Service, it happens to be an experi-
mental forest. it happens to be a. Biosphere. Reserve, the Laquillo Ex-
perimental Forest. Puerto Rico.
It is available right now, research is going on, and there is no ad-
ministration edict that is necessary to make it part of a larger pro-
gram.
The philosophy, the policy. and the legal aspects say it is available
for research.
Now, if we go into the coal mining regions. where land ownership
is a different problem. we have had agencies that administer land,
which have no research capabilities, or limited research capabilities.
PAGENO="0177"
173
Even these agencies can participate in the biosphere research pro-
gram, by making the lands available, and they have a say in the type
of research that is gathered on such lands, so now we have a device
to bring all of the land use agencies into a progr~am.
Likewise, we have agencies that monitor, but have no lands essen-
tially, like EPA.
They are participants in this MAB program. In fact, within the
last month, we were in Las Vegas for viewing a prototype monitoring
system for environmental monitoring which EPA would like to field
test, and what we offered to them of course was two Biosphere Re-
serves, which they did not have.
In this case, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the
East, and the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest in the West. So
now we have an agency, EPA, with really very good capabilities for
monitoring, working with two agencies, Park Service and Forest
Service, which have biological expertise. Finally, to answer the ques-
tion, are we reinventing the wheel? As I mentioned earlier, one of the
first projects funded under the MAB program, was to answer that
very question, and Dr. Risser can give more details. The very first
thing we wanted to know was what information was available to
the Biosphere Reserves, what kind of information we could link with
it, and what kind of information is needed, and that study has been
underway for about a year.
Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.
You mentioned a couple of areas of importance to us, that of EPA
monitoring, which we debated more than almost anybody else in this
committee, in order to come up with an absolutely precise, compre-
hensive, detailed, monitoring system for every known pollutant, so
that we could answer the most intricate questions about the dose re-
sponses of pollutants. `We recognize that we are asking the impossible,
but try to keep the pressure to move forward in this area.
In the situation you described, was the air monitoring system a part
of it?
Dr. KRnGMAN. That is right. Their charter and mandate requires
them to do certain monitoring. Monitoring can mean various things to
different people. Monitoring to be useful has to be related to something.
`What we can offer them is mixing their scientists with biologists, with
foresters, with ecologists, with fishery experts, in such a way we can
assist them in the monitoring process, and interpreting this data.
Now, it was a selfish move. They have the expertise in monitoring,
and this would provide our Biosphere Reserves with a unique informa-
tion platform~, which we have no capabilities of doing now.
Mr. BROWN. Well, the technology of monitoring is rapidly evolving.
I am sure this is no secret to all of you, but from the standpoint of our
concern about EPA's monitoring, we want EPA to have economical,
preferably automated~ data gathering and monitoring systems for at
least a major control pollutant program. This includes a lot of pollut-
ants in southern California and probably in most other areas also,
and it seems to me, that this is at least close enough to what your pro-
grams require for there to be a considerable amount of close coopera-
tion between the two agencies and the two programs.
Dr. KRUGMAN. What we have to be careful in understanding is that
each agency wants to essentially monitor something different, to meet
their requirements.
98-513 0 - 77 - 12
PAGENO="0178"
174
There is no common parameter that all agencies will be interested
in, nor should we expect it.
Once we accept this, then we can assume there are some common
parameters that the various agencies will be interested in. In addi-
tion, there are some parameters to be measured that a given agency
probably does not even kiiow about, yet they should be interested in.
They will do their monitoring, but they will do it under some con-
straint. Where the information is available, agencies will use it. The
important thing is that agencies are looking for better ways of obtain-
ing the data. They want to develop information, monitoring systems
that give data that is useful to a given agency.
Mr. BROWN. Well, the tricky problem is to pull together the lan-
guage that the diverse groups have used into a common format. Each
agency does its own thing, in confoimity with its own mission re
quirements, yet the wider needs of the global conununity must be in-
tegrated out of these diverse mission objectives. This is the difficult
problem, one of the problems I referred to in my initial remarks,
which occurs in other areas.
It may be a wide variety of institutions, organizations, collecting
bits and pieces, together they constitute the whole, but how do you
get them brought together, and this is one of the interesting aspects
of your program.
You are apparently seeking to bring them together into a format
that would be usable for all practical purposes.
Dr. KRUGMAN. To answer the first part of that reply, obviously, if
you are going to do this, an agency will give up something to get
something.
That is the real world we live in, but that is to our benefit.
For example, an agency like mine, the U.S. Forest Service, we have
certain expertise, that we can offer, but in return, we are getting other
expertise that supplements ours, and for that reason, everybody
benefits.
Mr. BROWN. Why do you make it so difficult for ERDA. to buy your
land, so they can have control over it?
Dr. KRUGMAN. Well, I would love to answer that. I have to be care-
ful. I do not really represent the Forest Service here in policy matters
obviously.
That is an internal decision with ERDA, not with the Forest
Service.
Let us be realistic. ERDA and the Forest Service scientists have
a long history of working together. There is no problem here.
The buying of the land, the controlling of sovereignty of land is
an internal problem within ERDA, not with us, although I am sure
we may have some similar problems;
The land is available to be used, but as every agency. obviously
wants to be the leader, and perhaps this is ERDA's hangup, I don't
know, that is their decision.
Mr. BROWN. I will not explore the details of that particular matter,
but in the long run, do you think that the sharing of the use of the
land despite who has sovereignty over it is a problem that will cause
extreme difficulty?
PAGENO="0179"
175
Dr. KRUGMAN. Well, I don't know why we should have additional
problems, because the philosophy in agencies, the Forest Service is
also a landowning agency, and it has a long history-
Mr. BROWN. The Forest Service, yes.
Dr. KRTJGMAN. Forest Service has the philosophy of sharing its
resources, the Park Service is the same way, and the key here of course
is to demonstrate the benefits of a program to the agency.
As far as the Forest Service, the Park Service, BLM, and a number
of other service agencies are concerned, the benefits of this effort far
outweighs any irritants on landownership.
We share staff, we share information,, facilities, and it has worked
out very well, and I certainly believe that this type of working rela-
tionship above the scientific level of ERDA, could easily be installed,
because the scientists are already an integral part of our team.
This is not a problem.
Mr. BROWN. It seems that one ingredient in getting that kind of
cooperation at the administrative level, which I suspect is more com-
mon at the scientific level, is to have a highly visible and high level of
support for their problem.
Dr. KRTJGMAN. That is right.
Mr. BROWN. This would assist in expediting and enhancing the
cooperation.
Let me ask each of you one question about resources, which is the
common denominator to all of the programs. How do you budget for
this program, and what difficulties do you have with regards to the
level of research activities?
There are two aspects of this, the selection of the sites, and the land-
owning agencies. There is not a budgetary problem, in buying the
land, since they have it as part of their inventory, but this land alone
is of no value without the scientific program that goes with it, and
this takes considerable resources, depending on the scope of the
program.
How do you handle this? Do you in the State Department have a
line item budgeted for this program?
Mr. OLSON. No, Mr. Chairman, hut the State Department has pro-
vided the basic administrative support. These are operational funds
for the organization of the Ma.n and the Biosphere Committee and
the committee substructure, providing travel funds for bringing the
groups together for setting research priorities and developing projects.
This would include the regional travel expenses for the non-Federal
participants in the regional meetings that were mentioned.
This amounts to, for this fiscal year, approximately $130,000, mostly
from the Department of State, but also a contribution from ERDA,
as an indication of their interest in the program.
The other agencies that are participating in the program also have
contributed significantly in detailing personnel to the coordinating
staff, so that at the present time, we have on detail professional pro-
gram coordinators from the National Science Foundation, from the
Forest Service, and from EPA. We have, as well as have had in the
past, staff detailed `from the National~ Park Service and ERDA, so
that is an important contribution.
PAGENO="0180"
176
As far as the research budget for MAB, the projects that have been
developed through the MAB mechanism, we have had informal dis-
cussion with the Office of Management and Budget, as to an appro-
priate agency to be a lead agency for such a research program.
We have also been talking to the Department of Interior as the
program puts heavy emphasis on resource management. The Depart-
ment of Interior appears to be an appropriate candidate for the lead
agency, and there is a considerable interest in the program in the
Department of Interior, so that these discussions concern a possible
line item for support of research, in fiscal yea.r 1979.
This~ would entail proposals of approximately $5 million for the
Biosphere Reserve aspects of the program, which would be a little
bit more than a quarter of the entire program, of the other project
areas which tie in closely with project 8.
Mr. BROWN. In your agencies, the Forest Service and the Park Serv-
ice, is there any separate funding for this, or does it fit into your
general research activities?
Mr. GILBERT. It is fitted into our general research activities.
There has been some money made available in the National Park
Service for special projects such as Dr. Risser's project, and that will
be extended to help in the near future.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, gentleman. I have enjoyed the
testimony, and I would like to explore it in much greater detail, but
as you understand, we have to move along.
Mr. OLsoN. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Olson and Mr. Gilbert follow:]
PAGENO="0181"
177
* BIOSPHERE RESERVES AND THE
* MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE PROGRAM (MAB)
Statement for the
Hearings on Environmental Research Reserve Networks
Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere
* July 29, 1977
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee today. I an Oscar J. Olson, Jr., Execu-
tive Director of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program and a
member of the secretariat of the U.S. National Commission for
UNESCO. Together with me today are two colleagues working with
the U.S. Nan and the Biosphere (NAB) program: Vernon C. Gilbert,
Associate Chief Scientist, National Park Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior; and Stanley. L. Krugman, Principal Research
Forest Geneticist, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
I. Introduction:
Natural areas and the genetic resources of plants and aninals
they contain are dwindling rapidly throughout the world. This
is a situation outside past experience which, in the short tine
of a few human generations, has imperiled a large proportion of
the natural areas and the wild species that now remain. Protec-
tion of representative natural areas world-wide is important both
for conservation of species diversity and for use as basic logis-
tic resources for ecological research and the monitoring of nan's
impact upon the environment.
Sporadic efforts to "do something" about the situation are
not new, but organized international activities toward corrective
action are relatively recent. One major effort is the development
of a world-wide netwerk of protected areas, or "biorphere reserves,
for conservation of ecosystems and genetic diversity and for use
in long-term programs of ecological research, monitoring, training
and education. This is the focus, of Project No. 8 "Conservation
of Natural Areas and of the Genetic Material They Contain" of
UNESCO's Program on Man and the Biosphere (NAB). NAB is an
integrated series of far-reaching research and action projects
concerned with the managenent of natural resources. Eighty-two
countries are now cooperating under the NAB Program in an inter-
disciplinary approach to solving problems of common concern. The
major NAB Project Areas and their current emphasis in the United
States are identified in Attachment 1.
PAGENO="0182"
178
NAB Project 8 or the "Biosphere Reserve Program" has the
* following broad objectives:
1. To conserve for present and future use the diversity and
integrity of biotic communities of plants and animals within
* natural ecosystems and to safeguard the genetic diversity of
species on which their continuing evolution depends;
2. To provide, so far as is consistent with (1), areas in-
cluding managed or experimental areas, which may be used for re-
search, both within or near such reserves;
3. To provide facilities for education and training.
Specific biosphere reserve objectives related to the hearings
on environmental research reserve networks are:
a. to provide better understanding of changes in struc-
ture and function of ecosystems which are developing under natural
conditions. This information will provide baseline conditions to
be compared to man-modified or experimental reserve systems within
the biosphere reserve network.
b. to maintain records over time and space for answering
questions currently of interest (e.g. pollutants, human use,
climatic change) and as a basis for early warning of both local
and global impacts now foreseen poorly,if at all.
II. Status of MAB Project 8 Internationally
As of July1977, considerable progress has been made toward
the development of the world network of Biosphere Reserves. One
hundred and eighteen areas have been officially recognized by UNESCC
thus far of a total of more than 200 proposed for Biosphere Re-
* serve status by some 40 countries. Several countries in imple-
a~nting their national programs also have entered into bilateral
and regional cooperative projects. The 1974 agreement between the
U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. is one example, where particular emphasis
is being placed on the utilization of biosphere reserves for moni-
toring and research on pollutants and on the ecological consequences
of various land management practices on natural ecosystems.
UNESCO, with support from the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP), is developing a project on research, training
and; conservation planning in pilot biosphere reserves of arid
and semi-arid zones. A pilot network of biosphere reserves in
the Andean countries of South Anerica is also being established.
PAGENO="0183"
179
A workshop was held at Side, in Turkey, in Nay 1977, to consider
further development of the biosphere reserve network within the
Mediterranean region. In October 1977, Australia and New Zealand
will sponser a workshop devoted to the techniques of ecological
survey and their application to establishing a network of biô-
sphere reserves.
III. The United States Biosphere Reserve Program
A. Status of the Program
To date the United States has 28 areas officially designated
as biosphere reserves (Attachment 2), which represent a signif-
icant proportion of the biogeographical regions of the United
States.
The areas which have been designated biosphere reserves in-
dude, wherever possible, large natural areas paired with nearby
research-rich, experimentally-oriented reserves. This was done
with the recognition that problem solving potential depends upon
the scientific consideration of a broad array of natural conditions
experience and expertise. Therefore, the mode of operation of the
U.S. ~MAB Project 8 has been to develop a national program based
upon activities in these reserves that involve cooperative study
by concerned agencies, institutions and other elements of the
scientific cornnrnnity.
The conceptual framework for the biosphere reserve project has
been developed, and the Department of the Interior-~-Natiomal
Park Service and the Department of Agriculture-7-Forest Service,
co-lead agencies for the project, are conducting a series of
regional workshops to initiate the process of planning research,
monitoring and training activities in the U.S. biosphere reserves
and to begin to develop cooperative projects with other countries.
As of May 1977 three regional workshops have been completed, one
for the biosphere reserves in the Eastern United States, held in
Gatlinburg, Tennessee, in November 1976; one for reserves in the
Southwestern United States held in Tucson, Arizona, March 1977;
and one for the reserves in the Pacific Northwest held in Corvallis,
Oregon, May 1977. The next workshop will be held in Boulder, Colo-
rado in November 1977 for the reserves in the Rocky Mountain
region.
B. Plans for the Program
Major activities planned for the Biosphere Reserve Program are:
1. Biosphere Reserve Network Development.
The U.S. network of biosphere reserves is incomplete at
this stage, and a gap remains in several biogeographical provinces
including the grasslands and Sonoran Provinces, the north-central
PAGENO="0184"
180
part -of the Eastern Forest Province and generally in the coastal
and marine areas of the U.S. Therefore, additional areas must
be - identified and selected in these provinces, and work- is pro- -
gressing toward this end. The- Bureau of Land ~4anagement is one
- agency that has submitted several candidate areas for possible n
nomination as biosphere reserves. it is anticipated that a total
of approximately 50 biosphere reserves would be the optimum number
for the U.S. In addition, subunits may be designated as elements
of a biosphere reserve cluster. -
- 2. Resource Description and Nonitoring -
- - - A basic set of studies will be conducted on each of the -
biosphere reserves. An inventory of what is being done in the
U.S. biosphere reserves will be contained in an information syn-
- thesis project now underway by the University of Oklahoma which
will compile a bibliography of information about the sites mdi-
-vidually and collectively and summarize extant resaarch and mon-
itoring prOjects. This information synthesis project will assist
biosphere reserve personnel and cooperating scientists to- analyze
and project the needs for research in each area, in each~ region,
and in the U. S. network. -
The, basic information from each site will--include compo- -
sition and structure of the biological communities, such as suc-
cessional patterns, age structure, population size and frequency, -
and ecosystem characteristics such as productivity and nutrient
cycling. These results are necessary to (1) relate each site to
every other site, (2) determine the degree -to which data can be
__extrapolated -to other areas, and (3) to provide a standard against
which the behavior of the system can be compared, both with and
without overt manipulation. , -
- 3. Development of a Pollutant Monitoring System on
Biosphere Reserves - - . -
-. - - Obe objective of biosphere reserves will be to use selected
areas as baseline monitoring sites of pollutants in `the environ-
- 7 next. This is being-~planned in cooperation with monitoring acti-
vities of EPA, ERDA, DOl and with the help of the Environmental - -
Assessment Department of the Electric Power Research Institute -
(EPRI). This activity will aslo be done in support of the - Global
Environmental Monitoring Systems (GEMS) Program of UNEP. An anal-
ysis of problems associated with development of a pollutant moni-
toring system -on international biosphere reserves has been prepared
and plans are being developed for a 3-4 year pilot research program
on ~ limited number of biosphere reserves in order to develop a
PAGENO="0185"
181
realistic and systematic approach to reserve monitoring. One
area where this research is planned is the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park/Coweeta Experimental Forest Biosphere Reserve Clus-
ter in the Southeastern United.Saates. This will also be done
in cooperation with the Division of Environmental Sciences of
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
This approach to a pilot research monitoring program on
selected biosphere reserves will determine the applicability,
efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a variety of monitoring schemes.
C. Potential Benefits of the Program
Biosphere reserves are representative areas which demonstrate
the natural dynamic equilibrium of ecosystems, and they therefore
stand as benchmarks for studies of other areas over time. Syn-
thesis of information from baseline inventories and monitoring
programs in biosphere reserves, combined with modern analytical
techniques, can lead to models (ranging from conceptual to mathe-
matical) that can be used to predict the consequences of man's
actions.in the biosphere.
The biosphere reserve network can also bring together diffuse
national and international environmental research and conservation
efforts, thus reducing the unmeccessary costs that occur with a
number of unrelated, overlapping efforts.
Education and training programs oriented to the international
biosphere reserve network and the application of research results
will also help reduce costs and duplication of efforts.
The Biosphere Reserve regional workshops conducted thus far
have demonstrated the prospects for marshalling the work done or
currently underway by Federal agencies and universities that re-
lates to the goals of NAB 8 and other NAB projects. For example,
a considerable variety of research and monitoring is now supported
by the National Park Service for direct use in its management
plans. Thus, a research and management group is already present
in many reserves, including monitoring capability. Other bio-
sphere reserves (e.g. Coweeta Hydrologic Laborarory, operated by
the Forest Service) have lengthy records of an environmental and
biological nature. Observations of precipitation, stream flow,
and other physical variables for natural and experimental watersheds
at Coweeta were begun over 40 years ago. Long records such as
these are vital aids in the prediction of man's effect on the.
environment.
Many research and monitoring efforts are being conducted by
university scientists within areas now designated as biosphere
reserves as well as within properties in the fringe areas of
PAGENO="0186"
182
reserve clusters. To illustrate, the contributions from Yale
University, Dartmouth College, and Cornell University on the
Hubbard Brook Biosphere Reserve are well-known, as are those of
scientists from the University of Tennessee - Knoxville, the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Walker Branch Watershed) and the
University of North Carolina in the Great Smoky Mountains Bio-
`sphere Reserve. The past and ongoing work of these institutions
contributes inventory data and research results, and their scien-
tists and managers are contributing relevant and rigorous hypo-
theses about man's impact in reserves and how monitoring data can
best be utilized.
IV. Outlook for the Future
At the last two General Conferences of UNESCO, where some `130
Governments were represented, there has been unanimous agreement
that the NAB Program should be implemented. It is also encouraginc
to note that the major international organizations involved in NAB
Project No. 8: UNESCO, UNEP, FAO, and IUCN, have formed an Eco-
system Conservation Group to assist in planning coordinated ef-
forts in ecosystem conservation arid research. These organizations
have agreed to support the biosphere reserve project.
N~B has thus provided the first intergovernmental vehicle for
bringing together diffuse national and international research,
conservation, and training activities. In the United States the
program has made considerable progress' in the first stages of plan-
ning and development of projects. The involvement of over 150
scientists and administrators in the' NAB National Committee and
its project area directorates,representing some 25 government
agencies and twice that number of universities, brings together
a unique body of expertise to address such critical issues as
the coordination of national efforts to monitor pollutants in the
environment and the assessment of long-term environmental quality
trends.
~` The Nan and the Biosphere Program in general, and the bio-
/ sphere reserve network project in particular, have the very real
potential for developing the basis within the natural and social
sciences for the rational use and conservation of the earth's
natural resources and for the improvement of the global relation-
ship between man and the environment.
PAGENO="0187"
183
THE UNITED AND THE BIOSPHERE
WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20520
MAE PROJECT AREAS AND CURRENT_EMPHASES
1. Tropical Forests: ecological effects of increasing human activities on
tropical and subtropical forest ecosystems. A conceptualmodel. for tropical)
forest management will be developed, using available information and defining
specific inputs and outputs in ecological and economic terms.
2. ~pperate Forests: ecological effects of different land uses and manage-
ment practices on temperate and mediterranean forest landscapes. Baseline
environmental monitoring programs and analyses of the effects of changing
environmental conditions will be used to develop alternative management
strategies for multiple use of temperate and mediterranean forest eco-
systems.
3. Grazing impact of human activities and land use practices on
grazing lands--savanna and grassland (from temperate to arid areas). The
existing condition and potential of grazing lands will be determined, and
physical, biological, environmental, and soclo-economic effects of conflicting
uses will be determined.
4. Arid Zones: impact of human activities on the dynamics of arid and
semi-arid ecosystems. Causal relationships in arid land degradation will
be analyzed with the view toward development of long range strategies for
arid land development consistent with carrying capacities, weather con-
ditions, and research utilization.
5. Fresh water: ecological effects of human activities on the value and
resources of lakes, marshes, rivers, deltas, estuaries, and coastal zones.
Research, ~ducation, and training activities will be used to develop manage-
ment strategies that will provide a predictive capability for establishing
the quality and quantity of water available, and identify conflicts that
will, arise because of limited local or regional supplies.
6. Mountains: impact of human activities on mountain and tundra ecosystems.
Emphasis will be given to development of techniques for prediction of carry-
ing capacity of mountain ecosystems for multiple use, including tourism.
Analysis of the ecological and socio-economic impacts of tourism, industrial
development, and resource exploitation will be examined in high latitude areas.
7. Islands: ecology and rational use of island ecosystems. Environmental
and socio-economic changes associated with tourism and industrial development
will be examined in order to develop improved strategies to preserve some of
the features of these fragile ecosystems consistent with human needs.
PAGENO="0188"
184
8. Biosphere Reserves: conservation of natural areas and of the genetic
material they contain. The 28 Biosphere Reserves established thus far in
the United States are part of an international system of reserves with the
primary objectives of conservation of genetic diversity, baseline environ-
mental research and monitoring.
9. Pesticides/fertilizer: ecological assessment of pest management and
fertilizer use on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Included here are
studies of methods of transport; behavior and reactions of specific compounds
in water and terrestrial environments as related to their physical properties;
protective clothing; specific formulation of pesticides to reduce environ-
mental contamination; and disposal of contaminants.
10. Engineering works: effects on Nan and his environment of major
engineering works. Attention will be gIven to concerns which arise in a
wide variety of engineering applications including: siting for environ-
mental protection; displacement and relocation of populations including
the question of equity; evaluation of effects; and improved predictive
techniques to assIst In decision strategies.
11. Urban ecosystems: ecological aspects of urban systems with particular
emphasis on energy utilization. The initial thrust will be concerned with
water management in urban systems, emphasizing human well being, land use,
and energy considerations.
12. Demographic change: interactions between environmental transformations
and the adaptive, demographic, and genetic structure of human populations.
Two dimensions of human population change will be examined including: rural/
urban migration and changes in human populations in the new and old environ-
ments; changes in health and welfare of human population In existing conmuni-
ties impacted by environmental change (e.g., tourism and industrial development
in Samoa).
13. Perception of environmental quality: Analysis of subjectively perceived
environments is necessary to understand human well being within any given
environment. This project will be concerned with human perception of
environmental hazards, environmental change, and environmental quality.
14. Pollution: develop a clearer understanding of the relation of pollution
to the structure and functioning of terrestrial and associated aquatic
ecosystems. Baseline information will be gathered through state-of-the-art
measurements and observations and used to assess current environmental
problems and predict future trends.
* * *
PAGENO="0189"
185
UNITED STATES BIOSPHERE RESERVES
1. Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire
2. Coweeta Experimental Forest, North Carolina
3.. Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina
4. . Everglades National Park, Florida
5. Central Plains Experiment Station, Colorado
6. Big Bend National Park, Texas
7. Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico
8. Fraser Experimental Forest, Colorado
9. Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
10. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana
11. Coram Experimental Forest, Montana
12. Glacier National Park, Montana
13. Desert Experimental Range, Utah
14. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona
15. Stanislaus Experimental Forest, California
16. Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, California
17. H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon
18. Three Sisters lilderness, Oregon
19. Olympic National Park, Washington
20. Cascade Head Ex~eriniantal Forest and ScenIc-Research Area, Oregon
21. San Joaquin Experimental Range, California
22. San Dimes Experimental Forest, California
23, Channel Island~ National Monument, California
24. Noatak National Arctic Range, Alaska
25. Nt. McKinley National Park, Alaska
26. Aleutian Island National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska
27. Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico~
28. Virgin Islands National Park, Virgin Islands
PAGENO="0190"
186
STATEMENT BY THE DEPARThENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND AThOSPHERE, HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH NETWORKS.
July 28, 1977
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS A PRIVILEGE FOR ME TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TO
DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH NETWORKS. THIS PROGRAM IS OF GREAT
INTEREST TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SINCE THE USE OF PARKS FOR SCIENTIFIC
PURPOSES, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, RESEARCHAND MONITORING, IS
PART OF THE BASIC MISSION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE THAT INASMUCH AS:
"NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM; THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WILL CONDUCT A
PROGRAM OF NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING
MANAGEMENT IN CARRYING OUT THE MISSION OF THE SERVICE BY PROVIDING
DECISION ASSISTANCE IN ALL ASPECTS OF PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND MANAGE-
MENT OF THE UNITS OF THE SYSTEM."
"THE SERVICE ALSO ENCOURAGES THE USE OF PARKS BY OTHERS FOR SCIENTIFIC
STUDIES WHEN SUCH USE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE
PARKS WERE ESTABLISHED."
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS AND RECREATION AREAS
SERVES AS A NETWORK OF RESEARCH RESERVES WHICH ARE PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORGANIC ACT OF AUGUST 1916, WHICH CALLS FOR THE
PARKS TO BE MAINTAINED "UNIMPAIRED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS."
PAGENO="0191"
187
THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF SCIENTIST OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE FOR 1975 LISTS 1,271 NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PROJECTS WHICH
WERE ONGOING IN THE PARK SYSTEM DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR.
RESEARCH IN THE PARKS IS CONDUCTED BY SERVICE AS WELL AS NON-SERVICE
SCIENTISTS AND FALLS INTO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: RESEARCH ON ANIMAL
SPECIES, GEOLOGY, PLANTS AND VEGETATION, GENERAL ECOLOGY, FRESHWATER
BIOLOGY, HUMAN IMPACT, MARINE STUDIES, HYDROLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, FIRE ECOLOGY,
METEOROLOGY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.
IN GENERAL, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS TEND TO WORK IN PARKS WHERE
STRONG SERVICE-SUPPORTED RESEARCH IS GOING ON, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE
INFORMATION BASE AVAILABLE FOR THEIR OWN STUDIES AND PARTLY BECAUSE OF
THE ENHANCED CAPABILITY FOR LOGISTICAL SUPPORT AVAILABLE IN PARKS WITH
STRONG RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
SERVICE-CONDUCTED RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL PARKS IS PERFORMED TO
SUPPORT THE BASIC MISSION OF THE PARKS AS OUTLINED IN THE GENERAL MANAGE-
MENT PLAN FOR THE PARK, THE PARK'S STATEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT, THE RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE INTERPRETATIVE PLAN, AND THE VISITOR USE PLAN.
RESEARCH IN THE PARKS IS AIMED AT RESOURCE PRESERVATION AND MANAGE-
MENT, INTERPRETATION OF THE PARKS TO THE VISITING PUBLIC AS A MEANS OF
ENHANCING VISITOR EXPERIENCES IN THE PARKS. FOR THE MOST PART, THE
ENABLING ACTS ESTABLISHING THE PARKS CALL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE
NATURAL VALUES OF THE PARKS, BY GENERALLY CALLING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
PAGENO="0192"
188
THE PARK IN ITS NATURAL CONDITION. THIS IS INTERPRETED IN THE MANAGEMENT
POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO MEAN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PARKS
TO MAINTAIN THE NATURAL ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES WHICH IN TURN PRODUCE THE.
`WONDERS AND CURIOSITIES'~ FOR WHICH THE PARKS ARE NOTABLE.
THE CURRENT EFFORTS IN THE NATURAL LANDMARKS PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE ARE TO. IDENTIFY OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREAS IN ALL THE
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES AND VEGETATION TYPES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
POSSIBLE RECOGNITION AS NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS OR FOR RECOMMENDATION
FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1976. IF THE PROCESS OF ROUNDING OUT THE PARK SERVICE
WERE TO CONTINUE, PARKS SHOULD EVENTUALLY BE ESTABLISHED IN EVERY MAJOR
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE AND VEGETATION TYPE OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE UNESCO MAN IN THE
BIOSPHERE PROGRAM AND COOPERATES WITH MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES, UNIVERSITIES
AND OTHER. RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF RESEARCH IN THE
NATIONAL PARKS. .
PAGENO="0193"
189
Mr. BROWN. We have next a panel on the Experimental Ecological
Reserves, made up of Dr. Eloise E. Clark, Assistant Director for
Biological, Behavior and Social Sciences; Dr. John L. Brooks, Dep-
uty Division Director, Division of Environmental Biology; and Dr.
Paul D. Whitson, Staff Associate, Division of Environmental Biology,
and Executive Secretary of the Federal Committee on Ecological
Reserves.
We welcome you all, and look forward to your contribution.
STATEMENT OF DR. ELOISE E. CLARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
BIOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Dr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks will be quite
brief.
As you know, NSF has had a long-standing commitment toward
strengthening scientific knowledge about the complex phenomena that
occur in the environment.
The research results deriving from our programs in many fields
of science have contributed substantial information over the years.
Yet only recently have we begun to understand the complexities and
interrelationships of environmental problems (perhaps particularly
in their~ biological manifestations) to the degree that sophisticated
and reliable methods of analysis and measurement can be directed
toward testing hypotheses and theoretical concepts in these areas.
I am not an expert in the area, but from my perspective, it seems
that our scientific capability in these fields must be at least an order
of magnitude greater. In the biological areas, this has brought a major
need for increasing research facilities, for taking more comprehensive
approaches to some of the problems, and-insofar as they represent
the materials and laboratory of the environmental biologists-the
need for experimental sites that are representative of major ecosystem
types (in some cases rare types).
I am personally pleased to participate in these hearings and to do
what we can to advance our scientific understanding of environmental
biology. It is our conviction that more detailed and accurate informa-
tion in this area will certainly be required to provide solutions to
our major societal problems.
I would like to have Dr Brooks give some brief introductory re
marks~ and then be followed by Dr. Paul Whitson, who is with the
Foundation on the Intergovernmental Personnel Exchange from the
University of Northern Iowa, and has been very active in the Federal
Committee on Ecological Reserves.
Mr. BROWN. You take them even from Northern Iowa?
Dr. CLARK. Even from Northern Iowa.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BROWN. We are happy to have both of you gentlemen here.
You may proceed with your statement. I am pleased to have your
optimistic assessment of the progress we are making in this area.
98-513 0 - 77 . 13
PAGENO="0194"
190
Dr. CI~K. There is much to be done, though.
Mr. BROWN. It has only been, I would say probably, less than two
decades that ecology and ecological research really achieved any
recognition at all as a particular specialty in science.
I do not know whether the data of Dr. Odum's book is historic or
not, but that is a very short time in comparison to history.
You may go ahead, Dr. Brooks.
STATEMENT OP DR. JOHN L. BROOKS, DEPUTY DIVISION DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OP ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY
Dr. BRooKs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to testify before you and the subcoimnittee.
Within the National Science Foundation it is the responsibility of
the Division of Environmental Biology to help maintain the vigor
of environmental biology in the United States.
We seek to accomplish this by providing support for projects,
emanating primarily from academic institutions, on systematic and
evolutionary biology of all organisms-all plants, animals, and micro-
organisms-and on the ecology of nonmarine parts of the living
world.
NSF's Environmental Biology Division provides approximately
80 percent of the Federal support for research on these subjects at
academic institutions. In addition to its research support programs,
the Division provides operational support for those facilities judged
by the scientific community to be of national significance.
In this connection, we made a grant in 1974 to the Institute of
Ecology entitled "Needs for and Feasibility of Experimental Ecologi-
cal Reserves." I might note here that The Institute of Ecology, with
the acronym, "TIE," is an offshoot of the Ecological Society of
America. TIE was incorporated in 1971 as an international organiza-
tion committed to fostering ecological research, particularly research
that is directed toward meeting human needs.
The final report of this study grant has just been printed, and
copies have been provided to the members of the subcommittee. I am
pleased to submit a copy of the report for the hearing record.
Mr. BROWN. We will make that an official part of the hearing rec-
ord, and we are very, very pleased the~ report could be completed in
time for submissionto the committee.
[Material referred to above follows:]
PAGENO="0195"
(191)
PAGENO="0196"
PAGENO="0197"
193
June 1977
Experimental
Ecological
Reserves~
A Proposed
Nationel Network
PAGENO="0198"
194
Foreword
The Institute of Ecology (TIE) is a nonprofit organization committed to
developing ecotogy as a science and improving the application of ecological
knowledge to policy. During its first 5 years, TIE has drawn upon the resources
of its Founding Institutions, its Environmental Assembly, and cooperating
organizations to convene advisory or study groups. TIE's activities have been
sponsored by private foundations and government agencies.
The study on "Esperimental Ecological Reserves" reflects the maturation of
over a decade of thought in the scientific community of ecologists on the need
for a national network of field research facilities. This EER Network is necess-
ary both to satisfy requirements of the developing science and to enable
ecologists to relate to environmental problems.
The support and cooperation of many individuals from State, private, and
Federal institutions who served as panelists, correspondents, and reviewers
made possible a report that reflects the views of the scientific community. The
issues are timely and the need to secure representative ecosystems is urgent.
This report wilt be widely distributed to researchers and those responsible for
developing policy on the resources necessary for the continued development
and application of ecological knowledge.
John M. Neuhold, TIE Director
December, 1976
Acknowledgments
This study of the feasibility of a system of Experimental Ecological Reserves
was supported by Grant No: BMS-74-20599 AOl from the Biological Research
Resource Program of the National Science Foundation.
Project meetings were hosted by the Sapelo Island Research Foundation and
University of Georgia Marine Institute; Oak Ridge Associated Universities in
cooperation with Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and the W.K. Kellogg Biological
Station of Michigan State University, which also provided support facilities for
project coordination.
Responsibilities for executing the project and developing this report were
assumed by George Lauff and David Reichle with the able support of Frances
Irwin of The Institute of Ecology. Felix Rimberg, formerly with the Institute,
contributed from the conception of the-project. Brian Bedford served in a dual
coordination and management capacity through the spring of 1976.
The TIE stall contributed substantially to preparation of the manuscript, par-
ticutarty Jenniter Christy, Ann Matikan, and Ken Weaver. The report benefited
from the editorial suggestions of Robert BurgessOak Ridge National Laboratory.
Jerry Olson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, provided the computer generated
site location map used in preparation of the overlay map.
Jan Moody was particularly imaginative and patient in working with the
Project Management in developing the format of the report.
PAGENO="0199"
Contents
195
Page
Summary and Recommendations Cover
Foreword 2
Acknowtedgments 2
I. tntroductton 4
1. Need for a Network of Experimental Ecotogicat Reserves 6
Benefits of the Network 7
Challenges in tmptementing the Network 8
New Interface
ttt. Study Procedures 10
Methods 10
Results 13
tV. The Proposed Initiat EER Network 15
Characteristics of the tnitiat EER Network 15
Enhancement of the System 18
V. Support of the tnitiat EER Network 21
Sources of Support 21
Cost of the Initial EER Network 23
Cost to Enhance the Network 26
Further Network Development 26
Vt. Devetopment and Management of EER Sites and Network 27
EER Site Management 27
EER Network Management 27
Appendix A. EER Network Sites Arranged by Ecosystem Representation 29
Appendix B. Sites Evatuated as Eaperimentat Ecologicat Reserves 36
Literature Cited 40
Table Page Tabte
1 Number and Value of Grants Awarded in
Various NSF Programs for Field Ecological
Research Which Could be Performed at EER5 7
2 Site Evaluation Scheme 11
3 Sites Contacted in EER Project inventory.... 12
4 Evaluation of Potential as an EER Site 12
5 Ownership and Sizes of Sites in the Initial
EER Network 16
6 Representation of Vegetation Types by Sites
in the EER Network 17
7 Potential Land Use Changes and Representa-
tive Ecosystems Likely to be Affected 19
8 Characteristics of Phased Development of an
Experimental Ecological Reserve 22
9 Summary of Unit Cost Estimates for Capital
Improvements 23.
10 Summary of Unit Cost Estimates for Annual
Operations 23
11 Status of Development of EER Network Sites 24
12 Capital Improvement Costs Required for the
Initial EER Network 25
Page
13 Annual Operational Costs Required for Initial
EER Network of 67 Sites 25
14 Projected Cost for Enhancement of the EER
Network Sites to Phase lit 26
15 Alternative Coordinating Mechanioms-EER
Network Management 28
Figure
2
3
4
The Spectrum of Ecological Reserves 5
Trends in Ecological Research 9
Distribution of Total Scores and Site Poten-
tial Scores of all inventoried Sites 13
Array of Total Scores and Site Potential
Scores for the 67 EER Network Sites 14
The Initial Network of Experimental Eco-
logical Reserves Inside Cover
Sites Evaluated as Experimental Ecologi-
cal Reserves (Scale:1 :7,900,000 for overlay
to National Atlas maps) Insert Overlay
Map
II
PAGENO="0200"
C)
CD
CD
I
Cl)
PAGENO="0201"
usually operated for a specific objec-
tive such as preservation of a unique
habitat, education, or the mission of a
land management agency. A network
of sites would ensure that experimen-
tal areas adequately represent the
variety of ecosystems in the United
States. It would provide a mechanism
to coordinate the use and develop-
meet of the sites as well as the plan-
sing and application of the research
performed at them.
