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.