The effort to preserve representa-
tive nalural areas is summarized in a
1975 report by The Nature Conser-
vancy. It calls for a nationwide system
of ecological reserves administered
by a Congressionally chartered Na-
tional Ecological Reserves Board. In
Canada, British Columbia has
enacfed an Ecological Reserves Act
and several other provinces are in the
process of enacting similar legisla-
tion. The Soviet Union has developed
a legal and administrative framework
for preserving natural areas for
ecological study (Schoenbaum,
1976). Biosphere Reserves are being
This study of the feasibility of an
initial network of Experimental
Ecological Reserves was discussed
with more than 40 groups before the
proposal was submitted to the Na-
tional Science Foundation. Over 300
scientists contributed to the project,
including approximately 170 who re-
sponded to the inventory of existing
experimental sites. The 11 scientists
on the Planning Committee represent
a variety of government, university,
and private groups. The recommen-
dations of this report, therefore,
reflect the identification by a key seg-
ment of the scientific community of
long-term needs for field research
facilities. Experimental Ecological
Reserves are identified as critical to
providing support for future ecologi-
cal research and its application to
problems of national concern.
The report is written for scientists,
resource managers, and the broad
public community concerned with en-
vironmental issues. It is presented 10
stimulate discussion and action lead-
ing to establishment of a network of
Experimental Ecological Reserves.
197
established at Ihe international level Science and Technology made ten
to conserve genetic diversity and en- recommendations to the President on
courage environmental research and "Protecting the World Environment in
education (Programme on Man and the Light of Population Increase"
the Biosphere, 1974, and Franklin, (OST, 1970). The President subse-
1977). quently ordered implementation of all
The need to set aside areas ten recommendations, including Ob-
specifically for manipulative research jective 10, `to establish and preserve
th I 1 I natural areas and wildlife sanctu-
has been recognized more recently. aries, which fed to designation of
C.A Tryon proposed Ecosystem Ex- specifically-reserved environmental
periment Stations at the 1968 meeting parks several years later.
of the Organization of Inland Biologi- By 1974, the Federal Committee on
cal Field Stations. Two reports issued Ecological Research recommended
by the American Institute of Biologi- completion of:
cal Sciences urge the creation of a
network of experimental areas. A "the existing National System of
1971 report focused on the role of Natural Areas, with full representa-
field stations in biological education f ion of major ecosystems, to provide
and research, and another in 1974 ad- sites for studies of naturally function-
dressed natural areas in land and ing sysfemsthat can serve as ecologi-
water preservation. cal reference points for baseline
monitoring, and as controls for ex-
A Federal Committee on Research perimental research."
Natural Areas was created in Febru- and of:
ary 196610 inventory natural areas on "the National System of Ecological
Federal lands. In 1970, a working Research Areas, to provide sites for
group convened by the Office of manipulative experiments, manage-
ment testing, and observations of the
results of human impact."
"Undisturbed" Areas
Th Spectrum of Ecological Reserves
Natlonst Wilderness Areas Research Nt
National Par
Game F
Resi
State Preserve Systems Staten
University Biolc
An
Local Privale Preserves
City Parke
Private Re
Adapted from Mosaic, Jan/Feb. 1976
PAGENO="0202"
198
During the past two decades the
scientific community has recognized
ecosystems as integral units of
nature, forming a level of organiza-
tion as significant for study as that of
the cell or organ systems in the
biological sciences and the neighbor-
hood or the institution in the social
sciences. Experimental ecological
research is aimed at studying the
componenis of ecosystems and un-
derstanding how ecosystems func-
tion-how they came to be the way
they are and how they are affected by
man's activities. As ecology moves
from a descriptive toward a predictive
discipline, scientists need access to
sites at which to test their hy-
potheses. These tests may involve
perturbation or application of some
stress and assessing the response.
Such research requires sites under
continuous long-term control for two
reasons: experimental treatments
may involve changing the site en-
vironment and the ecological effects
take time to emerge. A network of
sites is necessary because effects
may differ from ecosystem to eco-
system.
Policymakers are demanding in-
formation from thorough experiments
r.
Southeastern Atlantic
Coast beach zene. Habcaw
Baruny;Suuth Carolina.
to evaluate the impacl of new tech-
nologies, new products, and revised
management strategies on the Na-
tion's biota, air, water, and land. Ex-
perimental ecological research is
beginning to provide this information.
For example, the large Experimental
Lakes Area, established in Ontario by
the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada (Johnson and Vallentyne,
1971), has received international
recognition for its research on the
ecological responses of fresh-water
systems and its contribution to practi-
cal knowledge applicable to
problems of eutrophication and lake
system dynamics. Field experiments
conducled there have provided infor-
mation useful in resolving questions
such as the pivotal role of phos-
phorus in the cultural eutrophication
of inland waters. (Schindler, 1974;
1977)
Current concern about the effects
of the production and use of tosic
substances and of energy on the en-
vironment demonstrates the need for
a network of sites at which experi-
ments can be carried out to determine
the compatibility of proposed actions
with the health of differing eco-
systems.
The importance of improving the
understanding and management of
potentially toxic substances is recog-
nized in the new Toxic Substances
Control Act. It is also stressed by the
report of the National Commission on
Water Quality submitted to the U.S.
Congress in 1976. The Touic Sub-
stances Act now requires screening
and control of potentially toxic sub-
stances to protect human health. If a
substance is proposed for use where
there will be large-scale production
and wide dispersion, and if the sub-
stance is shown to be potentially
toxic in laboratory eaperiments, then
a field test of its "environmental tox-
icity" may be necessary. Screening at
an EER could help guide regulatory
agencies deciding whether to set
standards, and if so, at what level, for
the production and use of these sub-
stances.
The demand for more energy is
raising questions about the impact of
extracting and burning coal and
offshore oil, or such potential fuels as
oil shale and peal. Experiments can
show the recovery rates from strip
mining in different ecosystems and
the effect on the waterlable of remov-
ing peat deposits. They can also
demonstrate the effect of at-
mospheric changes on the fitness
and productivity of green plants.
Many research programs are now
operated by diverse Federal and State
agencies and private institutions con-
cerned with these issues: For in-
stance, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Office of Biologi-
cal Services in the Department of In-
terior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Environmental Protection Agency
are among those organizations con-
ducting research on the effects of
energy production and use. An EER
network could improve the utility of
the environmental data and its ap-
plication as well as making the
research more efficient in time and
dollars.
Chapter I) Need for a Network of Experimental Ecological Reserves
r
N
- : f4,, /~J:.. -. - -~
PAGENO="0203"
Benefits of the Network
The ways in which a system of ex-
perimental reserves would fulfill the
needs of scientists and improve the
quality, usefulness, and efficiency of
ecological research can be summa-
rized in five categories:
1. Availability of Sites Repre-
senting Major Ecosystems
A comprehensive EER network will
provide an ecologIcally-sound
framework within which to lest scien-
tific hypotheses and will offer the
cspabitity to examine environmental
impacts In many ecosystems. The
consequences of experimental I reat-
ments could be contrasted with data
from other ecosystems in the region
or with effects upon comparable
ecosystems in other regions.
An excellent example is the
response data on wafer yield and
quality of forested landscapes sub-
jected to different management prac-
tices that has been developed over
several decades at the U.S. Forest
Service's regional experimental
watershed sites (several of these sites
are included in the initial EER net-
work).
The field sites now available for
experimental research were set aside
for many reasons. Some were
established to fulfill a mission of a
Federal agency such as improving
timber or range management. Other
sites were developed as university
teaching and research facilities. But
for many ecosystems it is now difficult
to find a site which is large enough,
which is dedicated to long-term,
manipulative research, and which has
adequate control areas.
2. Sharing of Research Support
The EER network will guide the in-
vestment of limited financial
resources in physical facilities and
technical support akills and will en-
courage their effective use. Besides
the site itself, ecological research re-
quires laboratories with analytical in-
struments and contributions from
many disciplines, that may include
modelling, systematics, physiology,
biochemistry, genetics, and statistics.
This support is often necessary to
measure environmental variables
more accurately, to process samples
and data, and to analyze and interpret
results. Continued physical, chemi-
cal, and biological monitoring at a
site is difficult if not impossible for in-
dividual researchers to sustain on
their own. Access to computer
facilities and mathematically-trained
personnel is advantageous in, if not
prerequisite to, processing measure-
ments of the variables whose
dynamics are at the heart of experi-
mental research.
There is no accurate assessment
of the overall expenditures or inten-
sify xl research effort at field stations.
The direct costs of research reflected
by specific project budgets and
operation and maintenance of
facilities are generally available, but
indirect contributions can also be
substantial. These include such items
as the pro-rated salary of academic
faculty, efforts of students and gradu-
ate assistants, and use of equipment
and services developed for teaching
or research training. Some field
facilities may provide a research base
and logistical support for a large
number of projects. For example,
records at the University of Wash-
ington's Friday Harbor Laboratories
document annual use of its coastal
marine facilities by over 100 visiting
scientists for periods ranging from a
few days to several months.
Insight into how the EER network
can meet the needs of researchers
Table 1
and eliminate redundancy in field ex-
penditures was obtained from an in-
spection of recent NSF grants
awarded in four program areas (Table
1) closely related to ecological
research. (National Science Founda-
tion Grants and Awards, 1972 and
1974).
Grants awarded in each program area
for the 4 years (1971-1974) were
reviewed by title. In each year over
125 grants were identified (out of the
total of all grants) under which
research was being conducted, or
could feasibly be conducted, at an
EER site with potenfial saving in ex-
penditures through cooperative use
of physical facilities, data base, and
selected technical resources.
The analysis of this investment
provides one approximation of the
level of current field research sup-
ported by the National Science Foun-
dation-about $15 million in recent
years including International Biologi-
cal Program (IBP( activities now
being phased down, and $7-9 million
outside IBP-which could be fa~iIi-
tated by an EER network. NSF-funded
ecological research constitules less
than 20 percent of all federally sup-
ported ecological research. Thus
develxpmenf of an EER system could
benefit a conservatively estimated
$70 million annually invested in
ecological research by Ihe Federal
Government. (Committee on Ecologi-
cal Research, 1974)
199
Number and Value of Grants Awarded In Various NSF
Programs for Field Ecological Research Which Could be
Performed at EER5
Program
1971
No, x$005
1972
No, x$000
1973
No.
1974
Ecology!
Systematics
Biological
Oceanography
RANN
Ecosystem
Analysis
86 $ 2.272
ii 424
11 3,025
2e e,iai
- 103 $ 2,382
16 775
27 5,244
32 9,910
x$000
91 $ 3,994
19 697
21 4,314
22 7,130
No x$000
82 $ 2,145
12 591
29 4,134
29 e,22e
Total
(136)911,872
(178)917,311
(153)916,135
(152)915,096
PAGENO="0204"
3. Access to Data Bases
Data are -essential to understand
ing ecological processes and must
be developed from observation and
experimental analyses of the land-
scape. Experimental studies and
monitoring at EER sites wilt provide
the baseline data tor a framework
within which each ecosystem's
responses can be evaluated. Long-
term data records wilt help __________________
researchers understand spatial and
temporal variations in the density.
distribution, and behavior of natural
populations. The permanent varia-
tions which can result from stress are
often only distinguishable from
natural fluctuations when a set of
summarized long-term data is availa-
ble for comparison.
Numerous Federal and Stale agen-
cies and private institutions are in- Field experiments wilt be required technology. Such communication,
votved in environmental monitoring, to develop response functions of precipitated by the coordinated, inter-
assessment, and experimental ecosystem properties to induced disciplinary nature of the sites, will
reuearch. In 1976 alone, over S160 changes in the system such as those help integrate research, research
million was spent on biological resulting from management atterna- planning, and the application of
monitoring, not including air and fives and pollutant stress. Large- ecological knowledge as it emerges.
B e s) ~ li 70%
A. Site meets criteria for designation
as an EER.
Total Score < 70%
Site Potential Score> 70%
B. Site has good potential as as EER
upon enhancement of research
facilities and/or programs.
*
T taf Sco e 45 70
Total Score < 45%
C. Site has some potential as an EER.
5 w ~ t~r I te
0. Site has limited potential as an
EER.
PAGENO="0209"
205
units and as a test of the overall
quality of existing sites. As a further
assessment of the quality of the
natural resource base, a composite -
score was developed to characterize
both ecosystem representation and
its long-term protection or security.
The site potential score is the sum of
site quality and site integrity. The
maximum score of 280 is also ex-
pressed as a percentile.
The Site Assessment Panel met on
three occasions to record and review
scores. Individual panel members
were free to adjust their scores after
discussion and examination of sup-
plementary materials. The final in-
dividual scores showed a 10-12 per-
cent variance. At the conclusixn of
the evaluation, the Panel repeated,
without review of the previous score,
the evaluation of a number of sites
which initiallywere difficultfo assess.
The differences between the first and
second iteration were 5-15 percent in-
dicating considerable consensus in a
complex and subjective evaluative
procedure.
others submitted only those they felt
to be most highly qualified. The
Forest Service considered 100 sites,
but submitted 66. ERDA considered
18 sites and submitted 9, while ARS
submitted 6 of 12 sites considered.
Because of management agreements
with universities, lands owned by the
Bureau of Land Management and by
various State agencies were some-
times inventoried as "university"
Prominence of Federal sites (48
percent) in the inventory is due to the
extensive system of U.S. Forest Serv-
ice Experimental Forests and Ranges.
This resource, together with the
Energy Research and Development
Administration holdings and the
Agricultural Research Service experi-
mental sites represent the major land
areas currently available for ecologi-
cal research. The collective managed
holdings of colleges and uni)~rsities
(42 percent) and private organiza-
tions (9 percent) includethe broadest
possible spectrum of field research
facilities and also represent a very
significant resource. These sites have
been the focal point for much of the
ecosystem research to date. These
university and private sites are of
great future importance, since the
ecosystems of the United States are
incompletely represented (par-
ticularly systems of the Eastern
United States and coastal systems in
general) by Federal holdings. There
are very few areas at the State level
with a management structure-use
directive that is compatible with EER
concepts, although some may hold
future potential. There are obviously
many areas not now designated as
research sites but with potential as
EERs if their objectives are modified
to include experimental research.
Results
The adequacy of existing field
facilities to compose an initial net-
work of Experimental Research
Reserves was assessed by the project
procedures outlined above.
Inventory
The inventory process sought data
from all known existing sites having
the potential to be elements of the
proposed initial system. It included
over 300 direct contacts with Federal
and State agencies, and academic,
and private institutions. Although
some potential sites may have been
inadvertently omitted, it is believed
that the majority of sites which cor-
respond to the established criteria
have been identified. Inventory
coverage and responses are summa-
rized in Table 3. Of the 332 question-
naires sent to site representatives, all
except 23 were returned with some
response. The data base for the pro-
ject is the 171 completed forms.
Federal agencies were contacted
primarily through the Federal Com-
mittee on Ecological Reserves. Some
agencies considered all their sites;
70
~ 60
z
I-
50
I-
U)
40
30
20 30 40 50 60 70
TOTAL SCORE
90
8C
Distribution of Total Scores and Site Potential Scores of alt Inventoried
Sites, A-D are EER Site Potential Groupings (Table 4)
lOG I
1 All Sites
I y =11.04 + 0.000
L r2.-0.72
r 2 Alt Federal & Slate
Sites * o
20.09 + 0.060
1- tO -0.64 ** . 00
3 All Univ-Private Sites * ~)3 00
0.20 ± 0.02x * ~ 0
r2-0.02 0
A
g
Ownership!
0 0 Manxgement
.00 FEDERAL .
2 o so STATE *
8 o ~" UNIVERSITY a
1 0 PRIVATE o
20- D
I J I
10 80 90 100
13
98-513 0 - 77 - 14
PAGENO="0210"
206
The~ER study focused on natural The most desirable silk within each inclusion in the proposed network if
terrestrial sites. Navigable waters classification unit has been selected the foregoing criteria were fulfilled
have long been considered public if miçiimum criteria are met. Primary and itthe sites represented classifica-
resources, so marine or targe fresh- determinants were quality and size ot tion units that would otherwise be ab-
water systems do not have the degree the representative ecosystem. After sent from the network.
of control that exists with terrestrial these criteria were satisfied, the site Sites selected as EER5, together
sites. A marine facility holding only having the highest combination of with the classification unit they repre-
land sufficient to support its physical total and site potential scores was or- sent, are listed in Appendix A. The
plant could, in some instances, dinarity selected. Since some sites in- distribution of scores is presented in
qualify as an EER although control dude representation of more than Figure 4. The Federal and State-
over a significant portion of the land- one ecosystem, selection was made owned sites are generatty of higher
water interface and terrestrial compo- to maximize geographic coverage, site quality than the non-Federal sites
nests woutd increase the site's utility Also, some of the major ecosystems as noted earlier, but the relative
and vatue. In addition, the study did portrayed byvegetation assemblages difference is somewhat less when
not confront the probtern of experi- were judged sufficiently large and only sites in the network are con'
mentation on developed (urban, in- diverse that more than one site was sidered. In summary, 71 inventoried
dustriat, agricultural) sites which selected to obtain more adequate research areas are included; five of
have been subject to rigorous coverage. In most instances, desig. these were grouped to form three
management or exploitation by man. nated sites had an EER Site Potential "composite" sites. Therefore, the ni-
of category "A" or "B." A few in hal EER network is comprised of 67
Site Assessment category "C" were recommended for field research facilities.
The evaluation assessed the in-
ventoried sites in terms of Ihe criteria
established to characterize an EER.
Sites were arranged in groups ac-
cording to major classification units
and the total score and site potentiat
score compared. Figure 3 iltustrates
the array of these scores for all inven-
toried sites. As a group, Federal and
State sites have higher site potential
scores than private and university
sites. This visual impression is rein-
forced by comparing the regression
lines for these groups with that for all
inventoried sites. The site potential
score is indicative of the biological
quality of the site and represents 56
percent of the possible total score.
The distribution of scores and regres-
sion data indicate that in the past
much of the development at field
research sites has occurred at locu-
lions that are judged low on the site
quality crilerion. Future development
of fucilities at field research sites
must include site qsatity as a priority
consideration.
Appraisal of the distribution of
scores within vegetation unils
(Report Supplement) and the array of
scores for all inventoried sites
resulted in the guidelines for EER Site
Potential (Table 4) used in determin-
ing sites meeting minimal qualifica-
lions uxan EER. The Category Codes
for Table 4 are plotted on Figure 3.
Figure 4
Array of Total Scores and Site Potential Scores for the 67 EER Network
Sites.A~C are EER Site Potential Groupings (Table 4).
Numbers Rntervnce
Specilic Sites
ListedinAppesdixB
90- msv*~iuu
B * C2,~
222 -~-mnu ?~
0 * * 0 su~ 00
0 r mrs
st8o nm n~ °
mv*s*m5 ~
no.0 0 vi
u*5 i~s 53~ko"~ A
- ~ us i°~1 Ownership/Management
FEDERAL
is STATE *
riO UNIVERSITY 0
PRIVATE 0
60 - o vi
C
I . I , I , I
50 60 70
TOTAL SCORE
80 90
14
PAGENO="0211"
The proposed initial network of Ex-
perimental Ecological Reserves in-
cludes 71 of the 171 sites inventoried;
these sites are at 67 locations. Their
distribution results from land use,
population, and related societal
pressures that have historically in-
fluenced the location of forests,
parks, preserves, and research areas.
The sites represent, in part, the
relatively large and unencumbered
tracts of land that have been dedi-
cated for ecological research. In most
instances, these lands have a biologi-
cal diversity and a degree of physical
control that have fostered an interest
on the part of the scientific com-
munity. Areas not well represented
such as the South Central and North
Central regions have been strongly
influenced by agriculture, grazing,
forestry or other resource manage-
ment practices that have tended to
reduce or eliminate all but isolated
remnants or preserves of the natural
ecosystem.
Characteristics of the Initial
EER Network
Vegetation typical of that pofen-
tially covering approximately three-
fourths of the area of the contiguous
(conferminous) United States is
represented. The sites are located in
28 States, including Alaska, in addi-
tion to Puerto Rico and the marine en-
vironments of the Virgin Islands (in-
siue back cuver; insert overlayl. No
inventories were submitted from sites
in the Hawaiian Islands.
Ownership and Size of Sites
The ownership or management of
the sites is shown in Table 5. Over 90
percent are owned and managed by
Federal agencies or universities. The
Federal sites were established to car-
ry out forestry and range research,
and more recently, energy experi-
mentation and research. To a large
extent, ecological and ecosystem
studies were a by-product of the pri-
mary mission at these sites. In con-
trast, most university and private sites
were established sp4cifically to study
natural phenomena in field situations
and many have a long history of
research as well as research training.
In a few noted instances, Federal
lands are leased or managed by
cooperating educational institutions.
Approximately half of the proposed
components of the initial network (34
sites) are owned and managed by
Federal agencies such as the U.S.
Forest Service )23 sites) and the
Energy Research and Development
Administration (7 sites). The univer-
sity sites number 27. They include
both State and private institutions.
Less than 10 percent of the facilities
(5 sites) are owned by private cor-
porations or groups. Only two Slate
sites were inventoried; one is in-
cluded as a component of the net-
work.
A)proaimately 90 percent (980,600
ha) of the total area of the proposed
network of sites is owned by Federal
agencies. The majority of the Federal
land in the network is controlled by
the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration (65 percent) and
the U.S. Forest Service (14 percent).
The holdings of the Agricultural
Research Service and of the Bureau
of Land Management used for
ecological studies are actually larger
than indicated, since Iwo university
sites are currently managing large
tracts of Federal land belonging to
these agencies. The Naval Arctic
Research Laboratory, operated by the
University of Alaska, is a similar case,
though it is small (2000 ha). By com-
parison, university (7.4 percent) and
private lands (2.5 percent) are limited
in total area, but they are dispropor-
tionately important because of loca-
tion and ecosystems represented.
The average size of sites is again
largest for federally owned facilities
(29,840 ha), with the very large sites
being those of the Energy Research
and Development Administration. The
Agricultural Research Service and
the Bureau of Land Management
sites are also large. The single repre-
sentative of a Stale-owned site
(10,400 ha) is comparable in size to
many of the Federal components of
Ihe proposed network. The average
area of the U.S. Forest Service silen is
6,700 ha. The average size of univer-
sity-owned sites is 3,000 ha. Several
university and privately owned sites
are considerably smaller (approx-
imately 1,000 ha) but the average is
supported by some dispropor-
tionately large sites, such as those in
207
The Proposed
Chapter IV Initial EER Network
15
PAGENO="0212"
Table 5
Ownership and Size of Sites in the initial EER Network
Ownership or *
Management
Number
of
Sites
Total Area
Avg. Size
of Site
ha
ha
percent
FEDERAL
34
980,593
89.06
28,841
Agricultural Research
Service
3
99,470
9.03
33,137
Bureau of Land
10,400
Management
1
10,400
0.94
Energy Research and
Development Admin.
7
716,588
65.09
.
102.370
Forest Service
23
154,135
14.00
6,702
STATE
UNIVERSITY
PRIVATE
1
27
5
11,336
81,867
27,204
1.03
7,44
2.47
11,336
3,032
5,440
TOTALS
67
1101,000
100.00
16,443 Average
Management of an EER site is given prime consideration; in most instances management and ownershtp are the
same. Exceptions are:
Colorado State University (Pawnee Site)/Agricultural Research Service
New Mexico State University (Ft. Stanton Range Research Station)/Bureau of Land Management
University of Alaska (Naval Arctic Research Laboratory)/Department of Defense
Some ~ooperative use agreements also exist, such as that between the U.S. Forest Service and the Energy Research
and Development Administration with respect to Luquilto Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico.
208
which management of State or even though they may exist at more
Federal lands is involved. If the very than one site.
large Energy and Research Develop- Fifty-nine (or halt) of the 116
ment Administration sites are cx- Kiichter (1964) potential vegetation
cluded from the computations. the types, jnctuding transition zones, are
average size of all sites in the network represented in the array ot67 sites in
would approximate 6,000 ha as com- the initial network. These types cover
pared to 16,400 ha. 72 percent of the area of the confer-
minous United Stales. Some of the
Coverage of Ecosystems sites have timited representation of
Vegetation assemblages were other Kitchler types )K-072, Sea Oats
selected to characterize biotic com- Prairie; K-089, Northern Floodplain
munities and ecosystems using Forest; K-lOS, Sand Pine Scrub) but
Kiichler's classilication (1964, 1956) the area available is too small for
as the basic reference. The cutest to replication of experiments. U.S.
which the initial network effectively Biosphere Reserves provide repre-
covers potential vegetation types is sentation of 13 additional Kiichler
suggested by the distribution of the types including 9 in the conterminous
67 EER sites in the overtay (insert) states and 4 in Alaska (Risser, per.
when applied to Kiichler's 1966 map. com.).
ThevegetatiosclassilicatiOnoateach Approximately one-third of the
site are also presented in Appendix A, conterminous United States is repre-
ateng with the size ot the site and tse sented by the 34 Federal sites which
areal extent of the vegetation unit were assigned to 37 Kiichler types.
represented. These data are summa- Owing to their greater number and
riced in Table 6. The Kdchter types wider distribution, the Forest Service
are sot replicated in the summary sites include the broadest spectrum
of vegetational assemblages. The
ERDA laboratories (as a group) do
not have as great a diversity of
vegetation types, but contribute large
size and an intensive research his-
tory. Some, like the Nevada Test Site,
include several Kiichler types. When
examined in detail, however, most
sites have considerably greater
biological diversity than implied by
the primary vegetational classifica-
* tion. For example, the general vegeta-
tion map of the Oak Ridge Reserva-
tion (Burgess, 1975) lists seven cover
types, including six of forest and one
of grassland as welt as a reservoir-
river system. White most sites in the
proposed network are not as targe or
perhaps as varied as Oak Ridge, exis-
tence of biological diversity was a
positive factor in selection of sites for
the network. Overall, the proposed
network has a greater ecological
research potential than is imptied by
the vegetational classification
employed to characterize ecosystem
reprexentation.
16
PAGENO="0213"
209
Table 6
Representation of Vegetation Types By Sites in the Initial EER Network
Ownership or
Management
Number
Sites
Avg. size
(ha)
Kuchier
Vegetation Types
No. of
Types
Percent of
U.S.
Federal
Agricultural Research
Service
Bureau of Land
Management
Energy Research and
Development Admin.
Forest Service
State
University
Private
34
3
1
7
23
1
27
5
28,841
33,157
10,400
102,370
6,702
11,336
3,042
5,440
37
3
-
8
26
1
17
4
33.22
2.28
-
12.99
17.95
2.19
32.69
4.23
TOTALS
67
16,443 Average
59
72.33
* The university sites represent 17
Kiichler vegetation units, despite the
relatively small total land area con-
trolled by academic institutions. This
is the result in some instances of
deliberate selection to obtain areas
with the greatest biological diversity
that a region could offer. Many
university field research stalions are
located on transition zones or
ecolones. Lake Itasca Forestry and
Biological Station (Minnesutal is an
example.
Several of the Kiichler vegetational
classification units are particularly
large and represent a substantial
latitudinal and longitudinal variation.
For example, six signiticant potential
vegetation types constitute approx-
imately 29 percent of the contiguous
United States.
Sagebrush Steppe 4.75%
Oak Hickory Forest 6.66
Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest. . .7.90
Appalachian Oak Forest .. .3.15
Southern Mixed Forest .. . .3.40
Northern Hardwood
Forest ~.04
28.90%
More than one site has been
designated in some of the larger
vegetational classifications because
land use and research potentials vary
within them. Land cover in the Oak-
Hickory-Pine vegetational classifica-
tion includes cropland with pasture,
woodland and fureut; swamp; wood-
land and forest with some crupland
and forest; and forest and grazed
woodland. The Oak-Hickory vegvta-
tional complex ranges from northern
Mississippi to Southern Michigan,
with land cover varying among
diverse combinations xl croplund,
pasture, woodland and forest. Other
examples are the distinct agricultural
practices within the Tall Grass
Prairie, dilterivg grazing impacts
within Desert, and varying impacts in
Appalachian Oak Forests with
divvrse topographic features. Equally
varied land use patterns exist in
oeveral of the other larger vegeta-
tional linitu. The scientific value 011kv
EER depends not only upon the
quality and representativeneso of its
natural ecosystems, but also on the
extent to which it includes examples
of managed and perturbed systems.
Relation to Human Populations
A cxmparixxn of population dis-
tribution in the United States in rela-
tion to the proposed initial EER net-
work (back inside cover) has implica-
tions regarding fulurv use of this
system of field research facilities. The
more remote sites in the western
mountains, Alaska and the Caribbean
have not been disturbed by man ax
much as those closer to urban and
agricultural centers, but they repre-
sent very signiticant and important
natural resources whose tundumentul
properties must be understood it pru-
dent development and management
decisions are to be made. The array
ot field reueârch facilities in the
eastern Uuited States is reasonably
close to major population centers and
there is substantial opportunity br
ecological and ecosystem research in
environments that have been or are
being impacted by population growth
and associated natural resource
development (Bxrmann, 1977). The
west coast is a similar situation.
Proximity to population centers
lusters involvement xl the research
community, including participating
and visiting scientists and graduate
students. In addition to scientitic ex-
change and liaison, general logistical
support is more etticient, with easy
access to supplies, services and an-
cillary activities that are important to
17
PAGENO="0214"
Enhancement of the System
Improvementof Ecosystem Repre-
sentation
Three types of areas will need
special consideration in efforts to ex-
pand the EER network: major Kiichter
types not yet represented, aquatic en-
vironments, and man-modified
ecosystems
The 57 Kiichler types not ade-
quately represented in the initial net-
work generally cover fairly small per-
centages of the total area of the con-
terminous United States (Appendix
A). Eight of these types cover from 1 -
3.5 percent of the land surface. Some
of these important areas, as well as
many of the other 49 smaller ones,
reflect potential vegetation that either
no longer exists in its unmodified
state or of which only remnants re-
main. However, potential sites
charactertistic of these ecosystem
types should be continuously
reviewed for possible acquisition
and/or designation as a RNA5
because of their limited size and fra-
gility or as a component of the EER
system.f I is of utmost importance that
all natural communities of the Nation
be represented in a system of
ecological reserves, since even
small ecosystems could have impor-
tant national implications.
This study focused primarily on
terrestrial ecosystems, and the inven-
tory materials and site quality selec-
tion procedures were structored ac-
cordingly. While classifications were
developed for freshwater, coastal
marine, and cultural ecosystems,
these large and important environ-
ments could not be effectively in-
cluded in the scope of this project.
Hence, emphasis should be placed
on the following ecosystems and land
use categories when adding sites to
the initial network:
* Coastal marine and estuarine
habitats;
* Large natural lakes, reservoirs
and free-flowing rivers;
* Wildlife management tracts, in-
cluding inland wetlands and
breeding habitats for
migratory animals;
SAgricuttural, sifvicultaral and
grazing lands.
Many of the culturat modifications
and human impacts are not ade-
quately represented by the Kiichler
vegetation classification, but rather
occur as elements of habitat diversify
within a classification unit. Since one
of the important objectives of the EER
network is to carry out experimental
manipulative research on ecosystems
to assess impacts of land use, further
development of the EER system
Would consider current and potential
land use requirements and those
vegetation types likely to be affected.
Table 7 identifies important
ecosystem types and the nature of
some of the environmental research
problems which need to be ad-
dressed in these areas. Sites suitable
for assessing many of thesv impacts
are included in fhe initial network; ad-
ditional sites will be needed for
others.
Acquisition of sites to augment the
initial network will be guided by the
need for improved representation of
ecosystems, particularly aquatic and
man-modified areas. The decision
process wilt probabty be strongly in-
fluenced by particular needs to
assess impacts from changing land
use and the availability of sites.
210
the effective conduct of continuous
field research.
Wild farkeysfeeding in a live oak
savannah situation labavel; research
facilities at Welder Wildlife Foundation
Iletti. Welder Wildlife Foundation; Texas.
ç
18
PAGENO="0215"
211
PAGENO="0216"
212
Availability of Additional
Research Sites
The availatility and size of sites
representative of original ecological
conditions differ markedly in various
geographical regions of the country.
The eastern United States has
relatively few sites of any appreciable
size that have not been greatly
modified by man. The western Uniled
States has farger regions of relatively
undeveloped lands, but many areas
are managed for production of cattle
or timber or are being exploited for
their mineral wealth.
A number of relatively small sites
have served as a focal point for
biological research and experimenta-
lion in the eastern and central United
States. However, the limited area
reduces their potential for marfipula-
live ecosystem investigations. While
these sites have most of the positive
attributes of easy access, availability
of utilities, and research support
facilities, they need additional land to
enhance their long-term research po-
tent al.
In the western United Stales and
Alaska, large tracts ot land are under
State or Federal ownership. Private
holdings are also often very substan-
tial. The problem is not only ot a
restricted base for ecological re-
search, but one of dedicating land for
experimental studies. The recent
dedications at ERDA sites of Na-
tionalEnvironrnental Research Parks
(Parsons. 1975) and the early estab-
lishment of USDA experimental for-
ests and range lands are, positive
examples, as is the privately owned
Research Ranch. The remoteness of
many such sites, and their large size,
tends to reduce the problem of se-
curity except for grazing by cattle
and wildlife and the increasing pres-
sures of recreational pursuits. How-
ever, it increases the difficulty of
providing access, logistical support,
utilities, and research support facil-
ities. These general problems will
be determining factors in the cost of
development and operation of more
remote held research facilities.
The initial EER network and its
core of research sites can be
established now. Delay will decrease
future options. There is good
coverage of the maior natural ter-
restrial features of the United States.
Oeer 70 percent of the conterminous
United States is represented by
vegetation classihcation units. All the
proposed sites are already under
secured ownership and many have
substantial ongoing research
programs.
The challenge to the future
development of the EER network will
be to add sites which represent
ecosystems not presently included
and those most susceptible to en-
vironmental degradation through
cultural impacts, including the
coastal marine and freshwater
ecosystems that were not effectively
approached in this btudy.
20
-. . . - . . ~. ~.
~ .1 _:~ -.
PAGENO="0217"
213
Chapter V Support of the Initial EER Network
The financial resources required
to establish and operate a com-
prehensive system of field research
sites for experimental ecological in-
vestigations are modest for a network
of this scale and potential value. A
viable system is possible now if the
existing natural and physical
resource base is etfectively coordi-
nated. It can be strengthened and ex-
panded over a period of time through
critical appraisal of scientific and na-
tional needs for both on-going and
future experimental ecological
research.
All of the sites required for the
initial network are already under the
control and management of govern-
ment agencies or academic and
private institutions. One-third of the
sites have highly developed physical
plants, including well-equipped
research laboratories and supporting
facilities, and scientific and technical
personnel of excellent caliber. Major
laboratory additions at some EER
sites have been funded and others
are in the planning stages. Land use
and research management plans are
paramount bat can be prepared with
a minimal level of funding. Approx-
imately 75 percent of the sites in the
proposed initial network now have
some research facilities and ongoing
programs. However, some of these
existing sites also have urgent re-
quirements for additional research
facilities and support owing.to the de-
mands of ongoing research efforts
and forecasted manipulative experi-
mental programs. Requirements for
research facilities may range from
modest storage areas for field equip-
ment, vehicles and watercraft to
rather sophisticated and well-equip-
ped research laboratories. Provision
br housing and special field
transportation may be essential in
some locations.
Many pending Federal decisions
in research expenditures, e.g.,
monitoring stations, large scale inte-
grated research programs, and
ecological facilities support could be
coordinated with network design
without sacrificing primary objectives
for which the expenditures were in-
tended. The result could be a
coalescing of support to an optimal
number of research facilities to begin
a national program of coordinated
ecological research. Failure to im-
mediately begin to implement the EER
plan will mean that many financial in-
vestments already being made or
planned by Federal, State, and pri-
vate institutions will not result in
maximum yield in environmental and
ecological research and monitoring.
Sources of Support
Most, if not all, such sites will re-
quire financial support from a number
of sources because of the level of
funding required to develop and
operate an EER. The proportion of the
contribution from each source will
vary depending upon the nature and
ownership of the site, the amount of
support from various sources in the
past, and the urgency with which the
site is needed for research. For these
reasons, the following general
guidelines shobld apply to network
development.
I. Support from parent institution,
- agency or consortium. The parent
institution or agency should be
- responsible for land acquisition,
salaries of the resident director
and investigators, partial salaries
of other employees, and costs of
some basic construction, equip-
mcxl, maintenance and supplies.
2. Core support from Federal
agencies. In cases where the
parent institution, agency, or con-
sortium cannot provide sufficient
funds, the Federal Government
should supply partial or full fund-
ing for the following kinds of ex-
penses to benefit scientists using
the facility:
* Coordination, liaison, and
technical support personnel;
* Construction of new
facilities, access roads, and
trails;
* Purchase of major items of
equipment (such as vehi-
des);
* Support of facilities and
equipment;
* Inventory of important physi-
cal and biological features
and acquisition of essential
ecological data bases;
* Support of advisory commit-
21
PAGENO="0218"
L
Ph
St~! ~~3TV c"~t~
214
R~.r~h ~ Ad.~~iwi*riti~. Pt~et~n~ - Phy.~c.~ F~M~he1 a~d Si.poo~1 Fwicti~i~
A ~ea'~'~-'~ ~
U -:ç r-5Y-~
Phas~
:
~U3va
b~ ~
~
Eg3~:~z'1C
L
VC-~--~- r~-U U:~
-
U- ~~~---`~ c-:~--
PAGENO="0219"
215
3. Research support. Resident
and visiting research investigators
would be expected to supply funds
required for specific research pro-
jects through application to
Federal, Stale, or private funding
agencies. For visiting investiga-
tors, these grunts would cover
charges for using the site as well
as research expenses.
4. User charges. Visiting in-
vestigators would be expected to
pay all personal expenses, i.e.,
room, board, and incidentals. In
addition, the parent institution may
wish to impose a general fee on all
investigators to help offset the ex-
pense of utilities and maintenance.
User charges or "bench fees"
have been established by many
research laboratories that are
open to visiting scientists, includ-
ing the highly sophisticated
Phytotron and Biotron facilities.
Cost of the Initial EER
Network
Research demands and the
availability of funds control the rate of
site development. Three phases in the
development of a site to a year-round
EER were recognized in development
of the cost appraisal. These growth
phases are characterized in Table 8
and are described in greater detail in
the Report Supplement.
Phase sites meet the general cri-
teria established for all EER sites.
Typically they possess high site
quality bat have minimal facilities to
support long-term, experimental
research-little more than field
sturage and perhaps waler, electrical
power, and waste disposal. The site is
protected from encroachment by
necessary signs and fences. Access
roads are maintained. Research use
and planning for development are
coordinated.
Phase Itsites can accommodate a
small group of research personnel on
a seasonal basis and have some pro-
vision for year-round use. Coordina-
tion of research on the site is at a
higher level, and maintenance and
other research support staff have in-
creased. Monitoring and data base
acquisition activities continue year-
Phase itt sites r~preuent com-
paratively sophisticated year-round
operations with a resident staff, a
coordinated research program, and
highly developed physical plant and
supporting services.
The cost estimates for capital im-
provements and for annual opera-
tional ecpense are presented in
summary form in Tables 9 and 10.
The rationale is detailed in the Sup-
plement.
Estimates for each phase include
all components essential for the
operation of a field research facility,
except for selected categories where
Summary of Unit Cost Estimates for Capital Improvements1
Capital Improvements
Development Phase of Site
I
II
III
Site access and security; utilities
Physical plant, including research,
service and storage structures
Research equipment, including field
transportation
$ 2,000
14,000
9,000
$ 5,000
424,000
74,000
5 14,000
1,371,000
186,000
Total
$25,000
$503,000
$1,571,000
Estimates based on 1975 costs. The estimates presented for capital improve-
ments are derived largely from Building Conotruction Cost Data 11975). Cost esti-
mates are based on more than 7,500 proiects throughout the country and are
adjusted to January 1, 1975. Actual costs will be inlluenced by local price varia-
tions and other factors affecting costs Iquality of materials, size of job, location,
weather, season ol year, etc.). These estimates must be considered preliminary
since they are based on a generalized site whereas many support problems will
be site specific.
Summary of Unit Cost Estimates for Annual Operations1
Annual Operations
Development Phase of Site
I II III
Site planning and coordination
Salaries and labor
Nonsalary items,
including supplies, and mainte-
nance of physical plant and field
transportation
$ 1,000
26,000
2,000
$ 4,000
122,000
20,000
$ 4,000
272,000
60,000
Total
$29,000
$146,000
$336,000
Estimates based on 1975 costs.
23
PAGENO="0220"
216
site specific circumstances will not and well developed facilities and sup-
permit reasonable estimates. Unit port. Those university and privately
estimates presented must, therefore, owned and managed sites included in
be considered conservative. Further, the network tend to be well-
continued inflationary trends will developed with year-round research
affect costs: assumptions regarding programs.
the number of EER5 at each stage of The projected cost of improving
development and their rate of growth the physical plant and operations of
may change with time. In spite of each of the 67 EER sites to approxi-
these factors, the figures presented mate the general conditions of the
below attempt to be a realistic ~p development phase in which if has
praisalof the cost of development of. been grouped has been determined.
an EER Network. These estimates are bused on the
Information on inventory forms difference between conditions exist-
permitted each of the 67 sites in the ing at each site as described by the
proposed network to be assigned to inventory information, and the
Ihe development phase it now most generalized characteristics proposed
closely approximates. The distribu- for each development phase. In some
tion of sites within these three instances the esisting physical plant
generalized levels of physicat plant arid operational support at an EER
and program devefopment is mdi- site approximated or exceeded the
cated in Table 11. generalized scheme: in others, sub-
Although U.S. Forest Service sites sfantiaf expenditures would be re-
are more numerous than other quired to realize the optimal level
Federal holdings, they are least ascribed to the development phase in
developed for experimental- which the site was grouped.
ecosystem research. The national
laboratories of the Energy Research The projected cost for both capital
and Development Administration do improvements and annual operafions
have substantial research programs for each of the 67 sites have been
Table 11
Status of Development of EER Network Sites
Ownerabip or
Management
Dcv
elopment Ph
sac
Total
--~~
-~--`-`
Federal
13
ii
10
34
Agricultural Research
Service
1
.
2
.
3
Bureau of Land
Management
1
1 -
Energy Research and
Development Admin.
2
5
7
Forest Service
7
3
23
State
1
1
1
Unieersity
4
14
9
27
Prieate .
2
3
5
Total
17
28
23
67
totaled to yield the composife costs
required for the initial EER Network.
The estimated cost of capital im-
provements necessary to develop
physical plants at the 67 sites to each
of the three generalized levels is pre-
sented in Table 12. The cost projec-
tions for Phase I are S270,000, since
nearly all sites approximate or exceed
thin level of development. The funds
necessary to realize development to
Phase II ($7,700,000) and Phase III
($9,037,000) are substantially more
because of the increased number of
sites within thexe two groupings, and
the comparatively higher unit cost
($503,000 and $1,571,000 respec-
tively) of physical plant improve-
ments. The physical plant and
research support base that already
exists at EER sites represent an in-
vestment of several hundred millions.
Approximately $17 million would be
required to bring the physical plant at
the 67 sites to a level compatible
with the development stage in which
they have been placed.
A similar estimate has been made
for annual operational costs (Table
13). The 17 siles in Phase I would re-
quire approximately $391,000, while
sites in Phase II ($1,905,000) and
Phase III ($2,641,000) would require
considerably more. The annual
operational costs accumulated over
the short time-span of 4-5 years will
approximate or exceed the projected
cost of capital improvements.
Both capital improvement (Table
12) and annual operational costs (Ta-
ble 13) have been prorated in accord
with the ownership or management of
the sites since if provides a subdiai-
sion of the total cost that is
meaningful in determining possible
sources of funds. Facilities for sup,
port of field research and related
capital improvements necessary to
bring each of the 67 EER siles to an
optimal operational level which it now
approximates (Phase I'll I) would re-
quire $17 million. An additional $5.1
million would be required annually for
operational support. The funds can
be derived from a variety of sources
as noted earlier and the cost of
capital improvements projected over
a number of years. Specific require-
ments may vary wilh some sites
24
PAGENO="0221"
217
Table 12
Capital Improvement Costs Required
for the Initial EER Network1
Ownership!
Management
Phase I Sites
No. Sites Dollars
Phase II Sites
No. Sites Dollars
Phase lii Sites
No. Sites Dollars
Told
No. Sites Dollers
Federal
13 185,000
11 3,05t,000
10 4578,000
34 8,62,300
ARS
1 230,000
2 1.446,000
3 4.120,000
SLM
1 491,000
1 491,000
ERDA
2 554.000
5 1,780,000
7 2,334,000
FS
13 185,000
7 2,583,000
3 1,352,000
23 4,120.000
State
1 491,000
1 491,000
Uniaorsdy
4 . 85,000
14 2,642,000
9 2,998.000
27 5,725,000
Priaote
2 710,000
3 1,461,000
5 2,171,000
Totals
17 $270,000
28 $7,701,000
22 89,037,000
67 817,008,000
Fabie 13
Annual Operational Costs Required for
Initial EER Network
Attiflatlon
Phase I Sites
No. Silas Dollars
Phase It Sites
No. Sites Dotlers
Phase lit Sites
No. Sites Dollers
Total
No. Sites Dollars
Fedoroi
13 329,000
11 010,000
10 ` 1,481,000
34 2,620,000
ARS
1 66,000
2 339,000
3 405.000
BLM
1 80.000
1 06,000
ERDA
2 122000
5 563,000
7 685.000
FS
.13 329,000
7 , 556,000
3 570,000
23 1,464.000
State
1 126,000
` `
1 120,000
Univernlty
4 62,000
14 799,000
9 899,000
27 1,760,000
Prrvato
2 170,050
3 461,000
5 631,000
Toast
17 $391,000
20 01,000,000
22 02,081,000
67 05,137,000
25
PAGENO="0222"
developing more readily than others.
The estimates noted above thus
represent an integration of support
requirements for development of an
effective and operational EER net-
work. It is recommended that 1985 be
a target date forcomptetion of the ini-
tial system.
Cost to Enhance
the Network
The proiected cost of enhance-
ment of the 67 sites in the initial EER
network depends on the growth of
Phase I sites to Phase II or Phase Ill,
and further development of Phase II
Sites to Phase Ill. II is likely that some
sites may not be developed further for
some time if existing resources effec-
tively satisfy the need. Others,
however, will be confronted by in-
creasing demand for growth and
development of research programs,
necessitating improved physical
facilities, research support, and in-
creased operational expendilures.
The projected cost of progressive
development of all 67 sites to Phase
Ill is presented in Table 14.
It is possible that there will be
sufficient need to develop all of the
network sites to Phase Ill by 1985 at a
cost of over $70 million. It is, however,
much more realistic to expect that all
EER sites will need the capability of
providing physical facilities and sup-
port personnel to permit the efficient
conduct of seasonal research, and
also have the capacity to accommo-
date some limited year-around
research activities and monitoring,
much as predicted for a Phase II site.
Projected cosfs to bring all 67 sites in
Ihe initial network at least to Phase II
development would require $16
million, with a further requirement of
$4.3 million of annual operational
support. These costs are for enhance-
ment of the network and are in addi-
tion to support needs (Tables 12 and
13) proposed for effective develop-
ment of the initial network.
Further Network
Development
The network of EER sites recom-
mended in this report isa good begin-
ning but does not provide complete
coverage of the varied ecosystems of
the nation. The cost of acquiring ma-
jor land holdings to fill gaps in the
network is difficult to estimate.
Similarly, it is not possible to estimate
or suggest the level of support that
should appropriately be assigned to
acquisition of lands to provide for ex-
pansion of a field research facility or
to provide for buffer areasthat may be
important in maintaining the integrity
of some of the sites. Land values vary
greatly, depending on location and
the competing demands for given
resources. (Deactivated military
bases offer an unusual opportunity to
acquire large tracts for an augmented
EER nelwork.)
Table 14
The study has focused on field
research resources which are cur-
rently available. II is not possible to
estimate with equal precision the
number of additional sites needed. It
is obvious, however, that more than a
fourth of the Nation's land area is not
adequately represented, nor have
research resources been identified to
permit effective long-term study of
the major coastal and inland aquatic
environments, or to develop data re-
quired to resolve some of the emerg-
ing land use conflicts. It is important
that these matters be pursued further,
and that the support base have suffi-
cient flexibility to accommodate new
initiatives to enhance the EER net-
work by the addition of new sites. It is
recommended that a target date of
1990 be esfablished for the develop-
ment of the integrated national net-
work of EER sites.
218
Projected Costs for Enhancement of the
EER Network Sites to Phase ll~
Current Level
of Development
Projected Cost of
Cspttsl Improvements
Projected Cost of
Annual Operations
All to Phase I or higher
All to Phase II or higher
All to Phase III
S 270.000
16,098,000
73,195,000
$ 391,000
4,283,000
15,678.000
Esfimates based on 1975 costs.
26
PAGENO="0223"
219
A functional network of Experi-
mental Ecological Reserve will re-
quire an organizational and manage-
ment structure for each individual site
and for the network as a whole.
EER Site Management
Three steos need to be taken at
each site to ensure its effectiveness
as a resource for experimental
research. These are:
1. secure long-term dedication of
the site for experimental
research;
2. prepare a plan to guide
development and operation of
the site; and
3. establish an administrative
structure to manage and coor-
dinate use of the site.
An organizational structure must
be developed at each site to provide
counsel in planning and development
of the site, to establish liaison be-
tween the owner (or mxnager( and
research scientists using the site,
and to coordinate research use to
promote efficiency and minimize po-
tential conflict. In the initial phase of
development, a site may be managed
by a part-time director with an adviso-
ry group to assist in preparation of a
land use plan, guiding site manage-
ment, and coordinating research.
Developed sites with greater research
use may benefit from a more detailed
level of organization that might sepa-
rate responsibility for site manage-
ment from research coordination.
Members of both the scientific and
resource management communities
should be represented on the ap-
propriate committees.
A number of organizational for-
mats have been evolved for coordina-
tion and management of more highly
developed experimental research
sites. The parent organization is a
determining influence on the specific
administrative structure that exists,
but there should be provision for two
general committee functions: Site
management and research coordina-
tion.
The site committee:
sadvises on development of site
master plan;
* advises on development of staff
- and physical plant; and
* provides counsel and liaison
with the scientific community,
government agencies, and
funding institutions.
The research committee:
* assists in developing a research
plan for the site;
a identifies problems which re-
*quire research in the eco-
systems represented;
*advises on development of
baseline data, organization of a
system to record data, and mak-
ing data available to users; and
`evaluates research proposals
from scientists requesting use
of the site.
Coordination at the regional level
can play an important role in the
development of the EER network. An
example of multistate planning is the
cooperation taking place under the
leadership of the U.S. Forest Service
in the PacifiC Northwest. This effort
includes detailed inventories of sites,
plans to fill "gaps" in the representa-
tion of ecosystems, and encourage-
ment of use of both the site and the
data base by researchers and dcci-
sionmakers across the entire Nation
(Franklin, 1977).
EER Network Coordination
With careful management, strong
financial support, and widespread ac-
cess by scientists, the individual EER
sites will become valuable local and
regional resources for field research.
But if EER5 are to become an impor-
tant national resource, a coordinating
group must be established at the na-
tional level. As xl the specific sites,
broad participation on committees is
recommended so that the views of
researchers from universities and
Federal and Slate agencies as well as
public and private users of ecological
data are taken into account.
The primary recommended func-
tions of the national network are:
1. stimulate planning of joint
2. encourage exchange and
application of data;
3. facilitate use of sites by visit-
ing researchers;
4. develop financial resources
to enhance the existing net-
work and add additional
sites; and
5. guide investments in in-
dividual sites to encourage
sharing of resources and
avoid redundancy.
Chapter VI Management of EER Sites and Coordination of the Network
27
PAGENO="0224"
220
There wilt inevitably be disagree- Table 15
meets within and among Federal
agencies, university, or private ~ Alternative Coordinating Mechanism-EER Network Management
terests in EERs about priorities in
best serving the national interest. Existing Groups
Untess the EER network administra- Federat Agencies Federal Agencies Consortia
tion hasthe capacity to resolve such (land-holding) (non-land holding) (Science or University)
differences, valuable tong-term in- advanlages
vestmenls in the EER5 may be . concern with overall notional interest in EER system
sacrificed because of short-term con-
flicts. tmporlanl decis~ons concern- " , , . p d t
ing matching funds, liming of im- * demonstrated interest i-i EER system and benefits
provemenls. and collaboration * experience * can negotiate as a not as subloct to
amoco different EER sites must be with EER site interested party bureaucratic
made, particularly if Congress:ona' manage-rent with land-holding and r~oalrj issues.
support for the network is realized, agencies
bea EER network is envtwoned to agss
mechanism to support tong-term * difficulty in negotiating with sister * difficulty in
ecological research and to assist in agencies negotiating with
the resolution of national problems Federal groups on
through individual and cooperative * mission bias in network develop- an equal looting
experiments at the sites. Some net- men!
1' 1 t be lh * regarded as being
cut r mu giv . * St~~ interest * tack of caper- too academic and
responsibility to develop the ne.e - in its tand-ttoldings inmate with on- impractical
sary lines of communication and to iota problems
implement and maintain the EER * not directly en-
system in the Nations best interest. sponsive to public
Advantages and disadvantages of interest.
alternative mechanisms to coordinate
the EER network are described in Ta- `~ 0 OUpS
bIn 15. Il__ F'~~ Public Connortia
A new consortium including Agency Corporation (Public/Private)
Federal agencies, universities, and Adrentages
private institutions seems the best * could have rote and financing built into initial charter
choice for the coordinating mechan- * mission might be * widespread * can be established
ism since these institutions hold the very applicable to public/private by agreement xf
land containing most of the sites in- EER networuc interests intnrested
eluded in the initial network. Repre- can be rep- organizations
sentatives of both land-holding agen- * has momentum of resented
cies such as the Forest Service, new organization a unibal financing
Agricultural Research Service, arid among sister from interested
the Energy Research and Develop- groups - ergarnzation
meet Administration and non-land-
holding agencies such as the Council * not tikety in the * may requtre * requires negotiation
on Environmental Quality and the Na- next ttwee ~ea~ I Congressional among established
lionat Science Foundation should be . . approval organizations and
included. (The fatter two now' share i setectuon of con-
sponsorship of the Federal Commit- ` ~mng authority
tee on Ecologicat Reserves.l Repre- * requires tleietopment of orgatlizatronat nfrastruclure and
sentatives of State and local govern- - . communication been
ments, State and private universities.
and private owners of ecological tional, regional and State levels, and of the network.
reserve sites should also be included, also task forces to denelop monitor- An organized notional framework
The initial planning sessions for a ing and information processing for comparative ecosystvrn studies
consortium should be convened by programs and classification systems. would encourage etlvctivv usv of
the Federal Committee on Ecological financial resources and stimulate
Reserves, with financial support from An initial budget of S150,tXtO a additional experimental ecological
the Council on Environmental Quality year, provided by consortium mew- research. Thus the investment by
and the National Science Foundation. bers, would cover the salaries of a consortium members would be re-
A next step should be thetormution of three-member staff, communications, turned many-fold both in dollar value
permanent committees at the na- and travel, essential for coordination and in urgently needed information.
28
PAGENO="0225"
221
98-513 0 - 77 - 15
PAGENO="0226"
222
21
1~
"F
p.
t.
fr
0
* 51~C&nZAF F~S1S
..EA2 coptrs
I r..
*1 * - -
;:
PAGENO="0227"
223
~ I I~t±X~
L ;~ F sruFoKr RAS I I I I
~ ~ 4(040 r~ ~ $~>
: ~. CA1IFORN~A STFPFF ~r4 ~
~ K.041 ~ SF C~ Li iou 3~F Rdq~ho ~ ~ ~
~ Fe
~ GA F ~no SwiJnFnnr4) L$tII ~ ~ t I
~ ` IULEMARSHE nv~e
~ K04 14 ~ç~:c ~
/ ~ scu WFJEATGRASS ~ ~
;2 K 043 20 OFF F ~ flatk'y E?F r 12~ tJI~
~ ~, WHFATGRAS *BLtJEGRA ~ .~
~ P0044 SO OR F 1b~ Stirk~yL!=pFnr 12551 ~ ~
~ ~: ALPR4EMEAOOW ANOBARREN ~; I
:~rL ~ 4F 00 ` 4411 Fri~c~rE~pFnr 2~O(k ~
`4: ~ FF500 MOUNWMMOHLYPRMRIF %y gJ~~ ;i
~ ~ (446 NM 0 ~O F~t~Ii~ø tR!~Ifl lIMO `~> ~
~ GRAMAOALI TA5IFFPE
~ 0047 ~ IS ~C
GRAMA OROSAFRARIE ir~ *1
FINS 10 *
SHRUB ANDGRASSLAND -;
COMBINATIONS ~` S
SÃO IIRUSFOSTEPFF "~ia s
s K049 475 WA F SLOW) Aiidtind F'u1'5~ 31/Wi ~ 1
50
WN ATURASS NEWt GRAS' III F OW)? US Sooep ip 514 194W
SFIRUSSTEPFE
a F 050 2?
ALOFT ThREE AWN SHRURIIEFFE
K-ES) 56
GRAM TORO ASFIRUR P PR
5. K-OS 11; SIT F 13W) SailaWlaFir 1 IS
ITisqo
TRAFIWP LOS WOOS SAVANNA " 4
~ KOl 110 A
H OUT AVp%MW) ~-5X A
6565 `17
S ME500ITEALALIA AVANNA ~
`i 6054 7?
1 ME QUITE LI000AKSAVANNA
FOSS
CENTRALS EASTERN GRA FLANGE ~
GRASSLAND
73 4
Si FOOtHILl PRAIRIE ~ ~
5 KWS6 $1 £LOt~'
OR MANE OLE(5RAS
Sc: W14 AT PA
4 K-OS? "2
4- GRAMS PUFF LOG lASS Qttt4- I
KOOF 54 15 U 51W ~
IN
WHEATORAS NE UI GRASS 37S'Uf 4y1
6009 `120 ;C5SOi%t~ $~
3 WFIEATORA 5010 STEM'
Hoot GRASS
6555 11
-~ ~LS_- ~ ~` - 0 - ~5& `7' ~
PAGENO="0228"
224
S~~'ERY -~
&T4Q~TSP~T'~E,
GRASSLAND & FOREST
COMB1NAT~ONS
j NEEDLELEAF FORESTS
t~ES~E-~ES~
32
PAGENO="0229"
225
f1~* ~ ~ rx>~vst~a~ ~ ~ _ : ~ ;~-a ~ I'~
~ ~t .~ COMm SQu 4
E ~ K&~ I w~ r q~ ArgonneF~pFor 2~6t ~ j~, *41
& ~ GRE TLAYESPØJ FOR bT %~
F ~ ~ ~4B6 91 MU u M03 L~beti~ aFo,& ~ ~
I thost* 129 ~ ~
~ t4() ~ HEA. IEflrJ SPRUC C `fR FcTh[st S~*~ ~ 4
I ~ ~J t4~f r 46 Fwbbtcliroo ~ ;at~
~ Fufl~ffl~ft p ~ ~
~ ~ &J1H A~1LRNSPF4UCE FIRrOR ~1 FarBo~fNa Aten 4128 Sfl ~ ~
t K*~~ (p S ~cZ
~ SROADLEAFFOR T *4 ~ ~
I ~ ~ RNrLOJ PLA~t~rO1FsT
I MAPLE BA,5w000 roRf I ~ Al 1~V I
~ ~ 78 ~ ~ ,~oo L&~eftaF ~ 129G1
OAK ~ KOOK F0000T Aa~ 04S%
AK i AA~ M~ o AD KeA~qaA~oA(A IAKA ~Lfl~g
M~ r ~ TOALA~e xØ ~,AAA
MO ~o ~ ~ y~onRP~nrA ~ ?
I ~ CAOer/Ayho~ OK ~ ~ ~
rtoASHFOA I &NOAAS j ~J :~44 ~od
} K~. e * !:At~ t411
AC[(HMAPUFOA ~1 pAa%stc
\ K~O3i 4K
I ~ ~ ~ACO~'CAOPHtOrOAEOt tO ~.
644 144 4/4 P 0414 444 A RPPAT J40 4~ + tag
APFATAcp~,j~~p 100051
A 004 ~A 140 F 3105 0746 061047, 1044 05
080 ~
~4 F 14 ~oA Oak Thdga04y A
Pa
1 MAN 0000+ 0%
K~Ojo
441 DROOL AF&T4EEOL I+FAF
1. FOR610 AS
~ JO THORN HAROW700 N
6047 * 104 Ml ~ ~ Mo1MI0io$1~ 4410 `4* 1
~ F 00 4 0000174 Crw'A l~ 41
077 4447 ~p
00044 RNHAR00000I 610 ror~s7 ~ n~0'6r ii'
NORTH AN 00000000' A 11401 0 0
F0144i +0
60 3 8~ ~ 4' HOAO4I n Wn414
1. 6o~J1o 4+
04501000 PP 04440i4504p/ / +
PT AT0OO0TPo~No44qopooo~ 4443
6104 ~4~1 I
Mi 1004 00 006 P10 lOAf ~ 01046+43 0
603 14 y 000 0010+0 7+132
OAK HICKORY 010 60 ITAT 0++ u ~220 04 Fo,o 4 400 + +
44101 0 3',A 0Ioroo7~ xp04 704 0 40
04 P 0 701 Twn~ lRoo, :7~01
I 4
44
`4'~0
PAGENO="0230"
226
IC')
;r:tr4 CLi5iiFiCtTION
- A.
- Cc.ifl~ttt:i 3C3
r c C
~`-~-~ ~ :-~ -.
T~'-.C3AA
~ /02
- A.- - - I 023 CA-C -P~e IO~30
HA0VAA~4 cLAsc:rcAit3N
5CLCIi3Ai?ALCJZFC~ C--~:J-D
sGThICZJ-r.D
L
PAGENO="0231"
227
PAGENO="0232"
In most cases ownership and
management of the site are the same:
exceptions are indicated. The 67 site
locations comprising the proposed
initial network are marked by an
asterisk: three of these are composite
sites. Thus 71 sites are included in the
network.
Alabama:
Alaska:
Escambia Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
2 Tanglewood
University of Alabama
3 Bonanza Creek Experi-
mental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
4 Caribou-Poker Creeks
Research Watershed
State of Alaska &
Bureau of Land
Management/Research
Coordination
Sub-committee
5 Maybeso Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
* 6 Naval Arctic Research
Laboratory, Point Barrow
U.S. NavyfUniversilyof
Alaska
* 7 Young Bay Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Arizona:
* 8 Boyce Thompson South-
western Arboretum
Boyce Thompson
Southwestern Ar-
boretum Corp.
University of Arizona
9 Fort Valley Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
10 Long Valley Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
11 Museum of Northern
Arizona
Northern Arizona
Society of Science
and Art, Inc.
* 12 Santa Rita Experimental
Range
U.S. ForestService
*13 Sierra Ancha Experimen-
tal Forest
U.S. Forest Service
14 Southweslern Research
Station
American Museum of -
Natural History
* 15 The Research Ranch
The Research Ranch,
Alum Creek Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
17 H. R. Koen Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
18 Sytamore Experimental
Forast
U.S. Forest Service
California:
19 Blacks Mountain Experi-
mental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
20 Blodgetl Experimental
Forest
Universily of California
*21 BodegaMarine Labora-
tory
University of California
22 Challenge Experimental
Forest -
U.S. Forest Service
23 Eagle Lake Biological
Station
California State
University
24 Forluna Mountain Field
Station (formerly Camp
Elliotl
San Diego State
College
*25 Hopland Field Station
Universily of California
*26 Jasper Ridge Biological
Reserve
Stanford Univeisity
27 Moss Landing Marine
Laboratories
- Consortium of Califor-
nix State Universities
and Colleges
*28 Onion Creek Experimen-
tal Forest
U.S. Forest Service
*29 Philip L. Boyd Deep Can-
yon Desert Research
Center
Uxiversify of California
30 Redwood Experimenfal
Forest
U.S.Foresl Service
31 Sagehen Creek Field SIx-
University of California
*32 San Dimas Experimental
Forest
U.S. Fo/est Service
*33 San Joaquin Experimen-
tal Forest
U.S. Forest Service
34 Sierra Foothills Range
Field Station
University of California
35 Stanislaus-Tuolumne Ex-
perimental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
36 Swain Mountain Experi-
mental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
37 Teakettle Experimental
Fxrest
U.S. Forest Service
38 Temecula Gorge State
Reserve
San Diego Slate
College
39 Whitakers Experimental
Forest
University of California
Colorado:
40 Black Mesa Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
*41 Central Plains Experi-
mental Range:
Pawnee Site
Agricultural Research
Service/Colorado
State Uniaersity
*42 Fraser Eaperimentat
Forest
US. Forest Service
228
Sites Evaluated as Potential Experimental Ecological Reserves
Arkansas:
16
36
PAGENO="0233"
229
43 Manitou Experimental *56 U.S.Sheep Experiment 70 Marine Science Institute
Forest Station Northeastern University
U.S. Forest Service Agricultural Research 71 Springtietd College-East
*44 Mountain Research Sta- Service Campus
tion . . Springtield College
Universityot Illinois.
Colorado/U.S. 57 Alice L. Kibbee Lite Michigan:
Forest Service Science Station 72 Camp Filibert Roth
Western Illinois Universityot Michigan
Connecticut: University *73 Cyrus H. McCormick Ex-
45 White Memorial Founda- ~ A N ~ I perimental Forest
tion Natural Areas F Laboratory-East U.S. Forest Service
dation Inc /Litchtield Energy Research and 74 Hammond Bay Biological
Development Ad- Station
ministration U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Museum, Inc. Service
Delaware 59 Fermi National Accelera- 75 Matthaei Botanical
br Lab
Florida: Energy Research and Garden
*46 Archbold Biological Sta- Development Ad- University of Michigan
lion ministration 76 Taylor University Environ-
Archbold Expeditions, 60 Kaskaskia Experiment mental Education C:nter
47 Olustee Experimental Fo~e~t Forest Service with Taylor University
Fore~t Forest Service Indiana: * 77 University of Michigan
61 AlIce Memorial Woods Biological Station
48 TaliTimbers Research Wabash College University of Michigan
Tall Timbers Research, 62 Ross Biological Reserve 78 Upper Peninsula Experi-
Inc Iowa: Purdue University mental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Kansas:
eo . . * 79 W.K. Kellogg Biological
49 Hitchiti Experimental 63 Breidenthal Tract Station
Forest Universityof Kansas Michigan State
U.S. Forest Service 64 John H. Nelson Environ- University
~so University of Georgia mental Study Area
Marine Institute University of Kansas Minnesota.
University of Georgia *65 Konza Prairie Research *80 Cedar Creek Natural
Natural Area History Area
Hawaii: Kansas State University University of Minnesota
Idaho: 66 University of Kansas 81 Cuttoot Experimental
51 Boise Basin Experimental Natural History Reserva- Forest
Forest tixn U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service University of Kansas *82 Lake Itasca Forestry and
52 Deception Creek Experi- Kentucky: Biological Station
mental Forest Louisiana' University of Minnesota
U.S. Forest Service 67 Palustris Experimental 83 Marcell Experimental
53 Harriman Railroad Ranch Forest Forest
Harriman Family/State U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service
Maine: 84 Pike Bay Experimental
54 Idaho National Env Rex
Maryland:
Park U.S. Forest Service
Energy Research and 68 Chesapeake Center for
Development Ad- Environmental Studies Mississippi:
ministration Smithsonian Institution 85 Bluff Experimental Forest
*55 Priest River Experimental Massachusetts: U.S. Forest Service
Forest 69 Concord Field Station 86 Delta Experimental Forest
U.S. Forest Service Harvard University U.S. Forest Service
37
PAGENO="0234"
230
87 Harrison Experimental Sitewith 100,101) 116 Rice Creek Biological
Forest U.S. Forest Service Station
U.S. Forest Service *103 Jackson Estuarine State University
*8.8 Tallahatchie Experimen- Laboratory Cottage at Oswego/
tat Forest University of New S.U.N.Y.
U.S. Forest Service Hampshire 117 Svend Oluf Heiberg
Missouri: New Jersey: Memorial Forest
89 Arboretum and Nature New Mexico: Syracuse Universityf
Reserve)See93) *104 FortStantonRange .
Missoiri Botanical Research Station North Carolina.
Garden Bureau of Land *118 Coweeta Hydrological
*00 Gaylord Memorial Management/New Laboratory
Laboratory Mexico State University U.S. Forest Service
Missouri Department of *105 Jomada Experimental *119 Duke Forest
Conservation Range Duke University
91 Sinkin Experimental Agricultural Research 120 The Highlands Biological
Forest Service Station
U.S. Forest Service *106 Los Alamos Env Rca Park The Highlands
92 Tucker Prairie Research Energy Research and Biological Station, Inc.
Station Development Ad- North Dakota:
Universilyol Missouri ministration 121 Oakville Prairie
*93 Tyson Research Center 107 ntate Univer- Universityof North
)Composite Sitewith . Dakota
89) ~_ Ohio:
Washington university 122 F.T. Stone Laboratory
University New York: Ohio State University
Montana: *108 Archer & Anna Hunt- 123 Vinton Furnace Experi-
*94 Coram Experimental ington Wildlife Forest Sta- mental Forest
Forest lion U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service Syracuse University! Oklahoma:
95 Lubrecht Experimental S.U.N.Y. *124 Southern Plains Experi-
Forest *t99 Brookhaven National t I R
University of Montana Laboratory Agricultural Research
96 Tenderfoot Experimental Energy Research and Service
F rest Development Ad-
US. Forest Servce ministration *125 Universityof Oklahoma
Nebraska: 110 Cornell University Biological Station
97 Allwine Prairie Preserve Biological Field Station
Research Area Cornell University Oregon:
Universityof Nebraska 111 Edmund Niles Huyck *12B Cascade Head Experi-
98 Cedar Point Biological Preserve mental Forest
Field Station Edmund Niles Huyck U.S. Forest Service
University of Nebraska Preserve, Inc. *127 H.J. Andrews Experimen-
Nevada: 112 Great Gull Island fal Forest
*99 NevadaTest Site American Museum of U.S. Forest Service
Energy Research and Natural History 128 Oregon Institute of
DeveloprnentAd- 113 Katbfteisch Field Marine Biology
ministration Research Station University of Oregon
New Hampshire: American Museum of 129 Oregon Slate University
100 Bartlett Experimental Natural History Marine Science Center
Forest (See 102) 114 Oneonta Biological Field Oregon State University
U.S. Forest Service Station ~ 130 Pringle Falls Experiment
101 Bowl Natural Area (See Slate University Forest
102) College at Oneonla! U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service S.U.N.Y. 131 Squaw Butte Euperiment
*102 Hubbard Brook Experi- 115 Pine Lake Campus Station
mental Forest (Composite Hxrtwick College Agricultural Research
38
PAGENO="0235"
Service/ARS with
Oregon State University
*132 Starkey Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Pennsylvania:
133 Jennings I4ature Reserve
Slippery Rock State
College
134 Kane Experimental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
135 Pymatuning Laboratory of
Ecology
University of Pittsburgh
136 The Lacawac Sanctuary
The Nature
Conservancy
137 Tionesta Natural Area
U.S. Forest Service
Rhode Island:
138 W. Alton Jones Campus
University of Rhode
Island
South Carolina:
*139 Clemson Experimental
Fsrest
Clemson University
*140 Hobcaw Barony
Belle Baruch Founda-
tion/Clemson Univer-
sity & University of
South Carolina
141 Santee Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
*142 Savannah River Environ-
mental Research Park
Energy Research and
Development Ad-
South Dakota:
143 Black Hills Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
E. J. Macman Biological
Station
Memphis State
University
*145 Oak Ridge Environmental
Research Park
Energy Research and
Development Ad-
ministration
*146 Tech Aqua Biological Sta-
tion
Tennessee Technologi-
cal University
Texas:
147 Blackland Conservation
Research Center
Agricultural Research
Service
148 Brackenridge Field
Laboratory
University of Texas
149 Coastal Center
University of Houston
150 Grassland-Forage
Research Center
Agricultural Research
Service
*151 Marine Science Institute
University of Texas
152 Stephen F. Austin Experi-
mental Forest
U.S. Forest Service
*153 Welder Wildlife Refuge
Welder Wildlife
Foundation
Davis County Experimen-
tal Watershed
U.S. Forest Service
*155 Desert Experimental
Range
U.S. Forest Service
156 Great Basin Experimental
Range
U.S. Forest Service
Centerfor Northern
Studies
Young Family Founda-
tion/The Center for
Northern Studies
Wyoming:
Puerto Rico:
169 Bans de Oro Natural Areu
(See 170)
U.S. Forest Service
*170 Luquillo Experimental
Forest (Composite Site
with 169)
U.S. Forest Service
Virgin Islands:
~171 West Indies Laboratory
St. Croix
Fairleigh Dickenson
University
231
*161 Friday Harbor Laborato-
ries
University of
Washington
162 Shannon Point Marine
Center
Western Washington
State College
*163 Wind River Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
West Virginia:
*164 Fernow Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Wisconxin:
*165 Argonne Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
166 Kemp Biological Station
University of Wisconsin
*167 University of NoIre Dame
Environmental
Research Center
Universityof NoIre
Dame
168 Universityof Wisconsin-
Milwaukee Field Station
University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Utah:
*154
Vermont:
157
Tennessee:
144
Virginia:
Washington:
*158 Arid Lands Ecology
Reserve (Hanford Reser-
cation)
Energy Research and
Development Ad-
ministration
159 Casey Campus Marine
Biology Station
Seattle Pacihc College
160 Entiat Experimental
Forest
U.S. Forest Service
39
PAGENO="0236"
LiteratUre
Cited
232
American fnstitute of Biotogicaf
Sciences. 1971. The role of field sta-
tions in biological education and
research. AIBS. Arlington, VA.
American fnsfitute of Biofogicat Sci-
ences. 1974. Nalural Areas and Their
Rofe in Land and Waler Resource
Preservation. US/IBP Program for
Conservation of Ecosystems. (Table
4.1). AIBS, Arlington, Vu.
Anonymous. 1975. Office of Biologi-
cal Services begins environmental
studies. Bio Science 25(11):759.
Bailey, R.G. 1975. Ecoregions of the
United States. U.S. Forest Service
Planning Memorandum (limited dis-
tribution)
Beard, J.S. 1949. A natural vegelu-
lion of the windward and leeward
islands. Oxford Forestry Memoirs2l.
192 p.
Bormann, F.H. 1976. An Inseparable
Linkage: Conservation of Natural
Ecosystems and the Conservation of
Fossil Energy. Bioscience 26:754-760.
Building Construction Cost Data.
1975. Ed. R.S. Godfrey. Robert Snow
Means Company, Inc., Duxbury,
Mass.
Burgess, Robert L. 1965. Potential
Vegetation of the United States.
Ecology 46(4)568-570.
Burgess. Robert L. 1975. General
Vegetation Cover of the ERDA Oak
Ridge Reservation, Tennessee. En-
vironmental Sciences Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
Classification Task Group Report.
Council on Environmental Quality
and Federal Council for Science and
Technology, 1974. The Role of
Ecology in the Federal Government.
U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Federal Committee on Ecological
Reserves. 1975. Charter of the
Federal Corvmittee on Ecological
Reserves. Federal Register.
40l38l:8127-8.
Franklin, Jerry F. 1977. The Biosphere
Reserve Program in the United
Stutes. Science 195:262.267.
Franklin, Jerry F. 1977. Scientific Re-
serves in the Pacific Northwest and
their Significance for Ecological Re-
search. In Proceedings of the Sym-
posium onTerrestrial and Aquatic
Ecological Studies of the Northwest.
Eastern Washington State College
Press, Cheney. 195-208.
Franson. Robert. 1975. The Legal
Aspects of Ecological Reserve Crea-
lion and Management in Canada. In-
ternational Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources.
Morges, Switzerland.
Humke,Jottn W., Barry S. Tindall and
Robert E. Jenkins. 1975. The Preser-
vation of Natural Diversity: A Survey
and Recommendations. Final Report
to the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Washington, D.C.: The Nature Con-
Johnson, W.E. and J.R. Vallentyne.
1971. Rationale, background and
development ot experimental lake
studies in Northwestern Ontario. J.
Rsh. Res. Bd. Canada 28:2:23~128.
Kemp, Homer T. and Robert L.
Burgess. The National Biological
Monitoring Inventory: A potential atd
to planning environmental impact
statements. In: J.J. Reisa fed.),
Biological Evaluation of Environmen-
tal Impact. Council on Environmental
Quality, Washington, D.C. fin press).
Kiichfer, A.W. 1964. Potential natural
vegetation of the conferminous
United States. Amer. Geog. Soc.
Spec. Pub. 36, New York. Map in col-
or, at 1:3, 168,000. plus manual, 116 p.
MAB Task Force, 1974. Programme
on Man and the Biosphere (MAB).
Criteria and guidelines for the choice
and establishment of biosphere
reserves. MAB Report Series No. 22.
61 p.
National Commission on Water
Quality. 1976. Report to Congress.
U.S. Govt Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation Grants
and Awards fur Fiscal Year 1972.
National Science Foundation, Wash-
ington, D.C.
National Science Foundation Grunts
and Awards for Fiscal Year 1974.
National Science Foundation, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Office of Science and Technology.
Executive Olfice of the President.
1970. Protecting the World Environ-
ment in Light of Population Increase.
Governmenf Printing Ofhce.
Proceedings of the National Environ-
menIal Research Park Symposium,
Idaho Falls, Idaho, Octover 22, 1974.
Donna Parsons, Regional Studies
Center. Idaho Nuclear Energy Com-
mission, 1975.
Schindler, D.W. 1974. Eutrophication
and recovery in experimental lakes.
Implications for lake management.
Science. 184:897-899.
Schindler, D.W. 1977. Evolation of
Phosphorous Limitation in Lakes.
Science 195:260-262.
Schoenbaum, Thomas J. 1976. Nat-
ural Area Preservation in the Soviet
Union and the United States: A Com-
parative Perspecfive.American Jour-
nal of Comparufive Law. 24:521-539.
Whitson, Paul. 1976. Clarification of
the vegetation gaps in the FRNA
system. Working paper of the Federal
Committee on Ecological Reserves.
Washington, D.C. National Science
Foundation.
40
PAGENO="0237"
233
PAGENO="0238"
234
1. Immediate establishment of the netwcrk of Experimental Eco- 2. EER network planning must
logical Reserses proposed in this report is esserrtai for eflect:se continueinordertoidwttifyop-
psrse.t of ecolog;cat research and env~rcnmen!a asressrnerrt. It pomanities t or ea?abttehtng
a uroent because natural ecosystems ere raprdy disoppear:-rg. coordInated research
The following steps are recommended: programs which meet eden-
11Cc needs and national en-
vironmental goals.
Eu-n' aeansrtc-'- a cs- * E-~z- :e `cc s..c'uar ~., . - - -
p r
h
me-ace--re-ru a-1r2u'sr~ ;-ae'ns;ee~-,.-c~ u'- zcr&1J2~: - -~
p ,,- ~- a ~1~~
soasre-se- ac-e---,- -. ucccau,&EePraarrr:c-a
p-aeor'one~ cc c-" - ~ a-'tocrt se-tees erect-
use-s a-S co-sc runt-u re ~ . ~ ~-.: ~ * Cr-rurun czuuurr~s~r a' o-
5 Ce-r--rcee-etc:r;scrEaR - rpur-a! cr-ore:-: err r~acr-c
srte manage-s ens the : - -. sea mz-r-rua:r.c eao:;urcne:
ç0 ~ U
P CR1 -
`a ctrab--cr tee easu'turr -- - - a r-ccnrr-ur `c-s `7-11 23-
a
`cc 6-C- r.,inuau -672
Ideerty research c-ear
mE-cC w- cart--cry to the
grss. - --
S OOtCtc flea `rk~ be- -- -~
t1rr the ncr-ac-h rio pr- -
p::c:r:n-r or e::o;-ca detc -
-- - ,: - -. 6-rPrr /
Thee-en-s
;retcacaarea,n:,,~.G-a_ra c;-~rc.c-y-u -
PAGENO="0239"
235
Nattonat Science Foundation
THIRD CLASS
Bath Rate
Project Management t'~i V ` a'~ea cv (Mccv Dre Advisory Committee
C'L"M,cc,cSaaL,~asl~ ta'~,ue'c_Cr*,"nCc'e9' MC'a'Ja~'t Eeuae'&,c~a
Pvese'ae
`tcch Gel R'eqe taa( - /` st " Pc";? ~ cad
DevrcceesA&na,st~atcr Rs"c, U "seas A&Vc,fr"flP' `~
`e, (,t',~c,'e'flk'ehc'ao `,`e Do,"'" A a'te"'c' o' k (a
LCaesc,,MCccd'
Pro1ect Planning Ccmmtttne a'c - - u ~ -y t'
r I ((` S
- `` 5,5,-,' Vvr"a `osat ``,,`Xc?s
P is Stall dSt eel y
TheG:~'e `t,~'o~ l"-'~-~ ` ~fr,-a~~,'' -`
`-el `e' I' 70- ~4e(J'v Co-a"a " -ave a Iv s so' ~`v tar j'~ a,, p , i 7' s Na' -
a `A c' ha'- cc S-au Up-n-v Foe' qy Sassy
~e 4~aae `,`u~a Th Vsttea: Stajeta*Gáe
-Ratthtafl at? ~ Casas Stttvc ~ a- -, ci~vS~Ge eev*vøSaeó'
~t'~S PswR~s sat' ~-s'ar
I ~tZ~ ~`tLZ7~
r ~`ttante ~w"aotss~ a-A ,~, cailaetjeaeei attlitsnesAsMeataw
It,*-~tta e ut~aspw o*saee ,a ~ $sM-t, SA~ U
aaPo TeMv~ $`nae*ttetiteflty `tc~. ~eW- ,ctt A-n S iv a W,S*t554*tttt *a
stae~tn t, iv,, s'g~t~ ~, ~ em iSe~s Mst?4"m Stases
a*M*atty
SIte Assessment Panel
GSa' v. (cv "S F C `a' The trtstittah. at Ecology (TIE)
-it---, -`:~,`o- as,- v -cc -csi. -a''t''
SF ,~
PAGENO="0240"
236
Dr. BROOKS. Thank you, sir.
So are we. I should indicate that this report does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Foundation. The Foundation will require
time to elicit and assess the response of the concerned segments of
the scientific community to the report before formulating its own
recommendations.
Dr. George Lauff, director of the Kellogg Biological Station of
Michigan State University, was in charge of this project, and he
will describe the history, scope, and contents of this report in his
testimony before you today.
I would like to present briefly to this subcommittee a review of the
role of activities supported by the Division of Environmental Biology
in addressing attention to environmental research reserves, which are
the subject of these hearings.
Environmental biologists have long expressed concern about the
enduring availability of protected field sites necessary for their
research.
Two kinds of sites are required, depending upon the principal method
of study. These are (1) sites for observational, nonmanipulative re-
search and (2) sites for experimental manipulation.
Of course, the latter sites will also be available for observational
research and especially for long-term ecological research, which will
make any desired manipulations much more meaningful.
The primary requirements for the first are quality and appropriate-
ness of the site and protection from extraneous threats.
An example of such research would be a long-term study of the
natural replacement of tree species in a particular topographic
setting.
Observational research sites are compatible with most conservation
and preservation goals. Experimental or manipulative research sites,
on the other hand, are quite different in that experimental alterations
of the natural system must be possible.: Experimental manipulation
might be the clearcutting of a forested watershed, or the fertilizing of
a hectare of short-grass prairie.
While such activity at individual sites may seem to be incompati-
ble with some aspects of conservation, the insights derived from such
experimental studies could well help to establish a scientific basis for
decisions on conservation and preservation activities and practices.
Projects supported in several of the research programs in this
Division require sites for observational research, or manipulations
of a minor extent. But in the Ecosystem Studies Program. many of the
projects require sites allowing manipulative research. Examples are
the several biome projects supported under the aegis of the Inter-
national Biological Program-IBP.
Indeed, several activities under IBP have been involved in the
focusing of attention upon the need for both kinds of environmental
research sites.
Dr. Whitson in later testimony will mention the role of the Con-
servation of Ecosystems Project of the IBP in establishing the first
Federal interagency inventory of Federal landholdings available for
observational research and baseline studies.
PAGENO="0241"
237
These reserves were designated Research Natural Areas. In another
facet of the IBP-the biome projects-needs arose for protected sites
for experimental research.
The groups of largely academic scientists in the biome projects
turned to land owned by various Federal agencies to find the sites
needed for their large-scale research activities. A list of the Biome
Projects and the Federal lands involved is as follows:
FEDERAL LANDS USED AS IBP-BIOME FIELD SITES
Biome: Site designation State Agency
Desert:
Curlew Valley Utah USDI/BLM
Desert experimental range Utah USDA/FS
Santa Rita experimental range Arizona USDA/FS
Silverbell Bajada Arizona USDI/BLM
Jornada experimental range New Mexico USDA/FS
Death Valley National Monument California USDI/NPS
Grassland:
Central Plains experimental range Colorado USDA/ARS
(Within Pawnee National Grassland) - USDA/FS
Jornada experimental range New Mexico USDA/FS
Pacific Southwest forest and range experiment station California USDA/FS
Arid lands ecology site (administered by Battelle Northwest) Washington ERDA
Gallatin NationalForest Montana USDA/FS
Deciduous:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tennessee ERDA
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory North Carolina USDA/FS
Conifer:
H. J. Andrews experimental forest Oregon USDA/FS
Priest River experimental forest Idaho USDA/FS
Fort Valley experimental forest Arizona USDA/FS
Beaver Creek pilot watershed Arizona USDA/FS
Little South Fork of the Cache La Poudre River Colorado LJSDA/FS
San Juan Mountains Colorado U5DA/FS
Cache National Forest Utah USDA/FS
Bonanza Creek Alaska USDA/FS
With the rapid development of knowledge concerning ecological
interrelationships and the increasing capability of scientists to execute
sophisticated field research, there has been renewed emphasis in devel-
oping a plan for a network of representative research sites.
Dr. Whitson will talk more about the sites for observational re-
search. Dr. Lauff will describe the NSF supported study that outlines
a possible national network of sites for experimental research. We are
pleased that the report of this project has been brought to your
attention.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Brooks.
Has there been an effort to involve levels of government other than
the Federal Government in these activities? There are many States
and localities which have large inventories of land that might be suit-
able, but as far as the researCh network is concerned, many States and
local governments might be interested in participating.
Dr. BROOKS. Yes; for research in natural areas, which Dr. Whitson
knows more about, there has been a great deal of interest shown by
State and local government in the activities of the Federal committee.
Dr. Whitson has done a fine job in maintaining a liaison with all of
the interested levels of government. For the Experimental Ecolooical
Reserves, again, Dr. Lauff will testify, but I can state that at least
98.513 0 - 77 - 16
PAGENO="0242"
238
one State site is included as well as a fair number of privately owned
sites that are managed in relation to the universities. So, in. brief,
these other levels have been included.
Mr. BROWN. All right. Dr. Whitson?
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL D. WHITSON, STAFF ASSOCIATE, EXECU-
TIVE SECRETARY OF THE FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON ECOSYSTEM
RESERVES
Dr. WHITSON. Thank you. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
share with you and the subcommittee information on two topics, the
Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves and the Federal Research
Natural Area System.
The Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves had its origin in
President Johnson's special message to the Congress in early 1966.
This message contained a directive to advance "our scientific under-
standing of natural plant and animal communities," which in turn
stimulated the formation of a review committee within tue Depart-
ments of Interior and Agriculture to evaluate the status of natural
land and water resources within the respective agency programs.
Further impetus came from the imminent participation of the
United States in the International Biological Program (IBP), which
emphasized the analysis and conservation of ecosystems.
As a result of these events, the Federal Committee on Research Nat-
ural Areas was informally established in 1966.
The initial group of founding agencies was joined by other land-
administering agencies-the Department of Defense, the Atomic En-
ergy Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
This group, with assistance from the IBP Committee on Conserva-
tion of Ecosystems, conducted a land review and transmitted its find-
ings to the President in a 1968 report of the Office of Science and
Technology entitled "Advancing Scientific Understanding of Natural
Communities."
The report outlined the need for a-
Mr. BROWN. If I may interrupt, the problem you just described of
reviewing a large inventory and coming up with a selection of some-
thing or other, is a generic problem. You have enough familiarity to
know whether or not there was any difficulty in this process.
I would like to know if we have a computer compatible inventory
with enough information on each discrete parcel of land that we could
set criteria into the machine and run it through and come up with the
answer to a question, such as, what are the 10 best areas for this or that?
Are we close to being able to do that?
Dr. WHITSON. This particular survey is computer compatible. The
information is in the computer now, and you could query it for
particulars.
The detail of the information, I cannot personally attest to, but I
know there are in the neighborhood of 3,100 sites listed.
Mr. BROWN. At least we are moving in the right direction.
Dr. WHITSON. In the right direction; yes.
The report also outlined the need for a system of reserves repre-
senting the Nation's natural land and water ecosystems. It also de-
scribed the need for an interagency committee to coordinate natural
area programs and reported that 336 research natural areas were avail-
able for observational studies.
PAGENO="0243"
239
These are detailed in "A Directory of Research Natural Areas on
Federal Lands of the United States of America, 1968."
I could enter a copy of that particular report.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, that will be received into the Com-
mittee files.
Dr. WHITSON. From 1969 until 1974 several unsuccessful attempts
were made to establish the Federal Committee on a more formal basis.
The purpose of my testimony today is to try to give you a picture
of the new interest which was generated in 1974 with assistance and
leadership from the National Science Foundation and the Council on
Environmental Quality.
In November, these two agencies chartered the Federal Committee
on Ecological Reserves with 19 members, and I will not read through
those. They are in the formal statement.
Except for the Office of Land Use and Water Planning, which was
discontinued, all of the original 19 members still participate in the
committee; the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Tennessee Valley
Authority have recently assumed membership as well.
In addition, a number of national professional organizations have
provided significant assistance to the committee since its formation.
State institutions, agencies, organizations and others have begun to
request assistance and information from the FCER. To handle this in-
creased activity and flow of information, the National Science Founda-
tion has provided an executive secretary for the committee, and I have
filled that post since January 1976.
The present charge to the committee is to exercise leadership in the
development of a coherent national resource plan of natural land
reserves in order to ensure progress of the ecological and environmental
sciences in the United States.
To carry out its charge, the committee has focused its activities on
the following objectives, which were published in the Federal Register
in 1975.
I can submit these, and they are also included in the statement.
[The list of objectives follows:]
1. To insure creation and maintenance of an adequate national sy~tem of nat~
ural and experimental areas for environmental and ecological research including
identification, designation, and protection of the essential areas. Included here are
major responsibilities for working with Federal land agencies on those system
components which are Federal lands and for leadership and encouragement with
regard to components in state, local and private lands.
2. To insure development of permanent data retrieval systems on the location
of the areas and the ecologic~1 and environmental data available for each to
service: (a) the research and development community who need such areas;
(b) the land planning agencies at Federal, State and local levels; and (c) dee!-
sionmakers and agencies in the environmental area.
3. To encourage development of research programs, particularly collection of
baseline ecological and environmental data on these key national research sites
and their use for long-term monitoring.
4. To encourage a broad array of education uses of ecological reserves, insofar
as compatible with their specific objectives and functions.
5. To lead in developing the structures for coordinating Federal activities with
those of State and local governments, academic groups and private organizations
concerned with scientific reserves and experimental areas.
Dr. WnrrsoN. The first one was to insure creation and maintenance
of an adequate national system of natural and experimental areas for
environmental and ecological research including identification, desig-
nation, and protection of the essential areas. Included here are major
PAGENO="0244"
240
responsibilities for working with Federal land agencies on those sys-
tern components which are Federal lands and for leadership and
encouragement with regard to components in State., local, and private
lands.
The second is to insure development of permanent data retrieval
systems on the location of the areas and the ecological and environ-
mental data available for each to service.
The third is to encourage development, of research programs, partic-
ularly collection of baseline ecological and environmental data on
these key national research sites and their use for long-term
monitoring.
The fourth is to encourage a broad array of education uses of eco-
logical reserves, insofa.r as compatible with their specific objectives
and functions.
The fifth is to lead in developing the structures for coordinating
Federal activities with those of State and local governments, academic
groups and private organizations concerned with scientific reserves
and experimental areas.
In other words, in practice, the committee has a special concern
for Ecological Reserves which are those areas dedicated primarily or
exclusively to scientific research and education on ecological and
environmental problems.
These reserves include (1) Research Natural Areas, where natural
processes are allowed to dominate and where management is designed
to preserve a given ecosystem or feature; and (2) Experimental Eco-
logical Areas, where various kinds of experiments or management
practices can be conducted to provide new knowledge or serve as
demonstrations.
A subset of this kind of area is the Experimental Ecological Reserve
to be discussed by Dr. Lauff.
Although the FCER has not existed for long, it has been able to
draw on the extensive experience and expertise of the Federal agencies
and others who have been involved in the preservation and manage-
ment of our land resources.
With the growing concern over the need for a strong national land
resource plan, and with the emergence of several governmental and
private efforts to create natural and experimental area systems, it has
become imperative to establish an information center to inter-relate
these activities and to improve coordination.
The committee, with its broad representative and liaison oppor-
tunity, hopes to play a leading role in this effort.
To this end, the committee expects to continue to work on gathering
information about the constituent areas of the Research Natural Areas
system.
The committee will suggest new experimental areas for designation
in this system, with particular emphasis on evaluating the effects of
management and action programs.
The second topic I would like to describe is the Federal Research
Natural Area System.
The Federal Land management agencies have been actively devel-
oping a national system of Research Natural Areas since 1927.
This system has grown to the current 389 areas covering 4.4 million
acres in 46 States and 1 territory.
PAGENO="0245"
241
Each area' is administered by one of eight cooperating agencies:
Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture; Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior; Air
Force in the Department of Defense; Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration; and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
From the inception of the program there have been two primary
purposes for developing a comprehensive and representative system
of Research Natural Areas:
1. To preserve a representative array of all significant natural
ecosystems and their inherent processes as baseline areas.
This action provides a potential range of diversity, including com-
mon, rare, and endangered species or disjunct populations.
2. To obtain through education and observational research, informa-
tion about natural system components, inherent processes, and com-
parisons with representative manipulated systems.
The system provides several specific advantages to the Nation's
scientific community; namely:
1. The potential use of an area that has had minimal human inter-
ference and has a reasonable assurance of long-term existence.
2. The potential availability of diverse or multiple data sets for
analysis of factor inter-relationships or temporal sequences.
3. The potential association with scientists of different disciplines
leading toward scientific discoveries unlikely to occur without such
association.
These values not only assist the investigator and science, but also
provide the administering agencies with an information base with
which to optimize their resource management decisions.
Inter-related with system preservation and the intrinsic scientific
information are the numerous future options the system provides to
society, especially with respect to genetic and land resource potential.
The Research Natural Area (RNA) designation is used by the
Federal land administering agencies to establish areas on which fea-
tures and processes are preserved with minimal human intervention
for research and educational purposes.
This designation differs from other classifications such as wilder-
ness, sanctuary, refuge, or preserve, in that the latter designations
often have broader use-management objectives than the preservation
scientific applications of the RNA system.
As initially conceived by the RNA founders, an RNA should contain
an exemplary tract of vegetation along with its major supporting
factors. -
In recent years, however, the range of features designated has ex-
panded to include: typical or unusual floristic and/or faunistic assem-
blages, characteristic or unusual geologic, pedologic, or aquatic fea-
tures, or characteristic or unusual processes.
At the time of designation, a significant effort is made to assure
that adequate conditions are provided to insure longevity of the
feature
Presently, a designated area may range in size from a few to several
thousand acres and may possess one or more features of interest
Each participating agency has a different procedure leading to the
designation of an RNA In generil, the on site staff inventories the
PAGENO="0246"
242 S
land resources to identify potential sites. Each area recommended by
the inventory is documented by an agency report which details the
features and proposed management plan.
It is important to note that the Research Natural Area system does
not have special legislative protection. The protection of the areas is
derived only from the various authorities of the individual agencies
which designate them.
All agencies employ a similar set of regulations to insure the pro-
tection of the educational and scientific values in their management and
use of Research Natural Areas.
The committee has developed a set of standards and policy guide-
lines to provide greater uniformity. in system definitions, objectives,
classification, selection, use, management, and on preserving and pro-
tecting the features of each area by controlling any disruptive use,
encroachment, and development.
An activity such as logging, grazing, burning or restocking is pro-
hibited unless it replaces natural processes and thus contributes to the
protection and preservation of the designated feature.
Such a practice is invoked only after thorough research and testing
indicate that it adequately or favorably benefits the feature. In such
an instance, a portion of the tract is left untreated as a control to verify
the practice.
No agency has purposely encouraged public use of RNA's through
publicity or recreational development. However, some peripheral
nature trails and interpretive signs have been established and more
can be anticipated as these undisturbed sites become subject to in-
creased public attention.
Scientific use of RNAs by responsible scientists and educators is en-
couraged, providing their activities will not impair or threaten the
features of the area.
The research activities must be essentially nondestructive in charac-
ter. The limitRtions on use vary with the particular tract, its features,
and the managing agency's regulations. An agency may place increased
restrictions on some areas or portions of areas that it deems fragile or
hazardous. The purpose of these use restrictions is to insure that the
scientific and educational values of the tract are not impaired, to accu-
mulate a documented body of knowledge about the tract, and to assist
the agency in coordinating research studies.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. BROWN. Your statement is very interesting. It is a helpful pres-
enration, Dr. Whitson. S
I am interested in how your committee functions~ the Federal Com-
mittee on Ecological Reserves. Apparently it has 19, 20, 21 members,
something like that. How does it fit into whatever structure it
should fit into?
Particularly in the scientific area in the structure, how do you evalu-
ate the effectiveness of this particular type of approach to a compli-
cated problem, as compared with setting up a new Bureau of Ecological
Reserves in some departmentS to administer a systemwide program?
Dr. Wm'rsoN. I will attempt to answer these questions.
Each of the 20 agencies has a representative on the committee, and
PAGENO="0247"
243
this individual meets with the full committee, usually on a monthly
basis, at which time-
Mr. BROWN. That is fairly frequently.
Dr. WIJITSON. Fairly frequently, yes.
At which time various issues are brought before the committee by
individual committee members or by a cochairman-one appointed
from the National Science Foundation and one from the Council on
Environmental Quality. During the past 18 months, I, as executive
secretary, have assisted in bringing various issues before the committee.
Once an issue was identified, it was discussed until some consensus was
reached.
I think that this has been one of the important activities of this com-
mittee. Members come from differing backgrounds and represent agen-
cies with differing mandates. When they focus on an issue, numerous
aspects and implications are expressed. And therefore, if and when a
consensus is reached, it usually is comprehensive and can have a broad
base of support.
The committee, as a general rule, offers recommendations to the
member agencies in terms of some particular aspect of research of
natural areas.
Mr. BROWN. You say the committee was chartered by time National
Science Foundation and CEQ.
Under what authority, and by what method was this charter estab-
lished?
Dr. WmTsoN. I would like to defer to Dr. Clark, as these events
occurred before I arrived here.
Dr. CLARK. I am sure that Dr. Franklin, who was at NSF at the time,
could give precise details. But it is my recollection that Dr. Stevens in
his capacity as Science Adviser, made the request in cooperation with
Chairman Petersen of CEQ. The request, :inviting membership and
participation in the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, came
jointly from CEQ and NSF.
At that point, I think t:he committee worked to establish and to de-
velop the grounds of chartering. We were delighted to see that so many
agencies voluntarily agreed to participate.
Mr. BROWN. Is the charter in which it was formed, is it in written
form, so it is fairly clear?
Dr. WrnTsoN. I could submit it.
(See Dr. Talbot's testimony, page 294.)
Mr. BROWN. Fine.
Dr. CLARK. With the changes that have occurred in the establish-
ment of the new Office of Science amid Technology Policy, and the pro-
posed regrouping of the whole Federal committee and interagency
committee structure, what its official standing may be in the future is a
little hard to say. But I think there is enough activity and interest so
it will persist even without forma.l recognition. That would certainly
be my hope.
Mr. BROWN. All right.
I would like to, afterI have reviewed the material, perhaps explore
a little bit further.
Just as I have said many times, I have an interest in organizational
innovation, and how organizations work, so this may provide some
helpful information.
Now, you have presented an interesting and positive kind of descrip-
tion of the program, and of the committee, and of its activities, as I
would expect, but there must be some negative aspects, some problems
PAGENO="0248"
244
that you have not been able to resolve. I wondered if you might just
give a moment's thought to what the negative aspects of this might
be, to give us a little balance. What major obstacles have you not been
able to overcome in this program?
Dr. WrnTsoN. I think probably one of the greatest difficulties is
trying to work with 20 agencies, and to carry on the various activities
with which they would like to proceed. Another is that the committee
has no staff and no budget to carry out some of the activities the com-
mittee might wish to do. I think those would be perhaps the more
outstanding negative aspects. Another negative aspect is the long time
required for certain things to go through the mill, when you are
dealing with 20 agencies. Looked at another way, this might be seen
as a conservative approach to a positive end.
Mr. BROWN. Concerning the problem that I originally suggested of
having some sort of an automated inventory system, it seems to me
that to get maximum benefit from the program, you are going to have
to continually seek to improve this aspect of the operation, that is, to
have some coherent way in which you can accumulate and record
increasing amounts of data in a systematic way, and make it available
to a wide user audience clientele.
Who runs that part of the show? Whose programers do you use,
and all that sort of thing?
Dr. WrnTSON. For the past 18 months the Ecosystems Studies Pro-
gram at the National Science Foundation has assisted us in developing
under contract with The Nature Conservancy the feasibility of an auto-
mated data system. This is now up and running in terms of the ability
to query rather detailed questions concerning research at the 389 sites
currently in the system.
At this point, the cochairman and I have been encouraging the com-
mittee to develop some mechanism to maintain the developed system,
if they deem it appropriate, keeping the data current, as well as ex-
panding the system to include more than detailed information on
research in natural areas.
The contract with The Nature Conservancy also included entering
data on quite a number of other ecological reserves but the informa-
tion on these is not quite as detailed as that on the research natural
areas.
* There are approximately 1,200 sites in this particular data bank.
One of the important issues that the committee must face in the next
management.
Mr. BROWN. Assuming that you solve the information management
problem within the next year, and it does not necessarily call for a cen-
tralized computer, or centralized staff to operate it, it theans you
have to have a common format and an interchange of information.
You have hinted at the utility of this system in connection with the
general problems of land use planning and analysis.
Now, the Congress is fumbling toward a more comprehensive na-
tional land use planning mandate, of one sort or other, while in a num-
ber of very specific areas, it is mandating rather expensive land use
planning. I think if we ever pull all of the pieces together, it would
PAGENO="0249"
245
amaze a lot of people to know the degree to which we have mandated
comprehensive land use planning for the Forest Service, the Park
Service, BLM, many other Federal landholding agencies, and even the
Soil Conservation Service in its relationship to private land.
All of these relate to the functions that you are performing, and I
wonder if there is any effort to integrate the policy aspects of this
matter?
Dr. WrnTsoN. It was in connection with this matter that I referred
to the Federal Committee's set of standard policy guidelines for the
Research Natural Areas. I hope that the committee can begin to act as
one of the leaders in developing the coordination of State and local
lands with Federal lands. With the experience that the committee
has already had in fostering interagency coordination, I think the
committee is prepared to take many of the hurdles involved in work-
ing with various State agencies, `and also with the private sector.
Mr. BROWN. As long as we confine this to the research aspects, and
define ecological or environmental research very broadly, I do not
think we. run into insurmountable policy or political problems. But
when we get into the operating aspects of the land management pro-
gram, we run into all sorts of interesting problems.
Of course, the science of ecology is supposed to be an integrating
discipline, one that can pull together a lot of different kinds of prob-
lems, and we look to you for a solution as to how we handle these more
difficult policy problems.
I am sure you can come up with an answer.
Dr. BROOKS. We hope so.
Dr. CLARK. We need a little more time, and a little more money.
Mr. BROWN. Well, it is a very important and worthwhile program,
and I trust we will be able to give it the support it requires.
I think that you have been doing very well so far, and I think that
is because you have been able to utilize resources which you already
have, and to use this as a vehicle which you can optimize the use of
these resources.
There comes a time of course when you cannot rely on that to meet
all of your needs. When you need a $600 million computer to store all
of your data, for example, that is difficult.
All right. Thank you very much, and again, as I said before, the
previous panel got the same message, there is a great deal more we
could explore here, but I am sure that our later witnesses would like to
have lunch, so we do thank you very much.
Dr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, could I add one comment. I would like
the record to show an expression of gratitude from NSF to Dr. Whit-
son for !his efforts for the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves.
Mr. BROWN. He works for free, does he? [Laughter.]
Dr. CLARK. Well, not for free, but he is on loan from his university,
so certainly he has been very important, and also may I express our
gratitude to the project directors and to the contributors of the report
"Experimental Ecological Reserves." I think it will be a very helpful
itnd beneficial contribution.
[The prepared statements of Dr.' Whitson and Dr. Brooks follow:]
PAGENO="0250"
246
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WHITSON,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGICAL RESERVES,
AND STAFF ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JULY 29, 1977
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MENDERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
History and Membership
The Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves (FCER) had its origin in
President Johnson's Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and
Restoration of Natural Beauty in early 1966. This Message contained a
directive to advance "our scientific understanding of natural plant and
animal communities," which in turn stimulated the formation of a review
committee within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to evaluate
the status of natural land and water resources within the resoective
agency programs. Further impetus caIne from the imminent participation
of the United States in the International Biological Program (IBP), which
emphasized the analysis and conservation of ecosystems. As a result of
these events, the7~deral Committee on Research Natural Areas was
informally established in 1966.
The initial group of founding agencies was joined by other land-
administering agencies -- the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy
Comf~ission and the Tennessee Valley Authority. This group, with assist-
/ance from the IBP Committee on Conservation of Ecosystems, conducted a
land review and transmitted its findings to the President in a 1968
report of the Office of Science and Technology entitled Advancing Scien-
tific Understanding of Natural Communities. The report outlined the
need for a system of reserves representing the nation's natural land and
PAGENO="0251"
247
water ecosystems. It also described the need for an interagency committee
to coordinate natural area programs and reported that 336 Research Natural
Areas were available for observational studies. These are detailed in
A Directory of Research Natural Areas on Federal Lands of the United
States of America, 1968. From 1969 until 1974 several unsuccessful
attempts were made to establish the Federal Committee on a more formal
basis.
The purpose of my testimony today is to try to give you a picture of
the new interest which was generated in 1974 with assistance and leadership
fran the National Science Foundation and the Council on Environmental
Quality. In November, these two agencies chartered the Federal Committee
on Ecological Reserves with the following 19 members:
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Bureau of Land Management, USD1
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USD1
Cooperative State Research Service, USDA
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Defense
Department of Transporation
Energy Research and Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
F ~h and Wildlife Service, USD1
Forest Service, USDA
General Services Administration
Geological Survey, USD1
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDC
National Park Service, USD1
National Science Foundation
Off ice of Land Use and Water Planning, USD1
Smithsonian Institution
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Except for the Office of Land Use and Water Planning, which was discontinued,
all of the original 19 members still participate in the Committee; the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the Tennessee Valley Authority have recently assumed
PAGENO="0252"
248
membership as well. In addition, a number of national professional organi-
zations have provided significant assistance to the Committee since its
formation. -
State institutions, agencies, organizations and others have begun to
request assistance and information from the FCER. To handle this increased
activity and flow of information, the National Science Foundation has
provided an Executive Secretary for the Committee, and I have filled
that post since January 1976.
Present cbjectives and Activities
The present charge to the Committee is to exercise leadership in the
development of a coherent national resource plan of natural land reserves
in order to ensure progress of the ecological and environmental sciences
in the United States. To carry out its charge, the Committee has focused
its activities on the following objectives, which were published in the
Federal Register in 1975.
1. To insure creation and maintenance of an adequate national system of
natural and experimental areas for environmental and ecological
research including identification, designation, and protection of
the essential ~reas. Included hare are major responsibilities for
working with Federal land agencies on those system components
which are Federal lands and for leadership and encouragement with
regard to components in state, local and private lands.
2. To ensure development of permanent data retrieval systems on the
location of the areas and the ecological and environmental data
available for each to service: a) the research and development
community who need such areas; b) the land planning agencies at
Federal, state and local levels; and c) decision makers and
agencies in the environmental area.
3. To encourage development of research programs, particularly collec-
tion of baseline ecological and environmental data on these key
national research sites and their use for long-term monitoring.
PAGENO="0253"
249
4. To encourage a broad array of education uses of ecological
reserves, insofar as compatible with their specific objectives
and functions:
5. To lead in developing the structures for coordinating Federal
activities with those of State and local governments, academic
groups and private organizations concerned with scientific
reserves and experimental areas.
In practice, the Committee has a special concern for Ecological
Reserves which are those areas dedicated primarily or exclusively to
scientific research and education on ecological and environmental problems.
These reserves include (1) Research Natural Areas, where natural processes
are allowed to dominate and where management is designed to preserve a
given ecosystem or feature; and (2) Experimental Ecological Areas, where
various kinds of experiments or management practices can be conducted to
provide new knowledge or serve as demonstrations. A specific subset of
this kind of area is the Experimental Ecological Reserve discussed (or to
be discussed) by Dr. George Lauff.
Future Role
Although the FCER has not existed for very long, it has been able to
draw on the extensive experience a-id expertise of the federal agencies and
others who have been involved in the preservation and management of our
land resources. With the growing concern over the need for a strong
national land resource plan, and with the emergence of several governmental
and private efforts to create natural and experimental area systems, it has
become imperative to establish an information center to interrelate these
activities and to improve coordination.
The Committee, with its broad representative and liaison opportunity,
hopes to play a leading role in this effort. To this end, the Committee
PAGENO="0254"
250
expects to continue its work on gathering information about the constituent
areas of the Research Natural Areas system. The Committee will suggest new
experimental areas for designation in this system, with p~ticular emphasis
on evaluating the effects of management and action programs.
PAGENO="0255"
251
THE FEDERAL RESEARCH NATURAL AREA SYSTEM
Purposes of the System
The Federal land management agencies have been actively developing a
national system of Research Natural Areas (RNAs) since 1927. This system
has grown to the current 389 areas covering 4.4 million acres in 46 states
and one territory. Each area is administered by one of eight cooperating
agencies: Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture; Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Park Service in the Department of the Interior; Air Force in the
Department of Defense; Energy Research and Development Administration; and
the Tennessee Valley Authority.
From the inception of the program there have been two primary purposes
for developing a comprehensive and representative system of Research Natural
Areas:
1. To preserve a representative array of all significant natural
ecosystems and their inherent processes as baseline areas.
This action provides a potential range of diversity, including
common, rare, and endangered species or disjunct populations.
2. To obtain through education and observational research, information
about natural system components, inherent processes, and compari-
sons with representative manipulated systems.
The system provides several specific advantages to the nation's
scientific community, namely:
1. The potential use of an area that has had minimal human inter-
ference and has a reasonable assurance of long-term existence.
2. The potential availability of diverse or multiple data sets for
analysis of factor interrelationships or temporal sequences.
3. The potential association with scientists of different disciplines
leading toward scientific discoveries unlikely to occur without
such association.
PAGENO="0256"
252
These values not only assist the investigator and science, but also provide
the administering agencies with an information base with which to optimize
their resource management decisions.
Interrelated with system preservation and the intrinsic scientific
information are the numerous future options the system provides to society,
especially with respect to genetic and land resource potential.
Recommendation, Selection, and Establishment
The Research Natural Area designation is used by the Federal land
administering agencies to establish areas on which natural features and
processes are preserved with minimal human intervention for research and
educational purposes. This designation differs from other classifications
such as wilderness, sanctuary, refuge, or preserve, in that the latter
designations often have broader use-management objectives than the
preservation/scientific applications of the RNA system.
As initially conceived by the RNA founders, a SEA should contain an
exemplary tract of vegetation along with its major supporting factors. In
recent years, however, the range of features designated has expanded to
include; typical or unusual floristic and/or faunistic assemblages,
characteristic or unusual geologic, pedologic, or aquatic features, or
characteristic or unusual processes. At the time of designation, a signifi
cant effort is made to assure that adequate conditions are provided to
ensure longevity of the feature. Presently, a designated area may range
in size from a few to seeeral thousand acres and may possess one or more
features of interest.
Each participating agency has a different procedure leading to the
designation of a SEA. In general, the on-site staff inventories the land
PAGENO="0257"
253
resources to identify potential sites. Each area recommended by the
inventory is documented by an agency report which details the features
and proposed management plan.
It is important to note that the Research Natural Area system does not
have special legislative protection. The protection of the areas is
derived only from the various authorities of the individual agencies
which designate them.
Management and General Use
All agencies employ a similar set of regulations to ensure *the protec-
tion of the educational and scientific values in their management and use
of Research Natural Areas. The Committee has developed a set of standards
and policy guidelines to provide greater uniformity in system definitions,
objectives, classification, selection, use, management and administrative
policies. The underlying emphasis in RNA management is on preserving and
protecting the features of each area by controlling any disruptive use,
encroachment, and development.
An activity such as logging, grazing, burning or restocking is
prohibited unless it replaces natural processes and thus contributes to
the protection and preservation of the designated feature. Such a practice
is invoked only after thorough research and testing indicate that it
adequately or favorally benefits the feature. In such an instance, a
portion of the tract is left untreated as a control to verify the practice.
No agency has purposely encouraged public use of RNAs through
publicity or recreational development. However, some peripheral nature
trails and interpretive signs have been established and more can be anti-
cipated as these undisturbed sites become subject to increased public
attention.
98-513 0-77-17
PAGENO="0258"
254
Scientific use of RNA5 by responsible scientists and educators is
encouraged, providing their activities will not impair or threaten the
features of the area. The Research activities must be essentially non-
destructive in character. The limitations on use vary with the particular
tract, its features, and the managing agency's regulations. An agency
may place increased restrictions on some areas or portions of areas that
it deems fragile or hazardous. The purpose of these u~e restrictions is
to ensure that the scientific and educational values of the tract are not
impaired, to accumulate a documented body of knowledge about the tract,
and to assist the agency in coordinating research studies.
Nr. chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
PAGENO="0259"
255
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. BROOKS
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATHOSPHERE,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JULY 29, 1977
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITPEE:
Within the National Science Foundation it is the responsibility of
the Division of Environmental Biology to help maintain the vigor of
environmental biology in the United States. We seek to accomplish
this by providing support for projects, emanating primarily from
academic institutions, on systematic and evolutionary biology of all
organisms and the ecology of non-marine parts of the living world.
NSF's Environmental Biology Division provides approximately 80 percent
of the Federal support for research on these subjects at academic
institutions. In addition to its research support programs, the
Division provides operational support for those facilities judged by
the scientific community to be of national significance and thus worthy
o~. support by the Federal government.
In this connection, we made a grant in 1974 to the Institute of
Ecology entitled "Needs for and Feasibility of Experimental
Ecological Reserves." I might note here that The Institute of Ecology,
with the acronym, TIE, is an offshoot of the Ecological Society of
America. TIE was incorporated in 1971 as an international organization
committed to fostering ecological research, particularly research that
is directed toward meeting human needs. The final report of this study
grant has only just been printed, and copies have been provided to the
PAGENO="0260"
256
members of the Subcommittee. The National Science Foundation is pleased
to submit a copy for the hearing record. I want to stress that the
report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation. The
Foundation will require time to elicit and assess the response of the
concerned seg~nents of the scientific community to the report before
formulating its own recommendations. Dr. George Lauff, Director of the
Kellogg Biological Station of Michigan State University, was in charge
of this project and he will describe the history, scope, and contents
of this report in his testimony before you today.
I would like to present briefly to this Subcommittee a review of
the role of activities supported by the Division of Environmental
Biology in addressing attention to environmental research reserves,
which are the subject of these hearings.
Environmental biologists have long expressed concern about the
enduring availability of protected field sites necessary for their
research. Two kinds of sites are required, depending upon the principal
method of study. These are (1) sites for observational, non-manipulative
research and (2) sites for experimental manipulation. The primary
requirements for the first are quality and appropriateness of the site
and protection from extraneous threats. ~n example of such research
would be a long-term study of the natural replacement of tree species
in a particular topographic setting. Cbservational research sites are
compatible with most conservation and preservation goals. Experimental
or manipulative research sites, on the other hand, are quite different
in that experimental alterations of the natural system must be possible.
PAGENO="0261"
257
These sites are, therefore, incompatible with most aspects of conservation
or preservation. An example of an experimental manipulation might be the
clear-cutting of a forested watershed, or the fertilizing of a hectare of
short-grass prairie.
Projects supported in several of the research programs in this
Division require sites for observational research (or manipulations of
a minor extent). But many of the projects supported in the Ecosystem
Studies Program require sites allowing manipulative research. Examples
are the several biome projects supported by that program under the aegis
of the International Biological Program (IBP).
Indeed, several activities under IBP have been involved in the
focusing of attention upon the need for both kinds of environmental
research sites. Dr. Whitson in later testimony will mention the role
of the Conservation of Ecosystems Project of the IBP in establishing
the first Federal inter-agency inventory of Federal landholding available
for observational research and baseline studies. These reserves were
designated Research Natural Areas. In another facet of the IBP -- the
biome projects -- needs arose for protected sites for experimental
research. The groups of largely academic scientists in the Grassland
Biome Project and the Coniferous Forest Biome Project turned to land
owned by the Department of Agriculture to find the sites needed for
their large-scale research activities. (These were the Pawnee Site of
the Central Plains Experimental Range, Colorado, and the H. J. Andrews
Experimental Forest, Oregon, respectively.)
PAGENO="0262"
258
With the rapid development of knowledge concerning ecological inter-
relationships and the increasing capability of scientists to execute
sophisticated field research, there has been renewed emphasis in developing
a plan for a network of representative research sites. Dr. Lauff will
describe the NSF supported study that outlines a possible national network
of sites for experimental research. We are pleased that the report of
this project has been brought to your attention.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
PAGENO="0263"
259
Mr. BROWN. Our next witness is Dr. George Lauff, of the Kellogg
Biological Station.
You may proceed, Dr. Lauff.
STATEMENT OP DR. GEORGE H. LAUPP, COPROJECT MANAGER,
EXPERIMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL RESERVES STUDY, AND DIREC~
TOR, W. K. KELLOGG BIOLOGICAL STATION, MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. LAUFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Since you have been deeply involved in this process,
we look forward to hearing your statement.
Dr. LAUFF. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss the
Experimental Ecological Reserves (EER) project.
Drs. Clark, Brooks, and Whitson have presented an overview of the
rationale and evolution of the EER project. I think it can be summar-
ized in the very brief paragraph noted at the bottom of page 2 in my
testimony. I do not propose to follow the testimony in any detail, but
with your permission, we will move back and forth between the state-
ment and the report.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, the full text will be included in the
record at this point, and you may proceed in any manner that you
wish.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lauff follows:]
PAGENO="0264"
260
Statement of George H. Lauff
Co-Project Manager: Experimental Ecological Reserves CEER) Study
and
Director, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station
Michigan State University
House Committee on Science and Technology
Subcommittee on the Environment aod the Atmosphere
July 28-29, 1977
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I an pleased to have the ojxportunity to meet with you to discuss the
results of the Institute of Ecology's study on Experimental Ecological
Reserves and the need for the long-term availability of field sites for
ecological research. I wish to discuss the rationale for and the results
of the study on Experimental Ecological Reserves, and the need for legislation
to both protect and enhance opportunities for research through the long-term
availability of representative study sites for ecological and other environ-
mental investigations. I also want to describe briefly use of ecological
study areas by our own research faculty as examples of the utility of a
system of field research sites.
The Experimental Ecological Reserves study.
In May, 1974 The Institute of Ecology was awarded a grant from the
National Science Foundation to support a study to evaluate the need and
feasibility of establishment of a network of field resources for experimental
ecological research. Large research sites representative of major ecosystems
and designated for manipulative research are defined in the developing
system of natural land use classification as Experimental Ecological Reserves
(EER). They complement Research Natural Areas (RNA5) in the research reserves
system. RNAs are primarily intended for observational research and can
PAGENO="0265"
261
serve as control sites for the long-term manipulative experimentation provided
for at an EER. The concept of a national system of field research sites is
predicated on the fact that can is an integral part of his environment, and
that assessment of the consequences of human activities on the future
well-being of society and the environment will require a concerted effort
to understand natural and managed ecosystems to. which we are intricately
and inescapedly connected. The existence of a comprehensive array of experi-
mental sites, each representative of the regional environment and offering
the opportunity for manipulative research, could contribute to development
of the experimental data base and theory necessary for effective management
of the nation's natural resources.
During the past two decades ecosystems have been recognized as integral
units of nature. Experimental ecological research is aimed at studying the
components of e~osystems function -- how they came to be the way they are
and how they are affected by man's activities. As ecology moves from a
descriptive toward a predictive discipline, scientists need access tO sites at which
to test their hypotheses. These tests mayinvolve perturbation or application
of some stress and *assessing the response. Such research requires sites under
continuous long-term control for two reasons: experimental treatments may
involve changing the site environment, and the ecological effects take time
to emerge. A network of sites is necessary because effects may differ from
ecosystem to ecosystem.
It is impossible for the scientific community today, to correctly
anticipate all the ecological information that will be needed 25 years or
50 years hence. Yet sites available for certain types of ecological research
are presently limited and are daily being further jeopardized by consumptive
PAGENO="0266"
262
land uses. To answer questions regarding the ecological consequences of
resource utilization and management strategies, sites must contain adequate
natural or control areas and the sites must be of sufficient size to permit
manipulative types of research. The scientific community has recognized
that a whole new staging platform is necessary for broadscale comparative
biological experiments. To examine these complex biological problems,
adequate research sites and facilities must be available.
The approach to the problem of defining the feasibility of a comprehensive
network of sites for experimental ecological research had to be, of
necessity, original in concept and implementation. There existed no common
reservoir of data or recognizable focus of expertise regarding field research
facilities. Further, the spectrum of interests concerned with ecological
research includes federal, state and local agencies, colleges and
universities, and private institutions and organizations. The ownership of
the resource base for the proposed network is equally broad and diverse.
With consideration of these factors, the study was pursued through
coordination of inputs from a broadly-based interdisciplinary group of
scientists who 1) adopted a classification scheme to insure that all major
ecosystems weve covered and considered, 2) inventoried.the existing sites in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 3) developed criteria
for Experimental Ecological Reserves (EER), and 4) evaluated inventoried sites
both in terms of coverage of the classification system and quality of the
sites when compared to the criteria.
A comprehensive classification of ecosystems in the United States is
needed to identify the nation's biotic resources. There is no generally
accepted framework that enables classification, aggregation, and analysis
PAGENO="0267"
263
of data into larger and larger, natural units (systems) and serves as a
reference for land use, resource assessment, and planning on a nationwide
scale.
In the absence of an accepted ecosystem classification, the potential
natural vegetation classification system published by A. W. KUchler in
1964 was used to describe and characterize the ecosystem components of each
site surveyed in the study. KUchler identified 116 vegetational categories
including five mosaic or transitional types. Since the KUchler classification
is based on vegetational characteristics, categories were developed to
classify sites representing inland waters, Great Lakes marine coastal, and
cultural systems.
The inventory process sought data from all known existing sites
having potential for long-termmanipulative ecological research.
This requirement excluded sites which do not have research as an integral
and major part of their purpose, sites which are too small or do not provide
for experimental manipulation and replication, and those lacking long-term
control of research activities. Although some potential sites may have.been
inadvertently omitted, it is believed that the majority of sites which correspond
to the established criteria have been identified. Of the 332 questionnaires
sent to site representatives, all except 23 were returned with some response.
Sites Contacted in EER Project Inventory
Ownership Number Number Forms
or Nanagement Contacted Returned
Federal 140 82
State 5 2
University 169 72
Private 18 15
Total 332 171
PAGENO="0268"
264
Federal agencies were contacted primarily through the Federal Committee on
Ecological Reserves. Some agencies considered all their sites; others
submitted only those they felt to be most highly qualified. The Forest
Service considered 100 siteè, but submitted 66. ERDA considered 18 sites
and submitted 9, while ABS submitted 6 of 12 sites considered. Because of
management agreements with universities, lands owned by the Bureau of Land
Management and by various State agencies were sometimes inventoried as
"university" sites.
Prominence of Federal sites (48 percent) in the inventory is due to the
extensive system of U.S. Forest Service Experimental Forests and Ranges.
This resource, together with the Energy Research and Development Administration
holdings and the Agricultural Research Service experimental sites represent
the major land areas currently available for ecological research. The
collective managed holdings of colleges and universities (42 percent) and
private organizations (9 percent) include the broadest possible spectrum of
field research facilities and also represent a very significant resource.
These sites have been the focal point for much of the ecosystem research
to date. These university and private sites are of great future importance,
since the ecosystems of the United States are incompletely represented
(particularly systems of the Eastern United States and coastal systems in
general) by Federal holdings. There are very few areas at the State level
with a management structure-use directive that is compatible with ERR
concepts, although some may hold future potential. There are obviously many
areas not now designated as research sites but with potential as EERs if
their objectives are modified to include experimental research.
A set of four general criteria were identified to delineate the
essential characteristics of an Experimental Ecological Reserve. These
PAGENO="0269"
265
criteria were used to compare sites within like classification units. In
very abbreviated form, they included the following:
Site ~ the value of the site as a valid representative of a major
ecosystem type, was the highest consideration. In addition to the natural
system, examples of man-managed systems will ultimately be required, but
initial emphasis was on natural systems and selected modified ones. The
resource base must include sufficient size of a homogeneous area to permit
replicate treatments. Control areas exempt from experimental manipulation
were judged to be essential.
Theresearcbj2!Y~ on the site was considered of value, especially as
an existing or planned program to accumulate and maintain baseline information
(physical and biological) which would augment a wide variety of biological
studies. The range of research staff capabilities was important as well
as the quality and intensity of current research activities.
Also of significance, beyond.the availability of the natural resource,
was the ability of the site to provide for the ~gisttcal and ~~j~lit pp9~
of researchers. Laboratories, research equipment, housing facilities, and
reasonable access to the site were items of consideration.
Ancillary benefits, such as preservatiQn of habitats and species, open
space, educational use, and research training program were considered as
minimally important. This does not imply that these benefits are not significant,
for iqdeed they are. However, they were not judged to be essential characteristics
* in implementing the EER program which has a specifically designed purpose of
research.
The evaluation of sites was conducted by a panel of scientists representing
several disciplines and institutional or agency affiliations. Not all criteria
were considered to be of equal significance. Site Quality was considered to
PAGENO="0270"
266
be the most important set of criteria, one half (50 percent) of the total
points assigned. The rationale was simply that in establishing a national
series of sites, the best quality sites should be included, and the
development of poor quality-sites would be counter-productive, especially
under the constraints of limited funding. The quantity and quality of research
activities (25 percent) were considered next most important because they
provide the historical data on which to build and indicate a site-with further
research potential. V
Logistics and support were weighted lower (20 percent) because with
adequate funding~, they can be developed. Finally, ancillary benefits were
given 5 percent of the points.
Sites were evaluated in groups arranged according to major classification V
units to facilitate comparison. The resulting scores were used to compare
sites within classification units and as a test of the overall quality of
existing sites. As a further assessment of the quality of the natural resource
base, a composite site potential score was developed to characterise both
ecosystem representation and its long-term protection or security.
Sites were arranged in groups according to major classification units
and the total score and site potential score compared. As a group, Federal
and State sites have higher site potential scores than private and university
sites. The data indicate that much of the development at field research sites
has occurred at locations that are judged relatively low on the site quality V
* criterion. Future development of facilities at field research sites must
include site quality as a priority consideration.
The most desirable site within each classification unit was selected for
the proposed initial EER network if minimum criteriawas met. Primary
determinants were quality and size of the representative ecosystem. After
PAGENO="0271"
267
these criteria were satisfied, the site having the highest combination of
total and site potential scores was ordinarily selected. Since some sites
include representation of more than one ecosystem, selection was made to
maximize geographic coverage. Also, some of the major ecosystems portrayed
by vegetation assemblages were judged sufficiently large and diverse that
more than one site was selected to obtain more adequate coverage.
The proposed initial network of Experimental Ecological Reserves includes
71 of the 171.sites inventoried; these sites are at 67 locations.
Five of the sites have been grouped into three "composite sites. The sites
are locai~ed in 28 States, including Alaska, in addition to Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. Their distribution results from land use, population,
and related societal pressures that have historically influenced the location
of forests, parks, preserves, and research areas. The sites represent, in
part, the relatively large add unencumbered tracts of land that have been
dedicated for ecological research. In most instances, these lands have a
biological divei~sity and a degree of physical control that have fostered an
interest on the part of the scientific community.
Areas not well represented such as the South Central and North Central
regions have been strongly influended by agriculture, grazing, forestry or
other resource management practices that have tended to reduce or eliminate
all but isolated remnants or preserves of the natural ecosystem.
The ownership or management of the sites is shown in the following
* table. Over 90 percent are owned and managed by Federal agencies or
universities and many have a long history of research as well as research
training. Approximately half of the proposed components of the initial network
(34 sites) are owned and managed by. Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest
PAGENO="0272"
268
Service (23 sites) and the Energy Research and Development Administration -
(7 sites). The University sites number 27. They include both State and
private institutions. Less than 10 percent of the facilities (5 sites)
are owned by private corporations or groups. Only two State sites were
inventoried; one is included as a component of the network.
Approximately 90 percent (980,600 ha) of the total area of the proposed
network of sites is owned by Federal agencies. The majority of the Federal
land in the n~twork is controlled by the Energy Research and Development
Administration (65 percent) and U.S. Forest service (14 percent).
Ownership and Size of Sites in the Initial EER Network
Ownership or Numbe
Management of
Sites
r
Total Area
Avg. Size
of Site
ha
ha
percent
FEDERAL
Agriculture Researc
Service
34
ii
980,593
99,470
89.06
9.03
.
28,841
33,137
Bureau of Land
Management
1
10,400
0.94
10,400
Energy Research and
Development Admin.
7
716,588
65.09
102,370
Forest Service
23
154,135
14.00
6,702
STATE
UNIVERSITY
PRIVATE
1
27
5
11,336
81,867
27,204
1.03
7.44
2.74
11,336
3,032
5,440
TOTALS
67
~J,lOl,O0O
100.00
16,443 Average
By comparison, university (7.4 percent) and private lands (2.5 percent) are
limited in total area but they are disproportionately important because of
location and ecosystems represented.
- The average size of sites is again largest for federally owned facilities
(28;84o ha), with the very large sites being those of the Energy Research
and Development Administration. The Agricultural Research Service and the
Bureau of Land Management sites are also large. The average area of the
PAGENO="0273"
269
Forest Service is 6,700 ha. The average size of university-owned sites is
3,000 ha.
Fifty-nine (or half) of the 116 KUchler (1964) potential vegetation types,
including transition zones, are represented in the array of 67 sites in the
initial network. These types cover 72 percent of the area of the conterminous
United States. Some of the sites have limited representation of other Ktichler
types but the area available is too small for replication of experiments. U.S.
Biosphere Reserves provide representation of at least 13 additional KUchler
* types including 9 in the conterminous states and 4 in Alaska.
* Approximately one-third of the conterminous United States is represented
by the 34 Federal sites which were assigned to 37 KUchler types. Owing to
their greater number and wider distribution, the Forest Service sites. include
the broadest spectrum of vegetational assemblages. The ERDA laboratories (as
Representation of Vegetation Types By Sites in the Initial EER Network
Federal *
34
(ha)
28,841
37
33.22
Agricultural Research
*
33,157
*
3
2.28
Bureau of Land I
Management
1 *
10,400
---
.
---
Energy Research and
Development Adam.
7
102,370
102,370
8
12.99
Forest Service
23
6,702
.
26
17.95
State
University
Private
1
27
5
11,336
3,042
5,440
* 1
* 17
4
2.19
32.69
4.23
TOTALS 67
16,443
Average
59
72.33
98-513 0 - 77 - is
PAGENO="0274"
270
a group) do not have as great a diversity of vegetation types, but
contribute large size and an intensive research history.
The university sites represent 17 Kiichler vegetation units, despite the
relatively~ small total land area controlled by academic institutions. This
is the result in some instances of deliberate selection to obtain areas with
the greatest biological diversity that a region could offer. Many university
field research stations are located on transition zones or ecotones. Lake
Itasca Forestry- and Biological Station (Minnesota) is an exanplC. The
scientific value of the EER depends not only upon the quality and representa-
tiveness of its natural ecosystems, but also on the extent to which it
includes examples of managed and perturbed systems.
Need for Legislation to Protect, ~pp~ and Enhance Field Research
Opportunities
The establishment and effectiveness of the proposed initial network of
EERs, as well as its future enhancement to develop the long-term ecological
data base required for management of the nation's natural resources, is dependent
on legislative support.
Protection -
It is very important .that I point out that the initial EER network and
its core of research sites can be established now. ti'elay will decrease fvture
options. There is good. coverage of the major natural terrestrial features
of the United States. Over 70 percent of the conterminous United States
is represented by vegetation classificaticn units. All the proposed sites are
already under secured ovnership, though some long-term commitments to
manipulative ecological research are not permanent. Many sites have substantial
ongoing research programs. It is crucial that these established research
bases be adequately protected to assure their availability for ecological
and environmental studies.
PAGENO="0275"
271
Support
The financial resources required to establish and operate a compre-
hensive system of field research sites for experimental ecological investi-
gations are modest for a network of this scale and potential value. Over
70 percent of the required landscape is already under the control and manage-
ment of government agencies or academic and private institutions. One-third
of the sites have highly developed physical plants, including well-equipped
research laboratories and supporting facilities, and scientificand technical
personnel of excellent caliber. Major laboratory additions at some EER sites
have been funded and others are in the planning stages. The physical plant
and research support base that already exists at ERR sites represent an investment
of several hundred millions. Approximately 75 percent of the sites in the
proposed initial network now have some research facilities and ongoing programs.
However, some sites also have urgent requirements for additional research
facilities and support owing to the demands of ongoing research efforts and
forecasted manipulative experimental programs. Requirements for research
facilities may range from modest storage areas for field equipment, vehicles
and watercraft to rather sophisticated and well-equipped research laboratories.
Provision for housing and special field transportation may be essential in
some locations. Facilities for support of field research and related capital
improvements necessary to bring each of the 67 EER sites to an optimal operation
level would require $17 million (estimates on 1975 costs). An additional
$5.1 million would be required for operational support.
It is realistic to expect that many of the proposed EER sites will have
research use demands that will require further progressive development of
physical facilities and provision of support personnel. Costs to improve
PAGENO="0276"
272
the initial network during the next decade are estimated to require an
additional $16 million in capital improvements and $4.3 million for annual
operational support.
If EER5 are to become an important national resource, a coordinating
group must be established at the national level. Broad participation is
recommended so that the views of researchers from universities and Federal
and State agencies as well as public and private users of ecological data, are
taken into account. A new consortium including Federal agencies, universities,
and private institutions seems the best choice for the coordinating mechanism
`since these institutions hold the land containing most of the sites included
in the initial network. Representatives of both land-holding agencies such
as the Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, and the Energy Research
and Development Administration and non-land-holding agencies such as the Council
on Environmental Quality and the National Science Foundation should be
included. `(The latter two now share sponsorship of the Federal Committee on
Ecological Reserves.) Representatives of State and local governments, State
add private universities, ,and private owners of ecological reserve sites
should also be included.
Enhancement
The challenge to the future development of the EER network will be
to add sites which represent ecosystems not presently included and those most
susceptible to environmental degradation through cultural impacts. Three
types of areas will need special consideration in efforts to expand the EER
network: major KUchler types not yet represented, `aquatic environments, and
man-modified ecosystems.
The 57 KUchler types that are not adequately' represented tn the initial
network generally cover fairly small percentages of the total area of the
PAGENO="0277"
273
conterminous United States. Eight of these types cover from 1 3.5 percent
of the land surface. Some of these important areas, as well as many of the
other 49 smaller ones, reflect potential vegetation that either no longer
exists in its unmodified state or of which only remnants remain.
However, potential sites that are characteristic of these ecosystem
types should be continously reviewed for possible designation as a RNAs
because of their limited size and fragility or acquired as a component of, the
EER system. It is of utmost importance that all natural communities of the
nation be represented in a system of ecological reserves, since even small
ecosystems could have important national implications.
The EER study focused primarily on terrestrial ecosystems. While classi-
fications were developed for freshwater, coastal marine, and cultural ecosystems,
these large and important environments could not be effectively included in
the scope of the ERR project. Hence, emphasis should be placed on these
aquatic ecosystems, as well as agricultural, silvicultural and grazing lands
when adding sites to the initial network. The decision process will probably
`be strongly influenced by particular needs to assess impacts from changing
land use and the availability of sites.
Use of Field ~ Sites in Comparative Ecological Research
The utility of a field study site with a long-term commitment to ecological
investigation is obviously very important to researchers who require access to
protected natural environments. Such individual sites will become even more
valuable as increased encroachment and land use pressures result in the
destruction or disappearance of unprotected study areas. It may not be as
obvious that a network of sites will permit certain types of comparative research
that would not be possible' at a single site owing to the absence of a specific
PAGENO="0278"
274
resource base, differin~ environments, adequacy of supporting facilities,
the lack of adequate control, etc.
By way of example, I would like to note some of the ongoing research
at the Kellogg BiologicalStation that illustrates the use of widely
separated field sites in ecological investigations:
1) The River Continuum: Strategies of Biological Systems for Maintaining
a Quasi-Equilibrium of Energy Flow (NSF)
This 3-year comparative study of stream community metabolism
is a coordinated effort of four organizations (Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Michigan State University,
Oregon State University and Idaho State University).
Intensive study sites are located in four regions, two of
which are represented in the proposed EER network (Andrews
Experimental Forest in Oregon and Kellogg Biological Station).
2) Plant Population Strategies in Early Old-Field Colonization: An Experi-
mental Approach (NSF)
This study concerns the competitive strategies of weed species
in the succession of old field communities, In addition to its
primary focus at the Kellogg Biological Station, prairie preserve
sites near the Iowa Lake Side Laboratory are used to study the
occurrence of golden rod species in relation to the natural soil
moisture. gradients that have resulted in the physical separation
of closely related species, in contrast to the overlapping distribution
of these same golden rod species in old fields in Michigan
3) Niche Relations in the Sunfishes (Centrarchidae) (NSF)
Community structure of various sunfish species is studied
in both experimental pond and natural lake systems at the
PAGENO="0279"
275 /
Kellogg Biological Station. Fat~ilities and resources at the
Archbold Biological Station (Florida) have been used in a
comparison of sunfish populations. While the Florida sunfish
communities are similar, they contain different species that
are ecological analogs of related forms that comprise sunfish
populations in northern lakes. (Archbold is included in the
proposed EER network.)
4) Dung -- A Microcosm for Studying the Structure, Function, and Evolution
of Decomposer Communities (NSF)
This comparative study of decomposer communities (primarily fungi
and invertebrates) in semi-arid and wet pastureland utilizes
resources available at the Pawnee National Grassland (Colorado)
arid the Kellogg Biological Station. The principal investigators
are associated with the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle,
The U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the Uni.versity of
Wyoming. (Both the Pawnee and the Kellogg sites are included
in the proposed EER network.)
The conduct of these investigations concerning the structure, functions
and interactiori of naturally occurring communities has been markedly enhanced
by the availability of comparative study sites. It would be difficult or
impossible to pursue two of the studies (Ill and #4) without strong commitments
*and support from established research sites in different environments.
PAGENO="0280"
276
Dr LAiin~' Part of the concern here is the need to assure a long-
term research capability for environmental scientists. It is impossible
for the scientific community today to correctly anticipate all of the
information that may be needed during the next 25 years or 50 years.
Yet sites available for certain types of ecological research are limited,
and are being further diminished by consumptive land use.
In order to answer questions regarding the consequences of resource
utilization and management strategies, sites must contain an adequate
natural area, or control area, and must be of sufficient size to permit
experin~ental or manipulative types of research in contrast to obser-
vational research.
The scientific community has recognized a whole new staging plat-
form is necessary for broad-scale comparative biological experiments.
To examine these complex problems, research sites and facilities must
be available.
On being charged to mount the EER project, and to define the
feasibility of a comprehensive network, we were really starting from
ground zero, because there exists no common reservoir of data or focus
of expertise for field research facilities. Moreover, the interest and
the ownership of these facilities including State and Federal agencies,
as well as college, university, and private organizations.
To implement the project, we enlisted the support of approximately
40 scientists and organized them into a number of task groups. These
were directed toward adopting a classification system to insure that
all major ecosystems were covered, an inventory of existing sites that
might be potential candidates for an EER system, and development
of criteria pertinent to an EER system. Based on these criteria, inven-.
toned sites were evaluated to determine how well, they fit the classifi-
cation system, and how well they would share a national network.
I think it is worthwhile to touch very briefly on the activities on
a few of these task groups. For instance, the classification task group
had a very difficult job assigned, inasmuch as there is no comprehen-
sive classification. We feel this is needed to more effectively identify
the Nation's biotic resources. There is no generally accepted framework
that enables classification, aggregation, and analysis of data into
larger. and larger natural units~ Our group worked on this, but, in
the time consti `tints of the pioject could not come up ~ ith `tnythmg
that was completely satisfactory. In time absence of an accepted sys-
tem, we turned to the T(uch'ler classification system published in 1964.
In essence, it describes 116 categories, which might he construed in
a general way as representing the ecosystems of the United States.
The classification group developed and added classifications for inland
waters, the Great Lakes. marine coastal areas, and cultural systems.
The inventory process sought data from all known sites having
potential for long-term manipulative ecological research. This ex-
cluded some of the smaller sites, `and even large sites that did not
have manipulative research as a part of their land use charter. The
inventory document was a detailed four-page questionnaire. I indicate
the sites contacted in the EER project inventory on page 12 of the
report (table 3) and also repeated them in my statement. There were
over 300 sites, and all responded in some way except 23.
PAGENO="0281"
277
You will notice there is a prominence of Federal sites-a little under
50 percent. That is because of the Forest Service's extensive system of
experimental forests and ranges, and also the holdings of ERDA.
Collectively, the college and university sites represent approxunately
42 percent, and the private organizations, 9 percent.
Mr. BROWN. No State or local government sites i
Dr. LATJFF. Five were submitted, and two are in the system, but
percentagewise, it is quite small.
Mr. BROWN. The universities would represent the State universities ~
Dr. LATJFF. Yes, that is true. Actually, there are a number of univer-
sity sites that control and manage State lands.
Similarly, there are a number of university sites that manage
Federal lands. I should point out the university and private sites are
of great future importance, when one looks at ecosystems of the United
States. They include ecosystems that are not well represented in the
Federal holdings, particularly in the Eastern United States.
As one examines the array of sites, and the focus of the study, there
are obviously many other areas not designated as research sites, that
would have potential as EER's if objectives were modified to include
experimental research.
Now, some comment of the criteria that we used in evaluation of
EER sites. Actually, there are four general criteria, and I have noted
these very briefly on page 6. These are sit.e quality; in other words, how
valid a particular site is in representing a major ecosystem type;
research history, which we feel is very important, because of the data
base tha.t it will provide, and in many sites, the caliber of research and
the level of current activities.
Other items are the research support facilities that might be avail-
able, and ancillary benefits, such as education and research training
programs, but we did not judge the latter as essential characteristics
of EER's.
The evaluation of the inventoried sites was conducted by a panel
of scientists representing several disciplines and institutional or
agency affiliations. Priority was given to site quality. In fact, we
ranked that 50 percent. Time rationale was that if we are to establish
a national series of sites, we should have the best sites available. To
select poor quality sites would be counterproductive, and particularly
with the restraint of limited funds.
We had an assessment panel that examined data from all the inven-
toried sites. Using the criteria, and a weighting scale from zero to
five., they determined a quantitative score for each site. The score was
used to compare sites within the same ecosystem classification, and
also as a test of overall quality.
In addition to the total score, we developed another scoi~e that we
termed site potential. This was designed to indicate the long-term
protection and security of a site, over and above its quality as a repre-
sentative of an ecosystem type.
If you will turn to page 13, you will note both total score and site
potential score of the inventoried 171 sites. You will observe the
Federal sites and the one State site included here, reperesented by
black dots, are generally of higher site potential than the university or
PAGENO="0282"
278
private sites. This indicates that development of field research facili-
ties has occurred at some locations that are perhaps of lesser site
quality than others that might be potentially available.
If you turn to the figure on page 14 showing the network sites, you
note some of this discrepancy between the quality of the Federal and
non-Federal sites disappears. `When we look at the best sites available
in the network, there still seems to be a slight tendency for the Federal
sites to be of higher quality, and one might expect that.
In establishing the sites to be used in the network, we selected the
most desirable site from e.ach ecosystem classification unit. Primary
clef erminants were the. quality of the site, and the size, because we felt
these are the essential factors a site must have to assure if s long-
term potential for ecological research. After that, we selected the site
that had the highest combination of total and site potential scores.
\Ve also attempted to maximize geographic coverage. If you will
turn to Page 29, appendix A, this can be summarized in a general way.
You will see at the left a. listing of Kuchier vegetation types, which we
are using in lieu of a*n acceptable ecosystem classification. The next
column shows the percent of area of the continental United States
that these vegetation or ecosystem types represent. We have inserted
on the right side of the table the name of the particular site selected
selected as having the best capability for adequately representing
that ecosystem type. WTe have also indicated its location, management,
and the areas that are available.
I should indicate that in some of the very large ecosystems more
than one site was selected. Again, if you will refer to page 33, I
can point out the oak-hickory' forest type, representing 6.66 percent
of the continental United States. There three sites with north-south
distribution were selected to give a good representation of this im-
portant vegetation type.
In the Appalachian oak forest type, we selected two sites. This
type covers 3 percent of the United States.
In northern hard woods, we selected two sites. The southern pine
forest., representing 8 percent of the continental United States, has
three sites.
The proposed initial network described in the report encompasses
71 of the 171 inventoried sites. These are. actually at 67 locations.
The network is probably most effectively shown in the foldout map.
Twenty-eight sites are represented, including Alaska, as well as
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. If you look at this array, either
on the hack folder, or on the overlay, you will find a number of areas
that are conspicuous because of the absence of sites. This includes
the south-central and northern central regions. strongly influenced
by grazing. It also includes the region covered by Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, and parts of Pennsylvania that represents an area that has
long been of major agricultural importance.
It is interesting to look at. the ownership or management of these
sites. If you turn to either page 9 of my testimony, or table 5 on page
16 of the report. I would like to point, out a few details.
As you might expect, the Federal sites predominate in total num-
hers, 34 out of 67, with the Forest Service having the largest. number
23. An aggregate of colleges and university sites includes 27. `There
is one State site awl five private sites.
PAGENO="0283"
279
There are some interesting comparisons if one looks at the total
area encompassed within the proposed network. Federal sites repre-
sent roughly 90 percent of the total area of the system. EIRDA sites
comprise roughly 65 percent of the total area, and the Forest Service,
14 percent, whereas the university percentage is 7.44.
In considering the average size, again ERDA sites predominate
with well over a hundred thousand hectares. The Forest Service sites
average roughly 6,000 hectares. The university sites are comparatively
modest, 3,000 hectares. This figure is increased somewhat by some
sites havmg access to rather sizable BLM lands through lease arrange-
ments, or access to large State forest tracts.
Mr. BRowN. Do you have a breakdown on the quality or amount
of the historical baseline data, or a comparison based on that also?
Dr. LAUFF. We can go back to our original score sheets. Under what
we termed research history, we have an assessment of data submitted
in the inventory. The seven panel members provided a score based
on past and current research activities, so we do have a fair fix on
that.
Mr. BRowN. I am a little surprised at the predominance of ERDA
in terms of the geographical size of its sites. I would have expected
the Forest Service to have contributed a larger amount.
Dr. LAUFF. They have the numbers, but not the total size, perhaps
because of selection of the site. We utilized the data that were pro-
vided to us. I suspect that ERDA sites gave us total acreage, not
necessarily those immediately being utilized or available for research.
Mr. BROWN. I am intrigued by the consideration of these sites as
essentially research sit.es for study of energy flows, which is com-
patible with the mission of ERDA, as a manifestation of energy
research and development.
Dr. LAUFF. Do you w-ant inc to comment on that? [Laughter.]
It is very interesting to inc to see how good this network really is.
In other words, how effective it might he in realizing our objectives.
If you turn to table 6 on page 17 of the report, you will see that
essentially half of the Kuchler types are represented within the 67
sites. If you read across the bottom of the table, you find these Kuchler
types represent 72 percent of the total area of the United States.
If you add to that some small areas at EER sites which represent
additional Kuchler types that were not sufficiently large to be included
in this work-up, the figure approximates 75 percent. The Biosphere
Reserves also add an additional 13 Kuchler types. They include a
least nine in the contermninous United States, and four in Alaska.
The Federal sites represent 37 Kuchler types, or roughly 33 percent
of the conterminoims United States. Even though the university sites
are not proportionately large, they are disproportionately important
in terms of the land areas they represent. The 17 Kuchler types on
university land represent 33 percent of the contermrnous United
States. This is as a result, in many instances, of deliberate selection
by university biologists to obtain areas that have the greatest bio-
logical diversity. Many of these are located on transition zones, or
ecotones, owing to historical de\~elopment, universities have had access
to some prime sites. If their initiatives had been delayed, these sites
would not be available now.
PAGENO="0284"
280
At this juncture, it is particularly important we examine the bene-
fits of the network. I would like to call your attention to pages 7 and 8
of the report in which these are reviewed. I want to reiterate these
benefits briefly, as they reinforce many of the things mentioned
earlier.
This is not a part of my written testimony, but I can summarize
the benefits of the network in five general categories. First, is the
availability of sites that are representative of major ecosystems. We
feel strongly a comprehensive network will provide an ecological
sound framework within which to test hypotheses and to offer opinion
on environmental impacts on many ecosystems.
A functional network will permit the sharing of research support;
the EER network will also justify the investment of limited financial
resources to enhance facilities, and encourage their further use.
A very strong point of the network is access to common data bases.
Ecological data are essential to understanding the processes going on
in nature, and must be developed from observation, and experimental
analysis of the landscape.
Experimental studies and monitoring at EER sites will provide
the base line data for the framework from which ecosystems response
can be evaluated.
We believe too that the network of sites will promote an interaction
of scientists, and hence the development of integrated research pro-
grams. The availability of this expertise at selected sites will also
foster a greater communication and cooperative use of ecological data,
particularly with regard to land use, land use planning, and resource
management.
I have some specific recommendations beginning on page 11 of my
statement, regarding what I perceive as need for legislation to
protect, to support, and to enhance field research opportunities. The
success of the proposed network is dependent on legislative support
in three general areas. Let me speak to each very briefly.
It is important that I point out that the initial EER network with
its core of research sites can be established now. Delay will greatly
decrease our future options.
There is good coverage of the natural terrestrial features of the
United States. Over 70 percent is represented by this proposed EER
network. Most are under secure ownership, although long-term com-
mitments that are lacking in some instances. In other words, some
sites are not permanent, though they may have substantial ongoing
research.
It is crucial these established sites be protected to insure their
availability for ecological studies in the long term.
Financial support will be required. When considering the scope
of the network, the financial needs are modest, particularly in view
of the scale and potential value of the network as a research resource.
We have the land areas. Many of the sites have highly developed
physical plants, including well-equipped laboratories. This invest-
ment alone represents hundreds of millions of dollar. Many of the
sites are actively pursuing additional moneys for the development of
laboratories, and related field research resources.
However, there are urgent needs for additional research facilities
at many of these sites. At some there are well-developed research
PAGENO="0285"
281
progrnms with requirements for computers and specialized instru-
mentation. At more remote sites, these are basic needs for housing,
laboratory facilities, and field transportation.
The support task group, has estimated the cost of facility and sup-
port needs for research activities at the 67 sites. The network sites were
grouped into three different phases, and we consider costs for optimum
development in each of the three phases. Phase 1 sizes have good rep-
resentation of natural ecosystems available for research but little else.
They are protected, and may have shelter. Some of the more remote
Forest Service sites are examples. Phase 2 development projects an
all-weather laboratory. There is some housing, research is most inten-
sive during the summer or on a seasonal basis, but the facility is po-
tentially available on a year round basis.
Phase 3 is a highly sophisticated site with year-round activities.
Details on each phase are well documented in the report records.
We estimate $17 million in 1975 dollars would be required for pro-
jected capital improvements, and an additional $5 million for opera-
tional costs at the 67 ERR locations.
If we forecast additional facilities and improvements at these exist-
ing sites to accommodate increased utilization, an additional $16 mil-
lion will be required for capital improvements and for annual opera-
tional support.
As Dr. Whitson has already indicated, a coordinated group should
be established at the national level if EERs are to become an im-
portant national resource. We are recommending establishment of a
new and broadly based consortium including Federal agencies, uni-
versities, and private institutions. It should encompass both landhold-
ing agencies, and non-land-holding agencies and should include rep-
resentatives from State governirients, and from State and private uni-
versities. There should also be representation of people concerned, in-
terested and involved in these national resources.
As we look to the future, the challenge of the EER network will be
to complete ecosystem coverage of the United States and to fill some
of the other gaps that were possible to cover in the initial work.
Only half of the Kuchier types are now represented; roughly 25 per-
cent of the United States is not effectively covered. Some of these areas
may be only available as additions to the Research Natural Areas sys-
tem. It is important that they be included in some reserve system to
protect our national heritage.
There is likelihood that some of the ecosystems not now included in
the network are potentially available, probably in Federal lands that
have yet to be inventoried. They may become available for considera-
tion through screening of Federal lands, or when some Federal lands
are declared surplus.
There is the need to look more closely at the aquatic ecosystems.
We did not effectively approach them in the work done so far. For
example, the Great Lakes, despite their importance, are not yet rep-
resented in the network.
We have not been able to approach the question of the major river
systems. Treatment of the coastal marine environments is less than
adequate. We have not reeally touched on the man-modified areas that
are increasingly significant because of agriculture, grazing, silvi-
culture, and energy development.
PAGENO="0286"
282
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Lauff. It ~as a very com-
prehensive presentation, and will be extremely helpful to us.
You appear to feel that the existing interdepartmental coordinating
committee could be improved as a mechanism for guiding this
program?
Dr. LATJFF. I assume you mean the Federal Committee on Ecological
Reserves. I think there is a need for that committee within the
Federal sector itself.
What we are suggesting could include the committee as a com-
ponent. Or the committee could be expanded to include the university
and private sectors.
Mr. BROWN. What about the model represented by the National
Center for. Atmospheric Research, which is a consortium of uni-
versities; is that something closer to what you are thinking of?
Dr. LAUFF. I think it still lacks essential participation. It will be
necessary to bridge the interests of the Federal agencies, which are
major land holders in this area, and the needs of the scientific com-
munity for field research resources. A little over 50 percent of the
EER sites are Federal, and include 90 percent of the area. I think
greater interaction and liaison must be stimulated. This is an ongoing
activity a.t the level of individual scientists, and I believe the next two
speakers will support that. Similar exchange and program develop-
ment efforts are lacking at the management level, however.
Mr. BROWN. Well, that needs to be explored. You have commented
on the need for legislation for all of the purposes which you have set
forth here, and that is a concern that we have.
Is there truly a need for legislation? I am afraid all too commonly
we rush into legislation when the time is not ripe, or at least the
executive branch does not think it is ripe, and I think we need to have
a very firm basis for saying the legislation is necessary, given the fact
that we have what seems to be a successfully operating program with-
out legislation.
Dr. LAim'1~'. A part of the concern we have is long term, in that if
these ecosystems are not protected in some way, they may be lost. I
am not sure what the format of the legislation should be to provide
that protection, but ecosystems are essentially irretrievable if essential
elements are destroyed.
Mr. BROWN. It occurs to me, and I am just groping for ideas, that
if we were to pass in the Congress a generalized national land use
planning act, perhaps one part of that act could be a research com-
ponent, which would include this whole ecological research program.
It seems to me it would fit into that kind of framework, and it could
be more readily justified as a component of the broader land use plan-
ning program.
The broader program itself would be extremely controversial. The
ecological research aspect would be the least controversial portion of it.
Dr. LAUFF. There may be a disadvantage in tying the two.
Mr. BROWN. That is true. That would have to be weighed in terms
of developing the legislative strategy. In addition, while the land use
planning legislation originates in another committee which has ap-
propriate jurisdiction, the research component would be in the juris-
diction of this committee, and it would involve some cooperation
PAGENO="0287"
283
between the two. That is almost as hard as getting two Federal agen-
cies together.
Dr. LAIJFF. I recognize the problem.
Mr. BROWN. Well, we will not try to explore all of the details and
ramifications at this time.
You have done an excellent job in laying out the picture. Weappre-
ciate it very much, and we hope to keep in touch with you on it.
Dr. LAUFF. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Our next witnesses are Dr. Paul Risser, Oklahoma Bio-
logical Survey, University of Oklahoma, and Dr. Jerry F. Franklin,
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Do you want to start, Dr. Risser?
STATEMENT OP DR. PAUL RISSER, OKLAHOMA BIOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNIVERSITY OP OKLAHOMA
Dr. RI5SER. There are two things I would like to speak to you as a
university scientist, and how research sites are useful, and necessary
to us, and, second, give you an overview of where I think we are in re-
lation to this whole area of research, a network of research sites.
Let me first make a few comments about where we are in terms of
science, and these are examples of the kind of research which have gone
on in research networks, which are funded in many cases by the Na-
tional Science Foundation, but also in cooperation with Federal agen-
cies, like the Forest Service, like the Agricultural Research Service,
like ERDA, and let me give you three brief examples, but I think they
will make the point.
For example, we have over the long period been looking at water-
sheds, and how watersheds will retain nutrients, and how nutrients
move through watersheds.
We have some general idea how they operate, and what we are fund-
ing now in looking comparatively across the country at different
watersheds, is that their ability to retain water is different and these
kinds of comparisons can only be made when there are sites across the
country.
As a second example, as already mentioned, the systems go through
a certain evolution in time and development, and our old thoughts
were that the most mature system were the ones that could retain the
most nutrients.
Now, we find by looking at a series of watersheds across the country,
that is not always the case. So again the long-term records are nec-
essary, and so. are different kinds of ecosystems for comparisoi~s.
We find different examples in looking at streams. If we talk about
the energetics of streams, very small streams require nutrients and
as inputs.
It is only after they get larger, they become productive themselves,
and again, when they get very large, they require energy input. So the
dynamics of those streams are also different, depending on where one
is in the country, and the kind of ecosystem in which we are dealing.
So that is another example of a comparative kind of study. Perhaps a
third example, if we look at grasslands in terms of the amount of
energy in those systems, we find in some of those grasslands, partic-
PAGENO="0288"
284
ularly the tall grass in the central United States, at any given time,
even in the middle of the growing sea~on, if you identify where the
material is, most of it is below ground, not above ground. Those kind
of generalities oniy can be evaluated by looking across the country.
So as a research scientist, in looking for those kinds of general ecolog-
ical theories, it is important, in fact, imperative to have these kinds of
research opportunities.
Mr. BROWN. I have heard the other preceding witnesses, and it
occurred to me, glancing back through history, how useful it would be
if the Mesopotamians and others 5,000 years ago had kept those kinds
of ecological records; we would know what the history of civilization
would probably be. I hope 5,000 years from now we can look back
and have a little better data. base.
Dr. HISSER.' Yes, that is true. It is also somewhat embarrassing to
have us now rediscovering some of the things presumably they had
discovered at that particular time.
Let me also take the time to briefly summarize in an overview sense,
why it appears important for the university scientists to have these
kinds of research areas, and draw from the specific examples. First,
it simply is not possible for us to anticipate and identify and define
right now the data base necessary for experiments 100 years from now,
and that relates to the point you just made; simply we cannot antici-
pate all of the data base, a.nd field facilities, therefore, we need to pro-
vide for the options in the future.
The second point, in using examples I just gave you as a basis, it
is only when we have comparative data basis over the long term, we are
able to draw these comparisons and generalities; therefore long-term
data basis from representative ecosystems becomes increasingly
important.
The third point: Continuous information in terms of abiotic and
biotic parameters will permit us over the long term to detect subtle
changes in the systems, in response to pollution or other insults, which
we could not otherwise detect.
I am not talking about overt ones, but the subtle ones that take a
long time to detect.
It is only by looking at these sites over a long period of time do we
have a chance in detecting the changes.
The fourth point: In looking at consistent long-term data, it is only
by having these data available, that we will be able to seperate the
short-term fluctuations, and how the systems behave in the long-term
trends. There is an ample number of examples in the literature, which
shows the responses as short-term fluctuations, when in fact, what, we
are seeing is in fact .a long-term trend. As a fifth point, it is possible
for us to now identify a series of basic, both biotic and abiotic param-
eters which form the foundation for .a whole host of experimental
kinds of studies.
Now, each study, of course, has its own individual demands in terms
of supporting data bases, but there is a family of parameters which
seem to be over the long term a very important basis for a whole host
of experiments. It is also important in evaluating the results of any...
one experiment, vis-a-vis the experiment' over a long period of time,
PAGENO="0289"
285
so there needs to be some provision made for a basic set of data, those
taken from each of these sites.
As a sixth point, that we are finding that in many cases, a restudy
of an area or a return to an area for subsequent study is extremely
informational.
Again, this strategy is only available when we have established
research sites. As a seventh point, one which Dr. Lauff alluded to,
that ecological research has become very complex, and as you related to
in the hearings, it now requires a wide array of expertise, equipment,
measures and procedures.
Having identified research sites can make the acquisition and a
utilization of those manpowers and those materials much more
efficient.
The last point I would like to make as a kind of generality; that
having identified these sites, and I am sure in your hearings, you have
already heard examples of this, having identified research sites where
scientists are brought together in one place, makes for very efficient
information transferral.
It also enhances the possibility of what we sometimes call serendipi-
tous discoveries, that is by having simultaneous information, simul-
taneous studies, information that results from those studies which
really was nOt planned, and again, that is another role of these partic-
ular research areas.
To summarize where I think we are, and where we ought to be going,
it is ~bvtous from the comments made in the hearings so far, that
there are a series of related, but not integrated programs. There are
National Environmental Research Parks, there are Research Natural
Areas, there are experimental reserves, and some of this heterogenieity
is sorted out in the experimental ecological research, publications
which Dr. Lauff gave you, page 5. it will be worthwhile to glance
through this, but the point is each of these have a little different mis-
sion, a little different Objective, but they all focus on a common need,
that is for research areas.
The fact that there is cooperation among the present programs is
evident, and two good examples of this are the fact as Dr. Whitson
mentioned, the policy and guidelines from the Federal Committee,
which is really a voluntary effort among agencies to define what in
fact constitutes a Research Natural Area.
That is a matter of cooperation, particularly of land management
on agencies given a piece of land.
There is certainly some indication of cooperation in that some of
these pieces of land are in the International Biological Programs, on
sites, there are experimental reserves, there are natural reserves, and
there can be several designations on a given piece of land that says
there is cooperation among those agencies, among those directives,
but it seems to me that there are some gaps, and let me try to sum-
marize finally what I think those gaps are. There are some gaps
in the terms of our coverage of natural systems, again, the experi-
mental ecology, about half ~is Kuchier types that are represented in
about 72 percent of the land mass, but there are gaps, so an effort
needs to be mounted to ascertam where those areas are, where the
gaps are, and to identify them, and to evaluate them
98-513 0-77-19
PAGENO="0290"
286
A second gap is that there is some differences in the conceptual
definition of these programs, so that there needs to be some bringing
together of the concepts, even though it appears to be very similar
among the programs. There is a gap in the conceptual definition of
these programs.
A third gap is in the matter of support, and the point, of course,
is that if these are to function as a network of research reserves, they
must have some support.
That comment perhaps. requires some amplification, that is, that at
the present time, all of these sites are supported to some degree. They
are supported toward different objectives, different missions, but they
are supported.
Some of the demands made on long-term research are for long-term
data bases, which are not particularly glamorous and not particularly
easy to support in a given budget request, so there is a very great need
for ha.ving these kind of support, allocated to these kind of sites.
I am talking about not just for experiments of such, but also a sup-
~porting basis for equipment, supplies and monitoring. A . fourth
gap is one to which you have alluded, there is a communication gap
which has not shown clearly how the research on these sites, or the
collecting of information from these sites can be used by the public,
or land use planning, for resource planning, or for land management.
I think there is a gap there, which I guess goes back to your example,
hopefully we can bridge that gap in the sense of using the informa-
tion we are now generating in these sites, to look at these policies,
and assign answers to those questions.
The last gap, it seems to me, even though these array of programs
exist, we have never sat down as a country, and tried to define for the
entire country the requirements for university scientists, just what
our policies should be, and therein perhaps lies the legislation, that
we have never done that, although there have been a number of pro-
grams. Specifically as I see it, some legislation is needed, but on the
positive side, there is a tremendous reservoir out there, not only in
research scientists, but a common understanding of what our man-
date should be.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you.
I think you have given us a valuable analysis, as I indicated ear-
lier, it is always necessary to look at both pluses and the minuses,
the achievements and the gaps, and you have given us a very helpful
perspective on some of the areas that require further attention.
Dr. RI55ER. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Risser follows:]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
HEARINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE NETWORKS
Some research is most appropriately conducted under laboratory conditions,
but most ecological theory and management procedures arise from and are ulti-
mately tested with studies from natural or modified ecosystems. The mandate
for adequate field research opportunities arises from the realization that man's
long-term existence is predicated upon a comprehension of this ecological theory
and the ability to use it to manage our natural resources.
The establishment, maintenance, and organization of relatively large, diverse
PAGENO="0291"
287
sites representative of each major biotic province is necessary for future com-
prehensive ecological research. The following eight points delineate both the
necessities and opportunities:
1. At this time, it is Impossible to anticipate and define the field situations
and data bases necessary to answer future questions about the structure and
function of ecosystems. So, carefully chosen sites, with accompanying informa-
tion selected from past experience, will preserve our research options and pro-
vide an opportunity to test new hypotheses management options.
2. Comparable information generated from a number of research areas will
provide a data base from which to make ecological generalizations and propose
rational research management strategies.
3. Continuous information from both biotic and abiotic parameters will permit
the potential for detecting subtle degenerating environmental condition before
more overt and non-recoverable diminished environmental quality becomes
evident.
4. Consistent long-term data on biotic and ablotic parameters will not only
allow the separation of short-term fluctuations from long-term trends, but will
eventually show correlative relationships between and among chemical, physical,
and biological factors.
5. As we now understand the behavior of ecological systems, there are certain
basic driving variables which must be measured to permit the subsequent inter-
pretation of research results. Sites in a research network where these basic
variables are routinely measured, will represent an economy in equipment and
the opportunity to produce an usually uniform data base.
6. Restudy of a situation after a period of time may be extremely informative.
This is especially true when the insults imposed on the system have changed
or when the e~~osystem itself is undergoing temporal or spatial changes. Estab-
lished sites with driving variable data over the intervening years are essential
for these studies.
7. Ecological research has now progressed in complexity so that many studies
require expertise in a number of scientific disciplines, e.g., mathematical model-
ing, statistical methods, and analytical chemistry techniques. Established re-
search sites function as research centers where expertise is shared with the
greatest efficacy.
8. The convergence of scientists at one site enhances the resulting investiga-
tions in a number of ways. Since the site nets as a focal point, there is a common
ground for initial discussion and contemplation by scientists from different back-
grounds. Many of our most fruitful research efforts are in the realms of inter-
diciplinary projects. At a site where all investigators are closely associated, the
communication channels are short-circuited so that the ponderous procedures
of scientific publications are obviated. Also, experiments utilizing a variety of
interests and areas of expertise are conveniently organized and conducted.
Finally, the probabilities for serendipitous discoveries from concurrent or spa-
tially related studies are greatly enhanced.
There are a number of semi-organized research sites across the country and
these are now serving in the capacity of partially fulfilling the above conditions.
However, the research objectives, availability of the sites, and the commitments
for long-term data, acquisition are all idiosyncratic with the current inclina-
tions and the responsibility of the pertinent agency and individual site manager.
Each agency has a defined mission and the associated research program
of the relevant site is directed at accomplishing that mission. These prerogatives
must be maintained, but at the same time there is a nationwide imperative to
provide, over the long-term, a set of research sites capable of facilitating re-
search and preserving our research options.
As noted by both The Nature Conservancy and the Federal Committee on
Ecological Reserves, the present mechanisms for the protection of research sites
is very heterogeneous. In this country we need to recognize that there is a
need for surveying the natural resources of the nation, determining appropriate
research sites in each ecosystem type, and finally, establishing a legislative
mechanism to insure that these research areas are properly documented and
available for long-term scientific research efforts.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Franklin, do you still want to make your con-
tribution, or has everything been said?
PAGENO="0292"
288
STATEMENT OF DR. JERRY F. FRANKLIN, FORESTRY SCIENCES
LABORATORY, CORVALLIS, OREG.
Dr. FRANKLIN. I do not really have a prepared statement. Dr. Risser
has said most of it, but I would like to make a few shOrt comments.
Mr. BROWN. I would appreciate any reflections that you might have,
based upon your intelligent listening to the previous witnesses.
Much of what they said, I probably did not absorb very well, but
I am sure you must have.
Dr. FRANKLIN. I have heard most of what they said several times,
and it was not too difficult to absorb most of it.
I would like to try to put some of it in perspective and identify
wknt I think are a couple of critical concerns.
I think it is quite apparent from previous testimony, that the sit-
uation at present is very promising in the sense that we have really
quite a fine array of core areas identified.
We know a lot about where to go from here. I think really the agen-
cies deserve a great deal of credit for the amount of cooperative work
that has been done. I really find it quite incredible, that in terms of
developing the system of areas, the agencies have freely given so
much of themselves, and so much of their prerogatives, to a common
cause. Also, that on many of these sites, there is such extensive cooper-
ation between Federal agencies and universities, with the National
Science Foundation, as a funding agency, I find this very remarkable
and encouraging, but we still have a number of problems, most of
which have been pointed out.
One problem is simply gaps in the system, identifying where the
gaps are, and filling them. -
This is particularly true in the case of non-Federal lands. There
is the gap in terms of support, support for operating these properties,
support for conducting the monitoring of the properties.
There is a problem with agency parochial attitudes with regard to
these lands. The agencies tend to consider them first in terms of their
own missions, rather than as resources for the Nation as a whole.
I believe there is a problem with scientists' attitudes. Scientists tend
to seek out their own areas, whether it is their backyard or across the
highway, or Costa Rica, whatever. I think there is a problem there
in getting scientists to utilize sites that have been established, that
have been instrumented, where the data base has already been col-
lected.
There is a problem in that there is a tendency every time a slightly
different objective comes along, to create a new array of systems, often
entirely new sets of areas, and we have agencies setting up independ-
ent systems that could just as well have been worked out in the context
of existing systems.
Well, this to me indicates that we have some real needs, and they
can be basically divided into two categories. One would be along the
lines of direction. The other would be along the lines of mechanisms.
Now, whether this means legislation, or whether it means actions
within the Executive Office, the executive branch itself, I think tJhat
has to be worked out. But certainly it is important to provide direc-
tion to the agencies, as to what we want along the lines of ecological
PAGENO="0293"
289
reserves and to provide the mechanisms, which includes things like
dollars for coordination, acquisition and monitoring, and also includes
some kinds of coordinating devices or bodies.
I think perhaps we may have gone about as far as we can with a
voluntary cooperation, collaboration, between the various agencies.
I would add two cautionary notes, these are my personal views. One
is more strategic, the other is more tactical.
First of all, I think it is extremely important that the executive and
legislative branches of Government do recognize there are numerous
initiatives abroad at this time.
You are aware of that, and which I am very pleased about;
We are talking about a National Heritage Trust Program. We are
talking about national goals of preserving ecological and genetic
diversity.
We are talking about systems of ecological reserves, of research, and
natural üeas.
We are talking `about it in the context of total systems, both natural
and experimental, as we have `been doing `here this morning.
I think it is essential that everyone recognize that these are not com-
pletely equivalent interests or objectives.
They are very closely related, they integrate with one another, but
you cannot serve all of those interests with single individual kinds of
actions, so I think it is very important to recognize these components
as `being quite individual and distinctive.
Second, I think given the diversity of lands we are talking about, in
regard to ecological reserve system, in the Federal Government (for
example, ERDA's lands, the Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and
others), that for the maximum effectiveness of a coordinating body
(or whatever, body, company body, board, committee is created)
it is best to place that body in an agency and/or department that does
not control an'd manage the lands.
That is more of a tactical concern. I have seen programs at the State
levels bogged down because they were not effectively based in `essen-
tially a neutral location, but in one which actually had territorial in-
terests.
Mr. BROWN. It is not always easy to find a neutral location?
Dr. FRANKLIN. No, it is not, but I would hope you would do the
best you could.
That is in effect my view of what has gone on this morning and my
response to it.
Mr. BROWN. I appreciate that very much, Dr. Franklin.
Is the Forestry Sciences Laboratory part of the Forest Service?
Dr. FRANKLIN. Yes, it is.
I am a Forest Service employee, and I happen to be personally re-
sponsible for two of the Experimental Ecological Reserves-Biosphere
Reserves__experimental forests. `
So I have a definite personal involvement at the field level in this
sort of thing.
Mr. BROWN. Am I correct in my perception that the Forest Service
is in the process of undergoing, and has been for some time now, a
change toward a much greater emphasis upon research, planning, and
analysis within its own activities, as a result of the passage of the act
PAGENO="0294"
290
last year, and previous acts? Or has this aspect of research and
planning always been as important an aspect of the Forest Service
as I perceive it now, and I am not an expert in the Forest Service?
I am just learning as a result of participating in the development
of the Act last year, but that was my first intensive exposure to it.
Dr. FRANKIaN. Well, the research `has always been one of the three
major activities in the Forest Service, a.nd we have always had a
substantial research program.
It has continued to grow over the years, and I think it has become
very diverse and intense in recent years, but it has always been there.
The planning activities have always been there, but they `have
changed completely in character and intensity, as a consequence of the
legislation passed during the last several years, the Resources Plan-
ning Act, and the amendments to that, as a consequence of last year
in the National Forest Management Act.
Your perception of much greater intensity of effort devoted to plan-
ning is, I think, a valid one, particularly at the national level, but
that is my impression.
I am not involved in it, because I am in the research branch, and
only provide information.
Mr. BROWN. Well, it is going to be my assumption that you cannot
do edequate planning without adequate research.
Dr. FnANxi~IN. We keep telling them that.
Mr. BROWN. We will see if that can be reflected in whatever legis-
lation or legislative action evolves from this.
Gentlemen, I will forgo the pleasure of discussing your comments
at greater length with you, because it is getting rather late, and we
have one more witness.
I want to thank you very much. I know it has been a sacrifice for
you two to be here today, and I feel that you have made an excellent
contribution to what may be an outstanding ~record on this whole
subject, and one that will shape the course of the Congress in develop-
ing legislation.
Again, I thank you both very much for your contribution, and for
your help in making this record. I am sure it will make interesting
reading.
Dr. RISsER. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Our next witness is Dr. Lee M. Talbot, Council on En-
vironmental Quality. I apologize for keeping you so long today.
We are trying to get a great deal packed into a relatively short time.
STATEMENT OF DR. LEE N. TALBOT, ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN
FOR INTERNATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENAL QUALITY
Dr. TALBOT. Well, it is an important subject, and I certainly appre-
ciate the time you are giving it.
Mr. BROWN. You may proceed with your statement, and in any
fashion you wish with your written statement. It will be included in
full in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Talbot follows:]
PAGENO="0295"
291
STATEMENT OF Da. LEE M. TALBOT, ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN FOB INTERNA-
TIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to appear before this Committee again. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the need for a national network of
ecological reserves. This is a subject with which I have long been personally in-
volved. I helped develop the concept for such a network internationally working
with the International Union for Conservation and UNESCO in the 1950's, and
I served on the international steering committee of the Conservation Section of
the International Biological Program from its inception In 1965. In 1966 I helped
establish our national program for Federal Research Natural Areas and I helped
design and initiate The Conservation of Ecosystems section of our national con-
tribution to the International Biological Program. More recently, I helped ini-
tiate the Federal Committee for Ecological Reserves, which I serve as co-
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, ten years ~go we believed that the creation of a national system
of reserves to protect samples of our native ecosystems was an urgent need.
Today we realize that it is becoming a critical one. Human activities are chang-
ing the face of our land at an ever accelerating pace. It is estimated that cur-
rently more than one million acres per year are converted from natural eco-
systems to more intensive human use-such as highways, parking lots, subdi-
visions, intensive agriculture.
Our nation's pioneers found a land characterized by a rich variety of native
ecosystems. Today most of these only exist as remnants, some are gone entirely,
and with them many of their component species of plants and animals. The need
to preserve adequate samples of our representative ecosystems has been recognized
for many years. The opportunity to fulfill this need is slipping by.
There are, of course, many values to be received from a network of ecological
reserves. In my own experience in other nations I have found surprisingly wide-
spread understanding of the value of such reserves as ecological bench marks.
They serve as reference points by which one may better understand how we have
modified the surrounding lands, and from which we may gain a better under-
standing of how to use these lands for human benefit.
Another aspect of this value is the reserves' function as natural ecological
laboratories, where we may learn to better understand the structure and func-
tioning of these ecosystems and their response to change. Your Committee, Mr.
Chairman, has played a leadership role in calling the Nation's attention to .the
significance of possible climatic changes. As your Committee's deliberations have
emphasized, our Nation's-and indeed our world's-agriculture and other forms
of land use are finely tuned to the climate of the recent past. If climatic patterns
* change then we must adapt our land use practices to these changes, and an ade-
quate network of protected ecosystems~ can provide both the information and the
genetic material to do so.
It is not my intention in these prepared remarks to discuss in further detail
the functions and needs for ecological reserves. You have received much testimony
on this and there is no need to take your time by reiterating it. I would like,
however, to insert in the record the Charter of the Federal Committee on
Ecological Reserves, which summarizes briefly but well the purposes, objectives
and rationale of such a system. The Charter Is attached to my prepared remarks.
In his Environmental Message to the Congress this May, the President under-
scored the importance of protection of our national ecosystems. Under the Presi-
dent's directive, the Administration is formulating a proposal for a National
Heritage Trust program which will, I believe, include a Research Natural Areas
system. A Federal task force is preparing the proposal for consideration by the
President in September, and I am informed that your Committee staff is receiving
the work products of the task force and that they are familiar with the direction
of the program.
Mr. Chairman, there is an urgent need for an effective natiOnal program to
assure that adequate samples of our ecosystems are protected. We are most grate-
ful for your interest and that of your Committee in this important program.
This concludes my prepared remarks, but I shall be happy to respond if you or
your Committee have any questions.
PAGENO="0296"
292
Dr. TALBOT. Thailk you very much. It is a great pleasure to appear
before this committee again, sir.
My prepared statement this morning will be very brief indeed, and
it is basically intended to indicate the strong support of the Council
on Environmental Quality for the concept of a broad network of
ecological research reserves.
This is a subject which the CouncW on Environmental Quality
has been involved with since its establishment, and with which I
have long been closely involved.
This goes back to the 1950's, internationally, and through the
development of both the International Biological Program, and the
Man and the Biosphere Program, more recently with various national
programs here.
Ten years ago, we believed that the creation of a national system
of reserves to protect samples of our native ecosystem was an urgent
need. As you have heard in the past 2 days, we realize today that this
need is not just urgent, but it is becoming critical.
Human activities are changing the face of the earth at an ever
accelerating pace. The Council on Environmental Quality currently
estimates that more than a million acres per year of land is converted
from natural ecological systems to something much more intensively
used. As we have indicated in a number of our annual reports, the
pioneers who arrived in this Nation found a land characterized by a
rich variety of ecosystems, most of which now only remain as relics,
and many more of which are gone, along with many of their com-
ponent species.
The need to preserve adequate samples of our representative eco-
systems has been recognized for many years, but the point is that
the opportunity to fulfill this need is slipping by us.
Now, there are a great many needs and functions of a system, and
these have been discussed in detail.
I do not intend to cover the same ground that you have heard in
detail. I would like to mention two points, though. From my own
experience overseas, I have been very impressed by the surprisingly
wide understanding among the leaders of many of the Nations' of the
value of their ecological reserves as ecological benchmarks or reference
points.
By having ecologióal reference points, we can better understand how
we have modified the surrounding lands, and we can gain a better
understanding of how to use these lands for human benefit, so we
have identified a very direct human value to these lands.
All too often in the past, when we talked about trying to set aside
samples of ecosystems, people have regarded this as a desire, a self-
grandiose idea or a frivolity on the part of scientists, but not as being
central to the need of the Government.
What is impressive to me is that more and more the governments of
developing nations recognize this concept as important. There is rec-
ognition of the fact that we cannot simply take the technology, and the
scientific information about ecosystems, that we have developed in the
United States and apply it straight to Other nations, but of cour~e,
the same thing is true here. What we learn from an ecosystem in the
PAGENO="0297"
293
Great Plains may or may not apply to another ecosystem in the Great
Plains, and most certainly it will not apply to other more diverse parts
of our Nation.
The other point I wanted to make is that allied with this value is
the role of these reserves as natural laboratories. This is where we can
learn and better understand the structure and functions of ecosystems,
and particularly important, learn about their response to change. You
cannot do it except in an ecosystem.
Your committee, Mr. Chairman, has played a leadership role in
calling the Nation's attention to the significance of possible climatic
change. As you and many of the people that have appeared before you
have emphasized, our Nation and the world's agriculture and much of
our land use is very finely tuned to the climate of the relatively past
few years. If these climatic patterns change, and when they change,
the results will be relatively, and possibly more than relatively, cata-
strophic. Consequently, it is essentially we learn how to deal with
c.hanges.
Not only can ecological reserves provide us with the opportunity to
see how ecosystems react to these changes, but they also can provide
us with the genetic material we may need to adapt to these changes.
Well, I do not wish to go into any further detail on functions and
needs of ecological reserves. I would like to enter into the record the
charter of the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, which sum-
marizes briefly, but well, the purposes and objectives and rationale of
the Experimental Ecological Reserve system.
The charter is attached to my prepared remarks.
Mr. BROWN. We appreciate that, and it will be made a part of the
record.
Dr. TALBOT. Thank you, sir.
[The charter follows:]
PAGENO="0298"
294
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20006
July 29, 1977
The Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves
was established jointly by the Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Director
of the National Science Foundation, in 1974. This
inter-agency committee has been established to
provide the leadership for a coherent national
program on ecological reserves. Successor to the
Federal Committee on Research Natural Areas, the
Committee is concerned with research natural areas
and other scientific reserves. Its membership cur-
rently is comprised of representatives from 20
Federal agencies and observers from various non-
governmental organizations, and it is co-chaired
by CEQ and NSF.
CHARTER OF THE FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON
ECOLOGICAL RESERVES
Attainment of national environmental and land use goals
depends on the continued progress of ecological and environmen-
tal sciences in the United States. Critical to the health of these
sciences is an adequate system of field research sites encompass-.
ing the array of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems
and both the strictly reserved Research Natural Areas and
experimental areas for basic and applied research in ecology and
on environmental and management problems, the baseline control
areas for appraising the effects of action programs, and the gene
pool reservoirs for many ordinary as well as rare and endangered
organisms.
Substantial contributions have already been made to a
national system of ecological reserves by a multitude of Federal,
State, Academic and private efforts. Over 400 Research Natural
Areas have been established on Federal lands alone and this
committee's predecessor (Federal Committee on Research
Natural Areas) did~ outstanding work in stimulating, coordinating,
and publicizing the federal agency activities. Substantial
numbers of experimental sites have developed on either a formal
or ad hoc basis (Experimental Forests and Ranges of USDA,
National Environmental Research Parks of AEC, biological field
stations, and IBP Biome research sites, for example).
PAGENO="0299"
295
Today there is clearly a critical need for leadership in
planning and coordinating these activities. A coherent national
plan is needed so that the numbers and kinds of areas needed for
an adequate system of ecological reserves arc identified.
Relevant activities in the numerous Federal agencies need to be
coordinated both within the Federal establishment and with State
and private endeavors. Emphasis on comprehensive land planning
and environmental impact assessment makes the activity and
need for leadership urgent. Planners need responsible and
coordinated information on what sites require protection as
critical scientific facilities.
For these reasons creation of a permanent Federal
Committee on Ecological Reserves is considered essential. It is
to provide the leadership for a coherent national program on
ecological reserves which can come only at the Federal level.
The responsibilities of agencies to lands and natural area
programs under their jurisdiction remain unchanged; management
of lands and execution of programs remain their domain. The
Committee's purpose is to supplement and assist agencies in
fulfilling their missions as well as to provide an overall Federal
focus.
It is important to realize that the goal ol this program is
not simply provision of areas for research. The objectives are in
fact, contributions to national environmental goals as stated in
NEPA, better land planning, and improved resource management.
The Committee will be concerned with Ecological Reserves
which are those areas dedicated primarily or exclusively to
scientific research and education on ecological and environmen-
tal problems including: Research Natural Areas, where natural
processes are allowed to dominate and any management is to
preserve a given ecosystem or feature; and Experimental Eco-
logical Areas, where various kinds of experiments or manage-
ment practices can be carried out and studied on wildiand and
associated aquatic ecosystems in order to provide new scientific
knowledge of those systems or as a demonstration.
GENERAL OB3ECTIVES OF COMMITTEE
The broad objectives of the Federal Committee on Ecologi-
cal Reserves are:
PAGENO="0300"
296
1. To insure creation and maintenance of an adequate
national system of natural and experimental areas for environ-
mental and ecological research including identification, designa-
tion, and protection of the essential areas. Included here are
major responsibility for working with Federal land agencies on
those system components which are Federal lands and leadership
and encouragement with regard to components in state, local and
private lands.
2. To insure development of permanent data retrieval
systems on the location of the areas and the ecological and
environmental data available for each to service: (a) the
research and development community who need such areas; (b)
the land planning agencies at Federal, state and local levels; and
(c) decision makers and agencies in the environmental area.
3. To encourage development of research programs,
particularly, collection of baseline ecological and environmental
data on these key national research sites and their use for long-
term monitoring.
4. To encourage a broad array of educational uses of
ecological reserves of types and intensities compatible with the
other objectives and functions of a specific reserve.
5. To lead in developing the structures for coordinating
Federal activities with those Of State and local governments and
academic groups and private organizations concerned with
scientific reserves and experimental areas.
IMMEDIATE TASKS OF THE FEDERAL COMMITTEE
(Completion within 1 year)
I. To update and issue a revised version of the
"Directory of Research Natural Areas on Federal Lands."
2. To encourage the adoption of the standard policy
statement on establishment and management of Federal
Research Natural Areas, prepared by the previous Federal
Committee on Research Natural Areas, by the participating
Federal agencies.
3. To develop a formal mechanism for review of Federal
properties declared excess by the holding agency prior to disposal
action by GSA for their value as field research sites; further,
when properties are found to be of critical value for ecological
and environmental research to recommend appropriate transfers
to Federal, State or local agencies for the designation and pro-
tection of such sites.
4. To advise and participate actively, when possible, in
supporting the pending The Institute of Ecology national study of
experimental research sites (including biological field stations,
experimental forests and ranges, etc.).
PAGENO="0301"
297
5. Pending development of a comprehensive national
plan on Research Natural Areas needs, to identify, on an interim
basis and using extant classifications, the most critical gaps in
existing Research National Areas, and to advise appropriate
Federal agencies of these outstanding needs and encourage them
to fill them.
6. Prepare a compilation of the authorities, legislative
and regulatory, under which Federal agencies establish ecological
reserves.
INTERMEDIATE RANGE TASKS OF THE FEDERAL
COMMITTEE
(Corn pletion within I to 5 years)
I. To see that a more adequate classification of the
natural environments or ecosystems of the United States is
developed to serve as a basis for identifying field research site
needs, this system to include both b!otic and physical elements.
2. To lead in the preparation of a comprehensive plan
for a National System of Ecological Reserves including Research
Natural Areas and Experimental Areas. This plan is to build in
substantial measure upon past and current studies including the
National Park Service theme studies and to identify extant areas
which are appropriate components of a national system and gaps
which remain to be filled through identification and designation
of new areas. This plan is tO be structured in the context of an
overall classification of the natural environments or ecosystems
of the United States and identification of how many natural and
experimental areas are needed in each ecosystem.
3. To stimulate, as necessary, the completion of a
comprehensive computerized inventory and register of Research
Natural Areas in the United States. This effort has been
partially carried out by various groups but needs to be brought
together and completed. Identification of the appropriate
"home" and mechanism of this effort should be possible by mid-
1974 as analysis of the IBP Conservation of Ecosystems efforts
become available.
4. Develop the mechanism, and advertise it, for provid-
ing information on critical research areas to land planning groups
at all levels; this task is related to but separate from
development of the computerized inventory.
5. Develop the appropriate structure for involving State
and local governments and private organizations, and academic
and governmental scientists, in the deliberations of the Federal
Committee. Several possibilities exist and must be evaluated
including a separate but related committee, an advisory commit-
tee, membership in the Federal Committee, etc. The key
PAGENO="0302"
298
Dr. TALBOT. In the environmental message to the Congress this May,
the President underscored the importance of protection of our natural
ecosystem.
Under his directive, the administration is formulating a proposal for
a Natural Heritage Trust Program, which will, as far as I understand,
include a Research Natural Area system, or a broader ecological re-
search system, or something of this sort.
The intent is to be extremely inclusive. The Federal task force work-
ing on this is seeking to prepare the proposal by mid-September, and
I am informed that your committee staff is receiving the products of
the task force, and that they are familiar with the directions of the
program.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, there is an urgent need for an effective
national program to assure that adequate samples of our ecosystem
are protected and made available for research.
Now, the Council on Environmental Quality strongly supports such
a program. We are very grateful for your interests and that of your
committee in this important program.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be very happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Talbot.
We appreciate your contributions, particularly in the light of our
own long experience with this program.
Although it is true that we are hopefully in close touch with the
work being done on the National Heritage Trust Program. I have
not thought about it a great deal.
I am not clear at this point as to the degree of which that program
will involve a legislative structure, but as you spoke, it occurred to me
that possibly it could be a vehicle for providing the necessary legisla-
tive structure for this research area system that we have been talking
about. I am not sure at this point, but it seems that this possibility
ought to be explored as a means of getting relatively prompt action.
A major program that has the President's close attention and high
priority ought to be seized upon as a vehicle for a lot of other good
programs.
Dr. T~w3oT. I could not agree more, sir.
Mr. BROWN. It is my understa.nding that the present chairman of the
CEQ, Charles Warren, does have a personal interest in this type of
problem also. This might be an opportunity to make some substantial
progress in moving beyond the planning stage that we are now at in
this area.
Dr. TALBOT. Well, I know that that is the case in terms of the present
chairman's interest, and we certainly hope that the time is opportune
to move beyond this.
As some of your speakers have emphasized, we have come a long way,
but we have come a long way largely through the good will and the
essentially voluntary efforts of people within and out of Government.
At present, we have a series of programs that have been described
earlier, all of which in essence are fragments of what we need, and we
now need to have something which pulls these fragments together, puts
them in perspective in an effective system. This is what we hope will
come out of the current interest in this subject in Government.
Mr. BROWN. I think your point is sound. I am sure you would recog-
nize, as some of the other speakers have also, that before you can put
PAGENO="0303"
299
in place a legislative, or resource structure, you have to have a fairly
firm conceptualization with a large degree of consensus among the
primary actors in the field, that this conceptualization represents the
proper way to go in this situation. Through these hearings we are ex-
ploring in part the degree to which that conceptualization has been~
reached, the degree to which there is a consensus on that. Obviously
it is not perfect, but I think it is becoming quite coherent.
Dr. TALBOT. I believe, sir, that we have come a long way toward
achieving this kind of consensus.
There was a study done jointly for the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Federal Council on Science and Technology about 3
or 4 years ago entitled "The Role of Ecology." This study built on
much of the work that had been done before from the Federal Commit-
tee on Research in Natural Areas, and the IBP, and so forth, and one
of its major recommendations involved the kind of network we are
discussing of both kinds of reserves, that is experimental and natural-
ones where you maintain pristine conditions.
Since that time, the successor to the earlier committee, the Federal
Committee on Ecological Reserves, which reported to you, has achieved
a most extraordinary amount of agreement among all of the agencies
involved, including more or less agreed upon guidelines and objectives.
There are the current endeavors with the Heritage Trust Program.
It seems to me that we have a situation where scientists for a long time
have been talking about the objectives, and there are some private orga-
nizations, most notably The Nature Conservancy, that have done a
tremendous amount of work on this so there is reasonable agreement
outside of Government. Most unusually perhaps, we have most of the
Federal agencies that are really involved, mainly in agreement on
what should be done.
The only differences that I perceive are ones which involve the terri-
torial imperative of the agencies involved. This will require some
sort of negotiation, but the basic objectives are very well agreed upon,
almost uniquely so in this kind of endeavor.
Our challenge now is to work out how to get from here to where we
agree we want to go.
Mr. BROWN. I want to explore that, to explore your statement that
this agreement has been reached among the various agencies in more
detail.
One of my more frustrating problems has been to reduce to writing
a consensus which I thought had been reached between two different
agencies. It is not all that easy sometimes, even when both agencies
state that they have agreed in principle.
Some of the issues that are not matters of principle seem to be the
difficulty.
Well, I want to thank you very much for your contribution. I think
we had an almost unique experience in these two days of hearings in
bringing together the largest number of people involved in a given
problem area that I have seen in any of our hearings and I appreciate
that very much. I also want to commend the committee staff, who as
usual does most of the work in situations of this sort, for their bring-
ing together all of the actors in a very patient way.
It has been hard on me, but it has been productive. Thank you
very much, Doctor.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, the committee was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.]
PAGENO="0304"
PAGENO="0305"
APPENDIX
1. Preserving `Sites for Long-Term Environmental Research. 1976.
Mosaic, 7: 29-33. National Science Foundation.
2. The Biosphere Reserve Program in the United States. 1977. Science,
195: 262-267, by Jerry F. Franklin.
3. Prairie Preserves as Research Facilities. Spring, 1977. TIte Nature
Conservancy News, pp. 26-27, by Paul G. Risser.
4. The National Biological Monitoring Inventory, 1977. Biological
Indicators o/ Entvironn'tental Quality, J. J. Reisa (ed.) Council
on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. (in press).
5. National Environmental Research Parks, Energy Research and
Development Administration Fact Sheet.
6. The United States Program/Man and the Biosphere: Fact Sheet.
98-513 0 - 77 - 20
PAGENO="0306"
PAGENO="0307"
303
PAGENO="0308"
Reading the torest finer. dear Oak edge.
Tennessee as part ut ecosystem stud:es ct
the U.S. teterratior.a Siu!ogica Program, a
sets op remotely banned
chambers that periodically sample carbon
dioxide production.
the National Science boundation 00
ptis'ate or sin iversit -related field stations
useful foe biological education and re-
search. And in 1973, AlPS assessed the
Nation's natural areas and their role in
landaedrs'aterPrereeoation
Using iefaensatioo feces these acd
ether studies, a groep ef coma 33 sci-
entists is ross' making a detailnd assess-
ment ef rcebog;cal reserves that scorn
best suited rarsper mental research.
This program. mice Exporarcental Eco-
logical Re.rrsns lEER) Profeot, soppartod
by the National Science Fanndatico, is
direcled by a national adcisarx' orga-
siaatiau, The Institute of Ecology'. Its
purpose is ta preside opportunities far
lang-teem manipulative enalagical re-
search cod to rstah7sh ax rce!agical
data hose that ss'iil corsribssre to effec-
tive esanagemeut of America's land no-
A natural ecosystem is a camplex,
highly evolved biological aed physical
unit ss'here living species save became
adapted to the surrounding land, router,
aedclsmate,assvrilast005eamnthrr,
ard exist is a state of balanced inter-
reiatcanship'-urtil some change alters
At the perseot time. an est~matrd 3003
to 4)73 natural areas esist is) the United
States-sicstinct in the sense that the','
are rot `to be dkterhrd by
damn, drainage, landfill, build;ngs. .rc
datehin grossing par'nlation and
ence. Of these, an estcmated 300 areas
are established research sitrs being con-
nidered as potential experimental ecolog-
Through questionnaires, un-site visits,
publications, and personal knocs'Iedge-
scientists ann amas sing data us Sara,
fauna, climate, research history, facili-
ties, potential human intervention, and
ether factors. By the end of the taco-
near study, in early 1976, the research-
ers hope to base information on the
estent, quality, and distnibutios af ex-
isting field sites and to identify a number
of ecological reserves that ssill form the
nucleus of a national netcsark.
Blueprints for green lands
The must important single factor in
evaluating potential sites is hocnssell the
vegetation and other biotic and physical
components of a site represent a major
rco;ystem. To get on ssith the task, the
EER group accepted for peeliminary use
a basic classification system-one of
conceal sshich mill be ssed-deassn sp by
A. W. Kuchler of the University uf
Kansas denoting the more than 100
natural comrnuuity tr'pes is the Usited
States-fat instance, the svheatgrass,
bluestem, and seedlegrass of a Dakota
prairie; the sandpaper bush, Jushua tree,
and sages of Arizona and Ness Mexico;
the cedar, hemlock, and Douglas fsr
forests of the noethsvest; aud the alder-
sviilasv sheublands of the e.ortheast.
The group gave high priority to larger
sites ss'ith the most research options.
"In planuing for futune research needs,
it is essential that lange-sealerepresesta-
lions of the major ecosystem Pipes be
secured to ensure the long-term avail-
ability' of such biological resources," says
Brian Bedford of The Institute of Ecology
and co-manager of the PER project.
"Some such areas may' `stand and svait'
until a research nerd develops; however,
it is important that such areas be identi-
fied rvhile they are still available."
Another impantast criterion for site
selection is sshether or not the area is
available for research experiments snith-
out possibilities of comficts arising as to
the use of thr lend is the future. Types
and number of facilities are other con-
siderations, as mcdl as the year-round
availability' and access to and from the
site. As important factor, if available,
is the long.term history' of research at
each site-essential in presiding baseline
data fir future studios.
304
PAGENO="0309"
"Further eval uationof the total data
on existing research sites will provide us
with the basis of a potential netss'ork of
experimental ecological reserves," states
Bedford. "It ssill also defier the gaps in
our presrn t coverage of the Nation's
ecosystem sites."
Some potential EER areas
Our high-quality site considered foe
the EER system is the H. J. And rests
Experimental Forest in th essex teen Cas-
cade Range of Oregon, about 80 miles
southeast of Coex'allis. Dedicated ex-
clusively to research, this forest en-
compasses a complete drainage basis of
more than 6,000 hectares (the metric
hectare is equivalent to about 2.5 acres).
Stands of Douglas Sr and Western hem-
lock, some 350 to 450 years old, domi-
nate most of th rareas up to 4,000 feet,
interspersed tvith true fir, mountain
hemlock, alder, and patches of meadows.
Above this, the Pacific silser fir zone
begins. Set asideasapermanent reserve
since 1940, the area contains many sxell
monitored mountain streams, water-
sheds, and forest communities. Studies
are being made of such factors as the
nutrient cycling of small svatershedx; the
soil moisture relationships under dif-
ferent vegetative cover; the physical,
chemical, and hydrologic characteristics
of indigenous soils; the succession of
plants after a forest has been logged
and burned; the effect of logging on the
chemical qtiality of xvater; the effect of
DDT ox ecu systems; and the fluctua-
tions in small mammal populations.
Another established site considered
for EER inclusion is the University of
Michigan Biological Station, represent-
ing the Great Lakes northern hardwoods
and pine forests. With a research his-
tory going back to 1909, plots of various
communities have been monitored: deer,
grouse, and grey squirrels svith stands
of trembling and bigtooth aspen, balsam,
beeches, and sugar maples; and porcu-
pine~ with white pine, red oak, and
brackex fern. Aquatic habitats include
creeks, rivers, ponds, bogs, sandbars,
and beach pools. Most of the site has
been left completely undisturbed, except
for observational recordings, foe the past
50 to 00 years.
Within the northern hardwood area,
research programs in the Hubbard Brouk
Experimental Forest, Ness Hampshire,
began in 1955, with stream-gauging and
precipitation thonitoring, soil surveys,
and studies of snoxv and frost. In an
area of more than 3,000 hectares, svater-
sheds are monitored for xvatee quality
and quantity, composition of soils, and
types of vegetation.
Research at the Desert Experimental
Range of Utah, climatically a cold dexrrt
svith cold xvinters and ssarm summers,
reports ox life cycles of arid land flora
and fauna-chisel-toothed kangaroo eats,
horned larks, and )ackrabbits; desert
almond, pinyons, and junipers. Ways to
restore depleted desert lands svith sege-
tative xpeci cx are ssndee study, as
as methods of heeding and handling
grazing sheep that woold prove less
harmful to the range and more bene-
ficial to the grazers.
Marine sites are also und er cons idrra-
tion for EER. Along the shoreline of
North Carolina, the maritime commu-
nities of Hobcatv Barony rstcnd from
the hardy yaupon at the surf's edge
through southern red cedar and live oaks
to loblolly pine beyond the salt spray
zone to open dunes covered svith native
grasses sxtch as sea oats. Upland areas
include longleaf pine, turkey oak, and
live oak. Hobcass is one of the largest
contiguous remnants of the old grosvth
pine forests of the South, set aside foe
research and educational purposes. Once
osvned by Bernard Baroch, and now by
the Belle W. Baruch Foundation, the
marshlands are managed nuder long-
tcrm contracts by the University of South
Carolina, and the forests by Clemson
University.
Other sites are locatrd across the map
-some large and ssell known; others
small and little knossn even to nearby
residents: Friday Harbor Laboeatories
of the Uniseesity of Washington; Lake
Itaska Forestry and Biological Station of
the University of Minnesota; Welder
Wildlife Foundation in Texas; Edmond
Niles Hs:yck Preserve, near Rensselaer-
ville, New York; and Oak Ridge Envi-
ronmental Study Park.
Assortment of lands
Obviously, these experimental ecologi-
cal reservex are only part of the huge
kaleidoscope of reserved terees trial, fresh-
sxater, and marine ecosystems through-
out the United States. Some of the
largest tracts of natural land, including
305
The Diversity of Natural Areas
~I9tMto~
B.. -.3S.'Auu
It: ;. shy:' 5'.s:p:tt Say:
4.5,:::, `1 :s'.t `vs:s 5: `iS: ` .~ ~ `A
A:.:' h,:A:s,:SA:: .44.~5~ê~'s'u'
5:':.v,:SF,::A
F5:::y- `e. us -,v `A ~u ~,
1 ~ stAb6ttcfl , 05*6160 ~
.:
State Al :5: `v' v. "Al:'::. `.: :5:' t :4 ~ ~ us : ...
II ~x1uqsgaI ffflfftff:
05 . ii. us
`51 F I::::
L t I F A I
eistA oun
t ~ A4.
PAGENO="0310"
Artificial Environments:
Phytotron and Biotron
iVhile there's no substitute Cur the
natural environment for most ecological
research, some can't wait foe the right
conditions to occur or reoccur, and
other work encountrrs overwhelming
problems in trying to condocn reliable re-
search uodrr precise environmental con-
trols. Fortunately, it is possible to create
artificial environments.
The must common are simple green-
houses, but far better control can be ob-
tained in highly sophisticated facilities
called phytoteons-mainly for plants-
and biotrons-for plants and animals.
t,Vith controlled temperature, humidity,
carbon dioxide, soil nutrients, svind,
light, and atmospheric pressure, these
facilities can simulate conditions found
anysvhrre (or nosvhrre) on Earth. Sci-
entists can "sot and reset the calendar"
far any season -a hot humid summer, a
cold des- svintrr-or choose their osvn
geographies-high-altitude mountain,
salty shoreline, or arid desert.
Among the facilities maintained svith
NSF help are the tssa phytotrons of the
Southeastern Plant Environment Labora-
tories (SEPEL) at Duke Universits' and
at North Carolina State University, and
the biutron at the Unis'ersity of Wiscon-
sin, Madison. These national facilities
are available to qualified users for pe-
rind s as shoet as days or as long as
years. Wild and cultivated plants, insects,
and small animals can be handled at
SEPEL; Wisconsin can handle even larger
animals such as primates, cAtte, and
man. Conditions are continuously mon-
itored ssith built-in controls, alarms,
backup systems, and failsafe devices to
keep the esperimrnts going.
With more than ICC plant geossth
chambers and nine temperature-
controlled grernhosrses, SEPEL's phvto-
trans have born supporting a number
of complex experiments in physiology,
morpholugy, genetics, ecologs', and crop
production. Research results base al-
ready gis'en scientists a better under-
standing of boss' plants function and
grass, and sshat factors determine the
snide s'ariatinns ob'erved in agricultural
crops and ssild ecosystems, point out
directors Jock Dawns of North Carolina
State and Henry Hellsners of Duke. Ex-
periments I-use included the selection of
soybean s'arioties for the ssarld's loss
latitude areas sshere tsso crops a year
are possible; rho discovers' that certain
plants, such as Monterey pine, gross
faster at a much cooler night temperature
than that of thom natural habitat; the
effect of temperature and photoperiod
on serfhum growth; and the delay of
Possess caused by high concentrations
of carbon dioxide.
The biotron at the University of IVis-
cnnsin contains 40 rooms in sshioh
psoc'ide normal on exprrienental cycIes
of a sside s'asicty of cnndstioxs. For
instance, points out Assistant Director
Calvin Dessitt, temperatures can range
from arctic conditions of -60' C to
desert heats of 60' C. Winds of speeds
as high as 120 kilometers an hour can
be blotsn through glassed-in chambers
sshere researchers can study their ef-
fects on animal heat transfer rates or
on leaf respiration and es'aporatino rates.
Some of the other ssork at rho biotron
inclodos the development of cross-breed-
ing hardiness in corn crops by speedsng
up the seasons in the laborators', thus
speeding up the growth period and
maturation to determine the point at
eshich freezing temperatures mould kill
off the loss bards' corn species. Another
experiment on animal behavior simulated
a southern California desert, complete
ssith x'egetatiun, normal profiles of soil
temperature, and daily c','cles of tem-
perature and light. With the biotron,
foresters could determine the optimum
time for planting greenhouse Douglas
fir serdlings along the slopes in Oregon
to avoid spring frost killing. And an-
other experiment determined the effects
of poor ventilation, inadequacy of light,
and heat upon the hardiness of honey
bryn shipynd end er various conditions
ehressghout the countrx'.
These facilities attract basic research
in environmental bioscience that is diffi-
cult or impossible to perform elsesvhere.
But results of this research must be
tempered ssith the fact that tIme environ-
ments are artificial and may differ from
natural conditions in significant ss'ays.
For that reason, studies continue to be
done to compare controlled and nutural
environments and to determine their
relative values for different kinds of
306
SEPEL Prrporieg plants to brunt nut in
the phytutrun. -.
PAGENO="0311"
307
the wild eeness aeeas, rs'ildlife refuges,
national monuments, pack lands, and
forest resers'er~ are held by different
Federal agencies. Some lands are spec ifi-
cally managed to protect ss'ildlife and
plants. Olhers are open to psrhli crecrea-
hon-fishing, hunting, camping, boating;
or to private lumbering, mining, live-
stock grazing; or to use for transporta-
tion, poss'erplanfs, and dams.
About tsso dozen States are aclis'eiy
identifying and protecting natural areas
in their oven jurisdictions, such as the
Ness York Stale Forest, Ness' Jersey's
Pine Barrens, and the Colorado Forest
Sers'ice's Aspen Groves. Hundreds of
unis'ersities and schools maintain their
orvn land resees'rs, often set aside by
pris'ate foundations, Slate agencies, or
alumni, and then donated to the institu-
tions. On the city les'el, tire pocket
parks, city zoos, edges of creeks, and
rivers base been added to the assort-
mentof rescrs'ed land.
Private foundations and societies such
as the Nature Cnnsrrvanc~', the Sierra
Club, the Audubon Society, and stale-
svide private groups have been buying
up and "holding" ecological sites to
keep them from being lost to espanding
human encroachment.
One of the more important functions
these areas serve is the perpetuation of
a large varioty of plants and animals-
maintaining gene pools of natis'e species
that could help develop ness strains of
food, fiber, and wood plant sas rsisting
strains come under pressure from fast-
evolving diseases and pests or short- and
long-teens changes in weather and cli-
mate. Little knovsn, so-called "use-
less" plants and animals have sometimes
been discos'eerd to have impurfant uses.
Pcniciiiirr and ruuroolfia (source of the
drug resrrpine) are classic esamples.
Recently, substances from the obscure
plant Moytcrrus and its closely related
genus Putterlikia, discovered in Africa,
have shown promise in the treatment of
cancer. The red alder plant, lung ignored
as a weed, has now been discovered to
possess nitrogen-Suing bacteria in its
root system that are influential in con-
trolling fungus destructive to valuable
conifers such as the Douglas fir of the
northwest. From the plated armadillu,
scientists are trying to find a cure for
leprosy; and avaccine from snow leop.
ards may help conquer sleeping sickness.
What's the next step?
Once the inventory and evaluation of
esperimental ecological reserves have
been made, data about these sites can
be used as a base for field research by
different organizations, For instance, the
Nature Conservancy can use EER infor-
mation in its overall inventory on the
Nation's land areas. Federal and private
agencies mill find FER results helpful in
resolving questions of future land uses
-such as nature preserves, wildlife
refuges, endangered species sites, and
gene pool reserves. For individual
researchers, such a "bibliography" of
diverse sites provides invaluable sources
of information.
The work of the EER project is only
a start. Other efforts continue to pre-
serve ecosystems and the rich variety of
life they contain, to keep the Barth's
long-range ecosystems from being de-
stroyed by short-term urgencies of man's
No one yet knows what the ulfimate
environment of Americ,s mviii be. Surely
the use of land for food, shelter, high-
svays, and recrea lion mviii continue, often
at th eespense of natural land areas.
"Yet there's a need to better under-
stand the role of natural areas in our
changing environment," says George
Lauff of Michigan State University, co-
manager of the EER project. "In order
to make ssise decisions involving fhe
use of tand,a cemprebresive inventory
of the Nation's natural areas is needed
-first, to see rshat we have, and second,
to pros'ide a baseline for measuring the
effects of human modification.
"The inventor y nosy under rvay," he
adds, "of those research sites ssith long-
term potential for esperimenmal ecologi-
cal studies is the beginning of an inte-
grated approach to rns'iroamental quality
and managemenr."e
Work described irr f/sir urtic!e liar beers
partially supported my f/re Biological
Reseorc/r Resources Progrormr irs NSF's
Division of Emrviro;rnrerrtal Biology.
tn situ, Taking odvuntuge of the natural
nutting, this euperimrst at rho Huyek
Preserve measures the resistunce of louses
to the now uf water vapor.
PAGENO="0312"
308
National Science Foundation
~1ashgt CC 20 ~ dF rd
THIRD CLASS
Bulk Rate
External Separately Budgeted 14 1'r'' `~ "~
Suppo t Fo F cu t~ Ruse ch 10Th * 4 ( s's
4 14
c: ,`. ``"a-c ,~, `ca ~_~`~`"s"s~_,,,, l'r,'~., :~irc'cd th'.t 1' art t4:n cr
`c' `t tt" //` "\ thrt ta'c-fluth' c'.crc 1~r.r p:'f's'r'c'rt
3' `~ 4,' `` `c' `` / (Ski F13'1
4' 5 4' 4 (`S ` fermi cah!,e'd crr3 tlt~t ~,ctrt!~ firs:"
* 5 s 4~'4''-~ *`ss'' ,k'. Is'~' ( th4n ccr'-h,rlf ,cre fl thcl? rrefe:rc~
5 - 55555 s(4' ctslrhcld but c!on~ `utch hr a
~ ~ ~ ~: d
-. 5 , S 5 ~` -`4,5 74 - CrlW'c" S~71'2St px'tflfi'S ci ac'crr sflr,ts~t!un.' is7fl
4 1 4 Il's S 175 9
* , ) *,``SS "~` `7 5 ~54, ~ (5 C~7 I /1 4
5 5 5 13 :`c' 73 47k 41341 (5 14,7 `11
~ U
* ` ` ,` "5 4'. 1' ~~"` 13 676 (5? 1: 63 12
4 --``"s:" ~..is. .7 135*5555 47 u717 1133: 44 14i 4
* " `"* "*` ` 4'?" ~, e'; (5k, `.7 24 6 -
~ (5
1 1 13 12
S 54'~*''4, *5*~ 5,,~5'4 ~4 *413~ 13 1?
PAGENO="0313"
309
Reprinted from
21 January 977, Volume 195, pp. 262-267
The Biosphere Reserve Program in
the United States
Jerry F. Franklin
Copnjright~ 1977 by the American Aesociation for the Advancement of Science
PAGENO="0314"
310
DevelopmentoftheBiosphere Reserve
C-
Biosphere reserves are majorelements
in Unesco's "Man and the Biosphere"
(MAB) program and in the U.S.-
USSR. Environmental Agreement.
They are part of an international system
of reserves with the prinsaty objectives
ofconservationofgeneticdiversity, envi-
Jerry F,Franklin
ronmentdl research and monitoring, and
education.
The scientific community must be
aware of the existence and potential
of the biosphere reserves if they are
to fulfill their intended functions. I
Will outline the conceptual development
of the Unescoeffort, the philosophyguid.
ing its implementation in the United
States, and the utilization and expansion
of U.S. biosphere reserves expected in
the future. The views presented are
those of the U.S. National Committee
for Man and the Biosphere.
The conceptof biosphere reserves was
developed as a major element of Project
8, Conservation of Natura!Areas and of
the Genetic Material They Contain, in
the Unesco-sponsored Program on Man
and the Biosphere (I). This project,
which emerged as an important com-
ponent early in the MAB planning, was
initially considered in detail by an expert
panel, which met in Morges, Switzer-
land, in September 1973. Establishment
of a worldwide network of biosphere
reserves was this panel's first recommen-
dation. A task force with the responsibili-
ty of defining "criteria and guidelines for
the selection and establishment of bio-
sphere reserve" (2, p. 9) met in Paris in
May 1974. The task force report is the
source of the following information on
the international program.
Biosphere reserves, have three basic
purposes or objectives: (i) conservation
or preservation-to conferve for pres-
entand future use the diversityand integ-
rity of biotic communities of plants and
animals within natural ecosystems, and
to safeguard the genetic diversity of spe-
cies on which their continuing evolution
depends" (2, p. 6); (ii) research and
The Biosphere Reserve Program in
the United States
A program has been developed to select key
sites for environmental research and monitoring.
The aathor is chief phiotecotoiost, PacificNorth-
west Forest and Range Enperosent Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Depaestsnt of Ageicttlture. Forestry
Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon 97330. He
was chairman of the U.S Man and the Biosphere
Committee on ProjectS Biosphere Reservea)aad is
U.S. chairman of Project V-4.t (Biosphere Re-
serresl under the U.S-U.S.S.R. Environmental
PAGENO="0315"
311
monitoring-to provide areas for eco- the first type, representative natural
logical and environmental research in- areas (3).
cluding, particularly, baselines studies The system used for classifying the
(2, p. 6); and (iii) education-to world into biotic regions or biomes was
provide facilities for education and train- developed by the International Union for
ing" (2, p. 6). Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-
In concept, the core of the biosphere sources (IUCN) (4, 5). This system is
reserve program includes natural areas being further divided and refined for the
representative of the major biomes or continental United Slates (see Fig. 1).
biotic divisions of the world, including Additional criteria for identifying re-
their main subdivisions and transitional serves include size (areas large enough to
zones. Biosphere reserves of other types be effective conservation units and to
are identified, notably natural areas with include complete watersheds) and ade-
unique features of exceptional interest quate legal protection from nonconform-
and man-modified landscapes in regions ing uses.
where natural conditions no longer exist. Allthree objectives-conservation, re-
The rationale for the objectives and de- search, and education-are viewed as
sign of each kind of biosphere reserve important and generally compatible. Pri-
has been developed (2). The U.S. pro- orities among the objectives will vary
gram has focused, at least initially, on with the nature of the biosphere reserve
and the primary thrust of the national
programs. In some countries, establish-
ing reserves for conservation will have
priority, and research programs will
have to be developed as quickly as pos-
sible. In other countries with numerous
existing conservation reserves, current
research and educational activities as
well as the potential for their expansion
will be more important crileria in select-
ing biosphere reserves.
The biosphere reserve program "is not
meant as a substitute for programmes to
establish national parks orequivalent re-
serves" although they may "often coin-
cide partly with or incorporate national
parks. . ." (2, p. 6). The objective con-
Fig. 1. Location of establshed biosphere reserves and biotic prov-
inces in the continental United States (including Alaska); province
subdivisions are indicated by dotted lines. Alphabetic designations
refer to biotic provinces: Al, Aleutian Islands; AT, Alaskan Tundra;
AU, Austroriparian; CA, Californian; CH, Chihuahuan;CT, Canadian
Taiga: EF, Eastern Forest; EV, Everglades; GB, Great Basin; GR,
Grasslands; MC, Madrean-Cordilleran; OR, Oregonian; RM, Rocky
Mountains; SC, Sierra-Cascade; SI, Sitkan; SO, Sonoran; TA, Ta-
maulipan; FT. Yukon Tundra. Numbered areas refer to biosphere
reserves; I, Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge; 2, Big Bend
National Park; 3, Cascade Head Experimental Forest; 4, Central
Plains Experiment Station; 5, Channel IstandsNationalMonument; 6,
Coram Expeimental Forest; 7, Coweeta Experimental Forest; 8,
Desert Experimental Range; 9, Everglades National Park; l0~ Fraser
Experimental Forest; 11, Glacier National Park; 12, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park; 13; H. 5. Andrews Experimental Forest;
14, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest; 15, Jornada Experimental
Range; 16, Mount McKinley National Park; 17, Noatak National
Aretic Range; 18, Olympic National Park; 19, Organ Pipe Caàtttt National Monument; 20, Pawnee National Grassland (9); 21, Rocky Mountain
National Park; 22, San Dimas Experimental Forest; 23, San Joaquin Experimental Range; 24, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks; 25,
Stanislaus Experimental Forest; 26, Three Sisters Wilderness; 27, Yellowstone National Park.
I
PAGENO="0316"
cerning research and monitoring is a ma-
jor distinguishing feature between parks
and biosphere reserves. To avoid poten-
tial conflicts between conservation and
research, the task force encouraged the
designation of core areas with strict con-
servation objectives and adjacent buffer
zones where destructive types of re-
search, such as might be associated with
studies of various land uses, could be
carried out.
What seems clearfrom the expert pan-
el and task force efforts is that a variety
of kinds of areas will be accommodated
aspart of the biosphere reserve program,
Grasslands
(short grass)
Grasslands
(true prairie)
Great Basin*
(north)
GreatBasin
(south)
NoatakNational Arctic
Range,Alaska
Aleutian Island National
WildlifeRefilge,Ala.Ska
Channellslattds National
Monument, Califorttia
SanDinsas Experimental
Forest, California
SanJoaquinEXperitttental
Range,Califor!tta
BigBend National Park,
Texas
JornadaExpedmental
Range, New Mexico
CoweetaExperintental
Forest, NorthCarotina
Great Smoky Mountains
NationalPark,Teltnear
see andNorthCarotina
Hubbard Brooktuxpeni'
mental Forest, New
Hampshire
EvergtadesNatiOnatP~,
Florida
with varying degrees of naturalness and
of relative emphasis on conservation and
research. Ultimately, the unifying con-
cept is a worldwide system of reserves
representing all the globally significant
biotic regions and unique features, each
with active research and monitoring pro-
grams associated with the preservation
effort, and all linked by an international
understanding of purposes and standards
and by frequent exchanges of personnel
and information. Each country must
work toward this goal in the context of
its peculiar national potentialities and
programs.
Twoislands(453 hectares)andadjacent
ocean; abundanceofendemicbiotaand
marine fauna
Typicalchaparrat ecosystetn;historyofeeo-
logical andwaterslted research
CaliforniaCentral Valley annualgrasstand
andoaksavanna; bistoryofecological
andrange managementreSearctt
Representative desertntountaan and low-
landecosystems
Typical desert grasslands; history of ecotogi-
caland range managementresearch
Typical soathernAppalaChinmi~~-
woodforest;history ofwatershedand
ecotogical research
Appalachian mountainscape withrichbiotic
diversity including hardwoodand spruce-
firforests; historyofecological/biO-
geographical research
Typical northernApPalachian mountain
drainage ofmixedhardWoods and spruce;
history ofecosystemandWatershedre-
Subtropicalforest, mangrove, swamp,
marshland, and near-shore marine ecosys-
tems; richbiota; substantialecotogical re-
search inctudingexperimental manipula-
tions
Typical short-grass prairieecosystems; his-
toryofecological andennge management
tnitial Implementation of the Biosphere
ReserveProgram bathe United States
The U.S. MAB Committee on Project
8 (U.S. MAB 8 Committee) weighs con-
servation and research equally in its de-
liberations on biosphere reserves. Selec-
tion of representative sites in each biotic
province is, of cour~e, an essential ele-
ment; the sites should provide superla'
five examples of the ecosystems found in
a province. Conservation of genetic re-
sotirces is implicit. However, the exis-
tence of or potential for major ecological
research and mortitttringprogrants is crit-
6,280 Agriculture, Agricultural E
Research
312
AlaskanTundra
Aleutian
Islands
Austroriparian*
Californian
Table I. Estabtished biosphere reserves in the United States and its territories. The reserves are administered by the Department of the Interior
(Interior), the Bureau of Land Management (land Management), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife), the National
Park Service (National Park), the Forest Service (Forest), the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), or the Agricuttural Research Service
(Agricultural Research). The orientation of an urea is toward conservation (C) experimental research (E) or both.
HoticpovinceNameandloCationGutstandingfeaturesSim~
orsubdivaston(8) of area (hectares) agency tation
Majorarctic riverbasin(tundraecOsyStems) 3,000,000 Interior, LandManage- C
Inctudes essentially all theAleutianlstand 1,100,000 Interior, Fishand Wild- CE
chain life
Chihualtaan
Eastern Forestu
(south)
Eastern Forest
(northeast)
Eautern Forestf
(north central)
Everglades
7,440 lnteriur,National Park C
6,947 Agriculture, Forest E
1,861 Agriculture, Forest E
286,600 Interior, National Park C
77,000 Agriculture, Agricultural E
Research
2,300 Agriculture, Forest E
207,500 Interior,NationalPark C
3,075 Agriculture, Forest E
566,800 Interior, National Park CE
Central Plains Experiment
Station,CoturadO
Desert Experimental Typicalsalt-desert shrub(saltbtash-grease' fl,513 Agriculture, Forest E
Range, Utah wood)andjuper.pmyonPme ecosys-
tems; historyefecotOgicatandrungeman
agementresearch
Greater LuquilloExperimental For- Tropical rainforest, montanethicket, palm 11,300 Agriculture, Forest EC
Antillean ml, Puerto Rico ~nddwarfforesteco5y5tums; richbi°ta;
~
search
Hawuiiant
PAGENO="0317"
Table I (continued)
orsubdivision(8) Nameandlocation Outstandingfeatures
Lesser Virgin Islands National Tropical ecosystems including near-shore
Antillean Park, Virgin Islands marine areas
Micronesiant
Oregonian Cascade Head Experimen- Coastal Silka-spruce-western hemlock for-
tat Forest and Scenic Re- ests and estuary; history of ecotogicaland
search Area, Oregon silvicullurat research
Olympic National Park, Coastal mountain system withdense en-
Washington niferous forest, coastal and alpine ecosys-
tems; abundantgtaciers andlarge elk
herds
Rocky Mountaln Coram Experimental For- Typical montane mixed-coniferforestsof
(north) est, Montana Douglas fir, westernlarch, andlodgepole
pine; history of ecological and silvicultur-
at research
GlacierNational Park, Broad range of typical mountalnlandscapes
Montana and ecosystems from prairie marginto
alpine
Yellowstone National Unique areawith abundant thermal phenom-
Park, Wyoming, Idaho, enaandlargermammals; history of eco-
and Montana logical research
Rocky Mountain Fraser Experimental For- Subalpine forests of subalpine fir, Enget-
(south) est, Colorado mann spruce, andlodgepole pine and al-
pine tundra; history of ecological and wa-
tershed research
Rocky Mountain National Typical montane and subalpiueforesteco-
Park, Colorado systems and alpine tundra
Sierra-Cascade H. J. Andrews Experimen- Dense coniferous forestecosystems of
(nnrth) talForest, Oregon Douglas fir, western hemlock, cedars, and
true firs; history of ecosystem and water-
shed research
Three Sisters Wilderness, Dense montane and subalpine forestsof
Oregon Douglas fir, hemlocks, and true firs, al-
- pineecosystems, and recent volcanic for-
Sierra-Cascade Sequoia-Kings Canyon Na- Representative Sierran mixed-coniferfor-
(south) tional Parks, California ests(sugarpine, incense-cedar, true firs);
subalpine and alpine ecosystems
Stanislaus Experimental Representative Sierran mixed-coniferfor-
Forest, California ests; history of ecologicaland silvicuttural
Silkan)
Sonoran Organ Pipe Cactus Nation- Desert ecosystems including richdiversity
(typical) at Monument, Arizona of cacti
(Mojave)t
YukonTaiga Mt. McKinley National Representative tundraandtaigaecosystems
Park, Alaska inctudinglarge ungulate and predatorcom-
ponents
313
ical. The manipulative research is also the impetus of a Unesco MAB confer- and the Central Plains Experiment Sta-
linked to the educational use of reserves ence in the United States and agree- tion. These areas typically have at least
since these are areas in which various ments between the United States and the small natural areas or preserves associat-
management practices can be tested and USSR, on joint designation and study ed with them as control sites for the
demonstrated. of biosphere reserves. Nine additional experiments. The large conservation pre-
From the earliest stage in the selection areas were established in November serve typically has a relatively limited
process it was obvious that some con- 1975, history of research and monitoring and
servation and experimental reserves in The areas (Table 1) are generally of limited options for experimental or ma-
the United States were outstanding can- two types, experimental tracts and large nipulative research- The Three Sisters
didates for biosphere reserves. This was conservation preserves. Experimental Wilderness is an example, as are most of
true in a majority of the biotic provinces, tracts have histories of ecological re- the designated national parks and monu-
This appraisal wasbased on(i) the signifi- search and monitoring, which often in- ments (Fig. 3) (6).
cance and representativeness oftheirfea- elude major manipulative research and It was seldom possible to identify a
lures and (ii) long histories of biotic pres- demonstration projects (Fig. 2). Exam- single area that satisfied all criteria-a
ervation, ecological research, or both, pies are the Coweeta, H. J. Andrews, large, strictly preserved tract for con-
From these candidates an initial series of Fraser, and Luquillo Experimental For- servation of a full array of organisms
19 reserves was selected in 1974 under ests, the Jornada Experimental Range, with a substantial history of research and
Size Administering Orien-
(hectares) agency tation
6,130 Interior, National Park C
7,051 Agriculture, Forest E
362,850 Interior, National Park C
2,984 Agriculture, Forest E
410,000 Interior, National Park C
900,000 Interiur, National Park C
9,300 Agriculture, Forest E
106,160 Interior, National Park C
6,050 Agriculture, Forest B
80,900 Agriculture, Forest C
342,754 Interior, National Park C
683 Agriculture, Forest E
- 134,000 Interior, National Park C
784,900 Interior, National Park C
"tie aaraemais River(SC in Fig. I), Oak Ridge (TB), and Arid Lands Ecology (WA)Resersotionsofihe Energy Research and DevelopmentAdmimstratios(ERDA)
havebeenproposedforsiies inthe Austroriparian, Eastern Forest(south)oisdOreat Basin(so,ih)Biutic Provinces, respectively. Thus ra, ERDA has notdesignated
any portions of these sites as biosphere reserves becouse oCconcems over agency prerogotises. tOood candidates fur biosphere reserves have been identified,
buiufinolselectionhasnoibren made.
PAGENO="0318"
314
monitoring and potential formajorexper-
imentat treatments. [The only area that is
clearly of this type is the Arid Lands
Ecology Reserve, at Hanford, Washing-
ton, which is controlled by the Energy
Research and Development Administra-
tion (ERDA) (7).] Because of this diffi-
culty, the U.S. Committee on Biosphere
Reserves developed the concept of
multiple reserves whereby experimental-
ly oriented tracts are matched with large
preserves similar in biologic and environ-
mental features. Together they provide a
single conceptual biosphere reserve for a
biotic province. For example. in the
northern half of the Sierra Cascade Biot-
ic Province (Table 1), the H. J. Andresvs
Experimental Forest is linked to the near-
by Three Sisters Wilderness to provide a
`complete" biosphere reserve for this
rovince. Coweeta Ext,erimental Forest.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
and, if designated, the Oak Ridge Reser-
vatión of ERDA will function as a single
conceptual reserve for the southeastern
subdivision of Eastern Forest Biotic
Province.
In many biolic provinces and subdivi-
sions, appropriate sets of bio5phere re-
serves have been selected [Table I).
Twenty-eight areas have been estab-
lished, and additional sites have been
nominated and await agency designa-
tion. Some gaps remain, for example, in
the Grasslands and Sonoran Provinces
and in the north-central subdivision of
the Eastern Forest Province. Selection
of candidates to fill these needs or to
augment existing biosphere reserves in
other provinces will proceed much more
slowly as acontinuingactivityofthe U.S.
MAB 8 Committee.
Use and Management of Biosphere
Reserves
The Unesco task force has specified
several kinds of desired research and
monitoring activities (2). (i) Long-term
baseline studies of environmental and
biologic features (relating to the commu-
nity, flora, or fauna), which are essential
as bases for management of the area and
for other research projects; (ii) research
designed toassist indetermining manage-
ment policies for the reserve; (iii) experi-
mental or manipulative studies (outside
the strictly preserved areas) particularly
of the ecological effects of human activi-
ties; (iv) environmental monitoring, in-
cludinguse as part of the Global Environ-
mental Monitoring System; and(v) study
sites for the various MAB research proj-
ects.
The relative emphasis on different re-
search and monitoring activities wilt ob-
viously vary with the nature of the re-
serve, with the opportunity to continue
existing research, and with the availabili-
ty of new sources of funds.
The U.S. MAB 8 Committee sub-
scribes to these views on the potential
use of the reserves for research and
monitoring. Agencies and institutions
supporting research programs on bio-
sphere reserves are expected at least to
continue and, it is to be hoped, to expand
their support. In many cases, the U.S.
reserves are already major ecological re-
search centers in their respective prov-
inces. The most difflcult'tasks will be (i)
obtaining the necessary funding forbase-
line surveys, studies, and monitoring;
and (ii) persuading ecologically oriented
scientists to use these sites more exten-
sively. The developing support of field
research facilities by the National Sci-
ence Foundation should be of major as-
sistance; all of the experimentally orient-
ed biosphere reserves are clearly of na-
tional significance, and most are recog-
nized centers for applied and basic
environmental research.
The U.S-U.S.S.R. biosphere reserve
project under the bilateral Environmen-
tal Agreement is adding further impetus
to plans for utilizing the reserves. The
lead agencies for this project in the
U.S.S.R. are the Academy of Sciences
and the Hydrometeorological Service.
Al the first meeting of the bilateral proj-
ect in New York in October 1975, it was
apparent that the U.S.S.R. is empha-
sizing ecological research and environ-
mental monitoring in selecting their bin-
sphere reserves and planning for their
use. High priority in the U.S.-U.S.S.R.
project is placed on (i) monitoring and
Fig. 2. Experimentally oriented biosphere reserves are trncts that, in addition to providing
outstanding representations of a biotic province, have tong histories of ecological research and
monitoring. Major manipulative research projects. such as this study of the effects of logging at
H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest in Oregon. are typical.
PAGENO="0319"
research aimed at understanding the
structure and function of ecosystems and
theircomponents;(ii)enyjronmentalcon
sequences of various land management
practices; and (iii) ensuring the effective-
ness of biological reserves in maintaining
biotic diversity and gene pools by consid-
ering size, habitat heterogeneity, and ex-
ternal influences. The U.S.S.R. Hydro-
meteorological Service is particularly in-
terested in developing comparable envi-
ronmental monitoring programs for
various pollutants. Utilizing biosphere
reserves for such activities was explored
at ajoint symposium in Moscow in May
1976, a meeting which laid the ground.
work for some concrete collaborative ef-
forts.
Designating areas as biosphere re-
serves in the' United States is not ex-
pected to require major alterations in
existing objectives and management. All
existing reserves are federally owned
and already dedicated to biotic preserva-
tion, ecological and environmental re-
search, or, typically, both. The relative
emphasis on preservation or experimen.
tat research will vary with the area; pres-
ervation of biota remains the keystone in
national park reserves, for example, as
experimental research does in the experi-
mental forests designated as reserves.
Indeed, it was the need for both types of
activities in a biotic province that led the
U.S. MAB group to develop the concept
of matched areas.
It may become necessary to alter atti-
tudes about and plans for the areas as
those responsible for their management
recognize that they are resources of
worldwide as well as national or agency
significance. Controlling agencies must
thus be responsive to the needs of a
much larger community in managing
these areas than has hitherto been the
case. -
Some actions are required soon. Man.
agement plans for each of the biosphere
reserves are important even if they only
supplement comprehensive existing
plans. These should particularly address
the long-term objectives in biotic preser-
vation, research and its support, monitor-
ing and education, and the identification
of major problems requiring managerial
action or research. Emphasis should be
on expanding scientific efforts in re-
serves with relatively small existing re-
search programs. Emphasis in reserves
with strong programs in research and
experimentation should include ade-
quate provisionforstrictlyreserved natu-
ral areas for experimental controls and
biotic preservation.
An outstanding need is for interagency
development of plans for linked reserves
(such as between an experimental forest
and a national park or wilderness) to see
that they are managed and used as uni-
tary biosphere reserves and not as iso-
lated tracts. This cooperative devel-
opment is critical if the biosphere re-
serve program is ever to realize its full
potential, since rarely will a single tract
be able to adequately fulfill all func-
tions-preservation, research, and edu-
cation-because of existing legal man-
dates and charters. The linked reserves
allow different and appropriate function-
al emphasis and objectives in different
reserves within a biotic province.
The U.S. MAB 8 Committee is devel-
optng regional workinggroups to encour-
age the devetopmentofcottaborative pro-
grams of this type and to stimulate the
development of research and monitoring
programs. Participants in these regional
groups wilt include not only agency ad-
ministrators and scientists from the bio-
sphere reserves but also academic scien-
tists who do or could use the sites. Re-
gional working groups will also be repre-
sented on the national committee.
Sununary
The objective of the biosphere reserve
program is to identify and protect rep~e-
sentative and unique segments of the
world's biotic provinces as major centers
for biotic and genetic preservation, eco-
logical and environmental research, edu-
cation, and demonstration. It is intended
to be more than simply another program
of preservation layered onto existing
parks and reserves. The success of the
program will depend in large measure on
the overall significance of the selected
reserves and the degree to which they
are active sites for scientific research and
monitoring.
315
Fig. 3. Some established preserves which are outstanding representations of the biuta of a
region, such us Great Smoky Mountains National Park pictured here, have been established as
biosphere reserves. These are designed to provide the large control area forexperimental tracts
with which they are matched and to serve as sites for the conservation of biotic diversity.
Refenencee and Nntes
i. Coon cation of NataralAreao and of the Genet-
ic Material They Contain (Unesco MAB Report
Set-ins. No. 2. Paris, 1973). p. 64.
2. Tank Force on: Criteria and Guidelines Jot' the
Choice and Eaeabkahmenl of Bioophet-e Re-
set-ceo (Unesco MAB Report Series. No. 22,
Pmts. 1974).
3. U.S. National Committee is also interested in
unique and in man-modified ocean, such as de-
grctdedaceas with potential foroonservationof
genetic diversity and for enpeeimeneal research
on reclamation and rrooveey.
4. R. F. Danmann, Joe. Uviott Ccitorrc. Nat. Oc-
cat. Pip. Nit. 7 (1973); tnlemational Union for
Coouort'ation of Nature and Natural Resources
(Secretat-iat),ibid., No.9(1974).
5. M. D. F. Udvurdy, Jet. Union Conoerc. Nat.
Otto:. Pap. No. 98 (1975).
6. The possibilities for mani ulative research in
national parks are not as limited as one might
suppose, asanyonefamiliaesviihthe researchon
fire ecology at Everglades and Sequoia-Kings
Canyon national parks canattest. Nevertheless,
opportonilies for studying the ecological effeuts
of many land one practices, such as in agricul-
ture and forestry, ace limited.
7. Several ERDA teaotshavebeenidentifiedbythe
U.S. MAB 8 Committee an outstanding can-
didatesforbiospherereserves: Arid Lands Ecol-
ogy Reserve (Wanhittgnon), Oak Ridge Reserva-
tion(Tennessee), andtbeSavannahRiverReser-
nation bulb Carolina). Although ERDA has
been raked to nominate these reservations or
portions of them as biosphere insert-es. it has
8. Biotic peovinoes ocean defined by Udvardy (SI
with additional subdivisions by the U.b. MAB 8
Committee.
9. Since the preparation of this atticle, it has been
learned that Past-nec National Grassland suilleot
become a biosphere reserve.
PAGENO="0320"
No.23
ByPaulG.Risser
Director, Oklahoma Biological Survey
PRAIRIE PRESERVES AS
RESEARCH FACILITIES
There are many benefits to be derived from
prairie preserves, but perhaps the most unrealized
is that of research. The purpose of this Ecology
Forum is to explore ways in which preserves,
specifically prairie preserves, can be utilized in re-
search and discuss ways in which this function can
be encouraged.
At the outset, it is perhaps useful to set the
stage by defining conditions and terms. Prairie
preserves are pieces of landscape dominated by
grassland biological communities, which are main-
tained and managed to approximate natural condi-
tions. A whole spectrum of prairie types occurs
across the country, including the mountain
meadows, the vanishing true prairie, and the wide
expanses of the western Great Basin. Research in-
volves studious inquiry, usually with the aim of
identifying new relationships and facts or revising
accepted conclusions. There are a myriad of ap-
proaches used in research, ranging ,from large
scale manipulative experimentation to theoretical
considerations of old data reanalyzed in such a
way that new conclusions emerge. It should be
clear that there are many kinds of grasslands and,
therefore, many kinds of research. The trick is to
identify linkages between prairies and research that
26
316
provide useful information, while maintaining and
enhancing the quality of the preserve.
There is an old concept in ecology called "suc-
cession." It means, in essence, that biological com-
munities are dynamic and change over periods of
time. In some instances, change occurs largely on
an individual basis; that is, an individual golden-
rod plant dies, but is replaced by a lupine. On an-
other spot in the prairie, however, a lupine is re-
placed by a goldenrod.
These are short-term changes in the relative
number of individuals of each species; but over
the long-term, the species composition stays rea~
sonably constant. These compositionally stable
communties are referred to as climax, or terminal
communities. In other situations, whole groups of
species are replaced. For example, in the first few
years after a field is abandoned, it may be domi-
nated by weeds and annual grasses. This stage is
then replaced by a group of climax perennial
grasses and forbs. In moist environments, the
grasses may not be the climax vegetation but may
be replaced by shrubs and eventually a forest.
The process of succession is particularly ger-
mane to the present discussion of prairie preserves
and research because of its importance to the pre-
serve manager. If the grassland represented in the
preserve is a successional one, it is imperative that
the management plan for the preserve take cog-
nizance of the natural progression of community
types. For example, in the eastern tallgrass prairie
region, a prairie preserve will naturally be invaded
by shrubs and trees. A management plan, perhaps
with periodic burning, is necessary. However, the
answers to all these management questions are not
known, and clearly research experience in the
prairie preserves is essential.
On a more fundamental level, the actual proc-
esses of succession, many of which have been
considered dogma for 40 years or more, are now
being ieverely questioned. The conventional idea
is that early stages alter the environmental condi-
tions tO the extent that the succeeding species are
more competitive and eventually replace the previ-
ous occupants. However, there is now an emerg-
ing set of data which suggests that the early species
may not be so important and that the composition
of the ultimate climax community may be more
a function of the initial conditions at the time of
the disturbance. In other words, the species com-
position of the succeeding community may be a
function of the species reproductive biology and
the prevailing climatic and soil conditions, rather
than changes that occur during the process of sue-
cession. The major point of this example, in ad-
dition to demonstrating that fundamental concepts
are sometimes questioned, is that nowhere do we
/?
I.
`Ecology
`Fofurn
PAGENO="0321"
nave long-term records of succ~sional sequences.
Certainly record-keeping could and should be a
function of prairie preserves.
Recent studies in ecosystem science have per-
mitted us to draw some generalities about what
happens to the nutrients and water in forested
watersheds under both natural and manipulated
conditions. Two points are of importance. First,
few studies of this type have occurred in grass-
lands, so the unmanipulated control watershed can
be a major role of the grassland preserve. Secondly,
as these watershed studies progress, the ultimate
explanation for their behavior will depend upon
having access to a wide variety of watersheds,
which are distinguished by a number of factors
including topography, geological substrate, soils,
and associated vegetation. Therefore, prairie pre-
serves must be established across a wide range of
these environmental conditions.
It has been said that the best research is done
by a keen observer with a pencil and notepad.
Whether or not this is really true, there are a tre-
mendous number of significant and important
problems that can be attacked by careful observa-
tion. For example, pollination ecology is rapidly
developing into a robust field of science, complete
with its own fascination. Basically the questions
being asked are who pollinates whom, what are
the mechanisms, and to what degree have the
plants and their pollinators evolved together. Al-
though there are some non-destructive manipula-
tive techniques such as putting screens around
plants to exclude insects, most of the work is
simply keen observation. These studies also can
be carried out on prairie preserves.
There are a number of other research areas that
should be mentioned. Phenology is the description
and analysis of when organisms reach certain
stages in their annual life cycles. The most com-
mon example is observation of flowering-times in
plants and these data are then combined and eval-
uated across large geographical areas. As another
example, we are now asking questions about how
big an area needs to be in order to maintain the
flora and fauna. Clearly, comparing the sizes of a
series of prairies with their species composition
could provide the answers. As another example,
the species composition of a prairie is a function
of the prevailing environmental conditions. Man is
changing these conditions by altering rainfall pat-
and by adding chemicals to the atmospherc
Periodic sampling of the species composition of
prairie preserves can be used as a biological moni-
tor to predict some of the consequences of these
actions.
The above paragraphs have briefly described a
number of important research areas that are com-
patible with prairie preserves. There are many
others. A cautionary note is in order-namely that
anytime scientists use the preserves, care must be
taken to insure that the integrity of the prairie is
not imperiled. Therefore, three conditions must be
satisfied to encourage the use of prairie preserves
as research facilities and to obtain the greatest
benefits from these activities. First, it must be as-
certained that the research activity is compatible
with the preservation objective. Second, back-
ground or baseline information for the sites must
be available or be made available. Third, a wide
array of grassland types must be preserved to main-
tain our research options for various environmental
and biological conditions. In addition to being part
of our natural heritage, in a research sense, these
prairie preserves may eventually be the only ex-
perimental controls by which we can monitor the
effects of our manipulative activities.
317
William E. Howard
William E. Howard, member of the Con-
servancy's Board of Governors, died on
March 30, t977. Mr. Howard, who gradu-
ated from the University of Delaware, began
his banking career in 1924. Upon retiring in
1969 as senior vice president and head of
Mellon Bank's Metropolitan Department, he
became president of the Columbia Corpora-
tion, Pittsburgh. At the time of his death, he
was also a director of the 0. Hommel Co.,
Kennametal Inc., the H.H. Robertson Co.,
Union Title Guaranty Co., treasurer and
member of the executive committee of the
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, and a
member of various boards of charitable,
philanthropic, and educational organizations.
Elected to the Board of Governors in 1968,
Mr. Howard served as vice chairman in
1971, and was re-elected in 1972 and 1976.
98-513 0 - 77 - 21
PAGENO="0322"
318
The National Biological Monitoring Inventory: 2
A Potential Aid to Planning Environmental Impact Statements
Homer 1. Kemp and Robert L. Burgess
Environment!~l Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory3
Reisa, J. 3. (ed.). 1977. Biological indicators of environmental
quality. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.
(in press).
1Research supported by the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the
Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service (USD1), the Energy
Research and Development Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (USDC).
2publication No. 907, Envi.'onmental Sciences Division, ORNL.
3operated by Union Carbide Corp~.ration for the Energy Research and Development
Administration.
PAGENO="0323"
319
Introduction
Preparation of the biological portions of an environmental impact
statement (EIS) or report (ER) and presentation of testimony in related
court hearings or trials require substantial consideration of the relevant
technical information. The unavailability of pertinent background can
cause environmental impact studies to be inadequate or wastefully redun-
dant. It can lead to delays in statement or report completion, in court
proceedings, and in initiation of proposed construction, mitigation, or
other activities. Biological information, or the lack thereof, is also
an important factor in shaping the planning and implementation of environ-
mental study programs. To the environmental impact investigator and others
involved in these processes (e.g., information system specialists and li-
brarians), the process of identification and acquisition of biological
Information is a complex and difficult problem for the following reasons:
1. Sources of information (i.e., journal articles, localized in-
house reports, varied referral and abstracting services, and local, state,
and federal information and numerical data repositories) are virtually
innumerable and often widely scattered.
2. Varied information formats make assembling and evaluating printed
Information a formidable chore.
3. Delays in the availability of information can occur due to pro-
* longed publication procedures, administrative approval requirements, and
abstract service processing.
4. Inadequacy of language in current literature and keywords in
abstracting and referral services used in characterizing technical litera-
ture is evident. If an information need or interest centers on a specia'
PAGENO="0324"
320
or obscure topic, i.e., one that is not uniformly keyworded or indexed,
then that information cannot be identified easily, much less acquired with
speed and efficiency.
"Biological monitoring' or "biomonitoring" (used interchangeably in
this discussion) are not keywords consistently used throughout abstract
~r referral services. The inclusion of alternative words, such as, "sur-
vey", "census", "check-list" and related terms is required to search hard-
copy abstracts and journals and to search computerized information files.
Varying degrees of success result from attempts to search for biomonitor-
ing projects in tiiase sources, and often the information obtained is insuf-
ficien~ to permit determination of its applicability.
Alternative approaches to solving these problems include more inten-
sive manual searching of libraries, personal interviewing of researchers
for the desired inform:'tion, and mailed information requests (inventories)
to pertinent researchers. The latter was employed for the National Bio-
logical Monitoring Inventory as we believed it had the highest probability
of success within a reasonable time. The mailed inventory, coupled with
systematic and objective arrangement of information received and input
into a computerized file (database), constitutes a simple description of
activities involved in'developing "A National Inventory of Selected Bio-
logical Monitoring Programs."
The extent of information requested (and acquired) and the manner in
which it is entered into the computer file allow tabulation of state-by-
state, agency-by-agency, technical category, and other types of informa-
tional summaries. We can determine quickly who is doing what, where, when,
how, and the intensity level of the biomonitoring activity.
PAGENO="0325"
321
In addition, we are also attempting to identify gaps in biomonitoring
coverage throughout the U.S., identify duplications in biomonitoring efforts,
and provide program planners and decision makers with objective, ordered,
and succinct summaries of information in critical areas of local, regional,
and national concern.
Although perhaps difficult to assess at this time, the Inventory appears
to be reasonably successful, as judged by the percentage of returns and
the informational content of these responses. The Inventory Is viewed
as an evolving effort In which principal investigators will be continuously
identified and queried, and in which project Information will be updated
periodically.
Objectives
The primary objectives of the Inventory are:
1. To comprehensively Identify and collect information throughout
the U.S., including continental shelf waters, on bio~ogical monitoring
studies at the principal investigator/project level. We asked for infor-
mation only on current and recently completed projects.
2. To systematically organize the information in computerized files
for on-line, lnteractlvd searching; for computer production of reports on
technical subject categories, including organisms, study types, management
focus, and geographical sites or regions; and for providing complete in-
formation retrieval and response/referral services.
3. To specifically Identify and fully characterize those projects
that establish changes, i.e., time trends, of populations or communities
of naturally-occurri~g flora and fauna.
PAGENO="0326"
322
Scientists, agencies (Federal, state, and local), consulting firms,
and educational institutions need to be aware of the nature of the Inventory
and the services that can be provided in planning and conducting the bio-
logical aspects of environmental impact research. For example, through
our files we can quickly identify working biologists currently studying
organisms of concern in impact assessment at specific locations.
Although the objectives are to identify time trends indicated only
by biological monitoring studies, the utility of the program for impact
investigators lies both in the actual monitoring projects (`~lOOO), and in
the baseline studies (`2l00) currently in the database. Studies presently
characterized as baseline' are either one-time surveys (where questionnaires
were returned despite definitions and instructions), or bona f~de monitor-
ing projects which have started only recently, and consequently have only
a single data point in time. Of these, we believe many are viable, well-
funded studies that will continue (and thus achieve biomonitoring" status),
while some others, of course, will cease to function. It is almost impos-
sible to determine which way some of these projects will go, so at present,
all are categorized as "baseline" studies. Information from both types
of projects, ~wever, is of potential value in planning and implementing
environmental impact studies.
A sumary of selected responses to the Inventory will be published
by the end of calendar year 1976. The accounting database, MINI-BIOMON,
is now accessible for on-line searching locally at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory on the ORLOOK program of the ORCHIS system (Singletary 1975).
The main database consisting of all publishableresponses will be made
available nationally for on-line searching by means of ERDA/RECON (Gilchrist
1974).
PAGENO="0327"
323
Methodology
The National Inventory of Selected Biological Monitoring Programs was
initiated in June, 1975 to identify current or recently conrpleted biologi-
cal monitoring projects throughout the U.S. Key administrators were iden-
tified through a variety of sources, mainly from a series of environmental
directories (listed in the reference section). Identification of principal
investigators was accomplished by telephone and other communication with
key administrators in all states, and natural resource agencies of local
and federal governments. The key administrators were asked for the names
and addresses of principal investigators working on specific projects.
From this effort, a total of about 7000 names and addresses of principal
investigators was compiled. Computer-generated mailing labels were utilized
to send project documentation packages, including questionnaire-type forms.
The first page of the form (Fig. 1) shows our sponsors, our address, and
the beginning of the information requested from participants. Many of
the questions are posed in a "circle-the-item' system that provides a sys-
tematic set of code words which are further enhanced with additional key-
words provided by responders. Also requested for each project are an
abstract, geographical location, data status, statistical treatment, com-
puterization, and availability of data.
For the purposes of the Inventory, we developed a one-page definition
of terms that began with a series of word equivalents (Table 1). Projects
monitoring natural biota and demonstrating quantitative change through time
for a particular population community are the kinds of projects for which
we seek information. Excluded from the biomonitoring inventory are pro-
jects concerned with human population attributes, agriculture, monoculture
PAGENO="0328"
324
forestry, domestic animals, economics, ERTS-type and other remote sensing
studies, and those in which only hydrological, meteorological, or physical-
chemical water quality data are obtained.
The biological monitoring inventory documentation package consists
of:
1. A covering letter explaining the project and soliciting response
from the principal investigator.
2. A definition sheet.
3. Three copies of the documentation form in the event the principal
investigators could report more than one project. We encouraged distribu-
tion of extra forms to colleagues.
4. A franked, self-addressed envelope for convenience in returning
the response.
Form design, package contents, timing of mailings (including reminder
letters), and other procedures were based on a literature review of ques-
tionnaire campaigns (Ross and Kemp 1975). Form design was based on exper-
ience with the US/IBP Abstracts journal (Kemp 1975), and study of a num-
ber of previously-employed questionnaires. The form was finalized after
review by ORNL coworkers, cosponsor agencies, and nation-wide pretesting
through The Institute of Ecology.
The main biological monitoring database and supporting data bases
are interrelated (Fig. 2). The directory database contains the names and
addresses of principal investigators (about 7000) to whom the documentation
package was mailed. The MINI-BIOMON database briefly records all responses
to the Inventory (more than 3100). The bibliographic database contains
citations to published documents (about 2000) received with the responses.
PAGENO="0329"
325
The main biomonitoring database, only recently initiated, will contain
about 1000 selected project responses judged to be the most pertinent and
containing the most complete information.
Procedures for developing the remaining data bases (taxa, geographic
description, and tabular display) are established and these will `be ini-
tiated as time and funds permit. Each will contain more complete project
information in selected fields than is contained in the main biological
monitoring data base. For example, the geographic description data base
will contain a number of locational descriptor variations that will make
it compatible with other geographically oriented systems. Research will
be required since much of the desired information is not contained in the
responses received to date.
Results
Through May 1976, th~ biomonitoring inventory responses totaled 3132,
from all states of the Union, some U.S. territories, Canada, Mexico, and
several countries in the Carribbean. To date, about 50 percent of the
forms mailed out have been returned. Another documentation package mail-
ing is planned for the near future, principally addressing referrals from
returned forms.
A conservative estimate of the funding for projects currently in the
files is $126 million per year. This figure is based on the median of the
funding level information requested <$10,000; $lO-50,000; $50-lOO,000;
>$l00,000 and takes no cognizance of the many project responses which con-
tained no funding information. The actual total must be considerably
PAGENO="0330"
326
higher, but even an annual budget of $126 million is impressive and indi-
cates the magnitude of the national effort in biomonitoring. The small
amount invested in bookkeeping (through this national inventory, for in-
stance) is thus well spent. The projects are sponsored by a diversity of
state and federal agencies, teaching institutions, private concerns, and
others (Table 2).. The federal government leads in numbers of projects
sponsored, while the private sector is poorly represented. While this
may reflect an appropriate division of responsibilities, this group is
also the most difficult to identify and inventory.
The information received can also be characterized by management. focus
(Table 3). By far, the focus most frequently indicated by principal in-
vestigators is environmental impact. The small number of air pollution
projects indicated is due to the inclusion of only those studies in which
natural biota are measured. For the entire U.S., there are only 35 cur-
rently identified air pollution projects that qualify, and this is reflected
in information shown in subsequent tables.
Figure 3 is a cartographic display of responses from the Inventory by
the study site indicated by the principal investigators. California leads
in number of programs indicated by responses to the Inventory. This is
probably a reflection of its population, its ecological diversity, the
magnitude of environmental concern, and state-level environmental policy
legislation. There is also excellent response from Alaska, Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, New York, Texas, and the state of
Washington. At present, we are checking the number of responses for com-
pleteness on a state-by-state and agency-by-agency basis. Initial results
indicate excellent coverage in some instances and low coverage in others.
PAGENO="0331"
327
The following summaries (Tables 4-7) are intended to show the flexi-
bility with which the information can be manipulated and organized. Exam-
ples selected are Alaskan studies, Florida marine projects, Atlantic Coast
wetland studies, and programs in the Four Corners of the Southwest. Through-
out all of these, environmental impact again is the most frequent manage-
ment focus indicated.
Every major subject area of biomonitoring interest in Alaska (Table 4)
is covered by documentation in our files, from grizzly bears, to off-shore
oil drilling, and to North Slope development with accompanying tundra de-
struction. We acknowledge that we do not have all such monitoring projects
now in progress in Alaska, but we believe that a significant percentage
are now part of the biomonitoring inventory.
Florida marine studies (Table 5) reflect somewhat greater interest
t~han Alaskan studies in endangered and indicator species and in water quality.
The degree of interest in power/energy and resource planning appears to
be about the same in both these locations. Results similar to those for
Florida are evident for the Atlantic coastal wetlands (Table 6).
Note that in none of these three locations (Tables 4-6) are there
significant numbers of entries under either Air Pollution or Coal. As
mentioned above, nation~wide there were relatively few air pollution studies
in which ~iological monitoring is involved. With respect to coal as a
management focus, it is not surprising that most of the studies documented
in our files (69 total to date) originate from inland states.
The Four Corners region includes segments of Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah. The combined project responses from these states (Table
7) are twice the number of projects shown for the other locations. Clearly,
PAGENO="0332"
328
this region is significantly covered (from a biological monitoring view-
point), and the numbers of air pollution and coal project responses from
the region lend credence to this conclusion.
The matrix format used in Tables 4-7 can serve as a means of making
judgments regarding the adequacy of biological monitoring coverage through-
out the U.S. Care must be exercised in making interpretations of this
type, however, due to limitations imposed by our definition and to the
degree of coverage achieved. The matrix can be enlarged to dozens of sub-
ject categories along each axis, but this may be impractical for tabular
display purposes. The computer can be used to prepare alternate matrices
that may. be required by any potential requestor for any of the individual
states of the U.S. and for any U.S. regions that can be defined by state
boundaries. Further refinement of geographic descriptions (longitude/lat-
itude; county name or code, etc.) will allow more precise summaries. These
can be used to precisely locate projects that can then be described in
considerable detail from filed information.
In recent months we have provided summarized information to all of
our sponsors (CEQ, ERDA, FWS, and NMFS) and also to several offices or
laboratories of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Park Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, and the National Science Foundation. We are exchanging information
with these and other organizations such as the Arctic Environmental Infor-
mation and Data Center, Texas System of Natural Laboratories, the Nature
Conservancy, Oceanographic Institute of Washington, Cornell University
Bird Observatory, Battelle-Columbus Laboratory, and the National Focal
PAGENO="0333"
329
Point for the United Nations Environmental Program, International Refer-
ral System.
Summary
The current and on-going "National Inventory of Selected Biological
Monitoring Programs" has been described and presented as a source of infor-
mation for those involved in planning and conducting environmental impact
studies. Although not fully developed at this time, searches of computer
files can provide extensive information summaries on individual states or
selected regions and a wide variety of technologies. The degree and di-
versity of responses to the inventory indicate the need for it and its
probable future utility. The ability to derive more fully refined infor-
mation from both the main and supporting data bases will improve as these
are developed and supplemented with further information.
Acknowledgements
The need for a nation-wide inventory of biological monitoring was
identified by Dr. J.J. Reisa of the staff of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality. The merit of the concept was recognized and imple-
mented by funding from ~he Council, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Office
of Biological Services, Project Officer-Dr. A.J. Sherk) the Energy Research
and Development Administration (Division of Biomedical and Environmental
Research, Project Officers-Drs. W.S. Osburn and J.H. Wilson), and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (Drs. C. Larsen and L. Trott). The
inventory's final approach and operating procedures were defined in con-
sultation with F.G. Goff and R.J. Olson, and by ORNL's biomonitoring staff
98-513 0 - 77 - 22
PAGENO="0334"
330
consisting of Anita B. Adams, Robert L. Barrack, John S. Cherry, Mary A.
Faulkner, Elaine E. Huber, L. Kirk Hyder, Gregory J. Kauffman, John W.
Ross, Mary S. Uziel, Gayle E. Whittaker, and Marsha B. White. Each has
contributed in special ways to the work of the Inventory. The Institute
of Ecology (TIE) has served in an advisory capacity.
Automated aspects of the Inventory would have been impossible without
previously developed programs and existing computer facilities of the Com-
puter Applications Department (Dr. A.A. Brooks, Manager) Computer Sciences
Division (Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division) located at ORNL.
Frank D. Hammerling, Brooks N. McNeely, and Ruth Slusher provided the
needed guidance and assistance throughout the course of this work.
PAGENO="0335"
331
References
AMA. 1973. A Directory of Environmental Organizations in the United
States. American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois. 7 pp.
Clark, W.E. (Ed.). 1974. Conservation Directory. National Wildlife
Federation, Washington, D.C. 205 pp.
CEQ. 1973. The Federal Environmental Monitoring Directory. The
Presidents Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 105
pp.
CEQ/FCST. 1974. The Role of Ecology in the Federal Government. The
Presidents Council on Environmental Quality and Federal Council
for Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 78 pp.
EPA. 1974. Directory of EPA, State, and Local Environmental Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Activities. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 384 pp.
FAO/UN. 1974. Directory of Institutions Engaged in Pollution Investi-
gations. Food and Agriculture Organization of th~ United Nations,
Rome, Italy. 43 pp.
Furniss, W.T. (Ed.). 1973. American Universities and Colleges. American
Council on Education, Washington, D.C. 1879 pp.
Gilchrist, J.A. 1974. AEC/RECON Users Manual. ORNL-4943, UC-32. 80 pp.
Gomez-Pompa, A. and A.C. Butanda (Eds.). 1975. Index of Current Tropical
Ecology Research. Volume 1. Mexico D.F. 227 pp.
Jenkins, D.W. (Ed.). 1972. Development of a Continuing Program to Pro-
vide Indicators and Indices of Wildlife and the Natural Environment.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 163 pp.
Kemp, H.T. (Ed.). 1975. ABSTRACTS, USIBP Ecosystems Analysis Studies.
Volume IV, Nos. 1-3. 174 pp.
MITRE. 1971. Monitoring the Environment of the Nation. Mitre Corpora-
tion, Washington, D.C. 512 pp.
NAS/NAE/NRC. 1974. International Biological Program Directory. National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Re-
search Council, Washington, D.C. 219 pp.
Paulson, G. (Ed.). 1974. Environment U.S.A. A Guide to Agencies, People,
and Resources. R.R. Bowker Co., New York. 451 pp.
Ross, J.W. and H.T. Kemp. 1975. Annotated Summary of Recommendations to
Improve Returns from Mail Surveys. Unpublished ORNL Report. 6 pp.
PAGENO="0336"
332
SI. 1970. National and International Environmental Monitoring Activities.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 292 PP.
SI. 1974. State Environmental Irr:entory Activities: A Guide to Indi-
viduals, Information Sources, and Selected Literature in Forty-Four
States. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1028 pp.
Singletary, V.A. 1975. An On-Line Conversational Retrieval System for
ORCHIS Text-Oriented Data Bases-User's Manual. ORNL-4951, Rev. 1.
72 pp.
SURC. 1971. Environmental Research Laboratories in the Federal Govern-
ment. Syracuse University Research Corporation, New York. 973 pp.
Thibeau, C.E. (Ed.). 1972. Directory of Environmental Information Sources.
2nd Edition. The National Foundation for Environmental Control, Inc.,
Boston, Massachusetts. 457 pp.
TIE. 1974. Directory of Environmental Life Scientists. Volumes 1-9.
The Institute of Ecology, Washington, D.C.
Trzyna, T.C. (Ed.). 1973. World Directory of Environmental Organizations.
Sierra Club, San Francisco, California. 155 pp.
Wilson, W.K. (Ed.). 1974. World Directory of Environmental Research
Centers. 2nd Edition. R.R. Bowker Co., New York. 330 pp.
Wolff, G.R. (Ed.). 1974. Environmental Information Sources Handbook.
Garwood R. Wolff Co. 568 pp.
PAGENO="0337"
333
Table 1. Headingand first few entries on the Definition Sheet for the Bio-
monitoring Inventory. Some items are defined by equivalent terms.
"A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMS"
DEFINITIONS
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING - BIOMONITORING -MONITORING NATURAL BIOTA
ANALYSIS OF CHANGES WITH TIME - CHANGES - CHANGES WITH TIME
NATURAL BIOTA - ALL NATURALLY OCCURRING PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES
EXCLUDING HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND CROP PLANTS
PROJECT - LOWEST LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD UNIT, I.E., JOB, TASK, OR
SUB-PROJECT IN SOME ESTABLISHMENTS
PROGRAM - ORGANIZATIONAL GROUPING OF PROJECTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
OR COORDINATING PURPOSES AT NATIONAL, INTERSTATE, REGIONAL, OR
LOCAL LEVELS
PAGENO="0338"
334
TABtE 2. NUMBER OF PRO~tCTS IN CATEGORIES OF FUNDING SPONSORS,
BASED ON RESPONSES TO THE INVENTORY. APPROXIMATELY
9 PERCENT OF THE PROJECTS HAVE MULTIPLE SPONSORS.
CATEGORY NUMBERS OF PROJECTS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 1557
STATE GOVERNMENTS 776
TEACHING INSTITUTIONS 491
PRIVATE CONCERNS 269
SOCIETIES, ETC 74
NOT FUNDED 482
PAGENO="0339"
335
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO "A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMS" BY MANAGEMENT
FOCUS CATEGORIES
MANAGEMENT FOCUS * NUMBER OF PROJECTS
AIR POLLUTION 35
ENDANGERED SPECIES 479
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1630
FISHERIES 844
FORESTRY 386
*INDICATOR SPECIES 880
POLLUTION CONTROL 843
POWER GENERATION 305
RADIOLOGICAL 108
RANGE 387
RESOURCE PLANNING 671
RIGHTS-OF-WAY 60
WATER QUALITY 1017
WILDLIFE 785
PAGENO="0340"
336
TABLE 4. NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO 1A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAMSt FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA (117 TOTAL)
ARRANGED BY SUBJECT AND MANAGEMENT FOCUS. NUMBERS IN COL-
UMS ARE NOT ADDITIVE SINCE PROJECTS WERE CHARACTERIZED BY
MULTIPLE USAGE OF KEYWORDS AND CODEWORDS.
SUBJECT CATEGORY
MANAGE~ENT1~OCUS
AIR POLLUTON,~
ENDANGER~D SP~CI~S
EN VI RONI'.4ENTAL IMPACT
INDICATOR SPECIE~
POWER/ENERGY
COAL
OIL
NUCLEAR
RIGHT-O~-WA~~
OTHER
RESOURCE ~LA1'~NIf~iG
WATER CUALIT?;'
TOTAL..
.
,
Ui
~
~J
ci:
~
~.
:1
-
~
o
,__
0
S
._,
ci:
z
0
Ui
~
C.)
~
°
~
c,
~
ì
0.
`."
.-i
<
~
<
Ui
I-
<
~
I
LL.
Ui
Z
~.<
2
._j
~
~
i-
~
Ui
w
i-
.
I
1
.0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
7
4
3
8
4
9
4
8
8
52
19
8
63
35
49
17
35
46
16
7
2
21
12
16
5
10~
15
.
17
13
* 3
27
12
19
12
17
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
1
10
6
6
1
7
5
2
3
1
4
3
3
t
2
3
3
2
0
5
*1
3
24
1
6
4
2
8
5
6
2
6
5
23
10
429
17
22~
9.17
23
12
6
0
18
4
12
14
11
6
(79) (38) (12) (105) (46) (86) (37) (52) (72)
PAGENO="0341"
TABLE 5. NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO `A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAMS" FOR FLORIDA MARINE STUDIES (92 TOTAL),
ARRANGED BY SUBJECT AND MANAGEMENT FOCUS. NUMBERS IN COL~
VMS ARE NOT ADDITIVE (SEE TABLE. 4).
337
SUBJECTCATEGORY~
2
2 U..
U' (I) (/~
_ Cl)
- - 2 ~ . ~,. 2
~ 2 " ~
2 2 ~ -J
< 0 w F- ~
MANAGEMENT FOCUS ~ °. U'
AIR POLLUTION
ENDANGERED SPECIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
INDICATOR SPECIES
POWER/ENERGY
COAL
NUCLEAR
OIL
IW3HTS-OF-WAY
OTHER
RESOURCE PLANNING
WATER QUALiTY
TOTAL~
.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 4 0 .23 9 19 18 7
43 18 7 54 22 49 40 12
24 9 5 28 10 31 20 6
16 .8 3 21 7 17 19 3
0 0 0 00 0 0 0
8 1 1 8 3 6 7 1
2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
0 1 1 *q 1 1 1 1
6 6 0 12 4 11 9 8
27 4. 5 26 9 24 20 4
22 14 2 34 . 11 30 33 6
(67) (25) (14) (78) (27) (74) (61) (15)
PAGENO="0342"
338
* NUCLEAR
RIGHT-OF-WAY
OTHER
RESOURCE PLANNING
WATER QUALITY
TOTAL
TABLE 6. NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAMS FOR ATLANTIC COASTAL WETLANDS (126
TOTAL), ARRANGED BY SUBJECT AND MANAGEMENT FOCUS. NUMBERS
IN COLUMNS ARE NOT ADDITIVE (SEE TABLE 4).
-. SUBJE~TCATEGORY
MANAGEMENT FOCUS
`AIR POLLUTION
ENDANGERED SPECIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
INDICATOR SPECIES
POWER/ENERGY
COAL
* . C/)
* _5
C,,
~ ~
* U.
- ~1 C,)
LU ~ 0 ~ w
~ 0 z c~ ~-i 0
~ }-. 0 U) ~ < 0
~ LU Z 2 cr~
<0 ui~ ~ z 2 ~
S *~ c') ~. < 5 U.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 4 3 15 9 16 3 8
36 19 12 48 28 42 23 22
22 12 9 24 12 27 17 15'
13 10 8 15 8 18 15 10
*0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
0 2 0 2 0 l~ 2 0
2 3 3 .2 2 4 5 2
42 3 3 5.6 3 3'
7 3 2 8 6 7.' 3 3
22 11 6 27 22 26 `12 11
20 13 7 26 21 24.21 17
(83) (43) (17) (109) (71) (87) (36) (30)
OIL
PAGENO="0343"
339
TABLE 7. NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO "A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAMS' FOR THE FOUR CORNERS REGION (AZ, CO,
NM, AND UT, 276 TOTAL), ARRANGED BY SUBJECT AND MANAGEMENT
FOCUS. NUMBERS IN COLUMN ARE NOT ADDITIVE (SEE TABLE 4).
SUBJECT CATEGORY
* . . _j.
(!J
* .. ._J U. 2
* w 2 <0 ~, I-.
* ~ 0 LU ~ -
-J I-* Oc,, 1
< 0 w ~ .~ ~ ci w
~ a: ci a.