US, Ecosystem Services Research Program

Like Australia, the US is a Member State to the UN and signatory to many international treaties focused on peace, security and human rights (UN 2014b). However, the US is Party to only two of the four global ecosystem-related conventions: the Ramsar Convention and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (Ramsar undated;

UNCCD 2012). The US has no legal framework specifically aimed at the protection and management of internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities or

heritage places.

There are four main levels of administrative divisions in the US: national, state, county and local government (Howes 2005). Fifty states (48 are contiguous, there is a capitol district and a number of territories), over 3000 counties and 89 000 local governments

currently exist (US Census Bureau 2014). Figure 3.3 is a political map showing the states and counties of the US (local government areas are not shown due to the large number of these jurisdictions and the scale and size of the map).

The contiguous US is bounded by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico, and shares land borders with Canada and Mexico. It is one of the largest countries by area in the world. Its sheer size allows for tropical, temperate, arctic and semi-arid zones to form. The country is ecologically characterised by and most famous for its wilderness areas such as its wetlands (e.g. the Everglades), mountains (e.g. the Appalachian Mountains), grasslands (e.g. the Great Plains), plateaus and gorges (e.g. the Grand Canyon), large rivers (e.g. the Mississippi) and the largest group of

freshwater lakes on Earth (e.g. the Great Lakes).

Figure 3.3: Political map of the US showing states and counties (Maps of World

2012a).

The Department of Interior (a Cabinet department) is responsible for the management and conservation of most federal land and natural resources, and the administration of programs relating to Native Americans (US Department of the Interior 2014a). It

92

contains a number of operating units such as the Fish and Wildlife Service who is responsible for migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered species (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Other responsibilities of the Department of the Interior include: historic preservation; surface-mined lands protection and restoration; mapping;

geological, hydrological, and biological science; and financial and technical assistance for the insular areas (US Department of the Interior 2014b). Another Cabinet

department, the Department of Agriculture, retains the agriculture and forestry portfolios facilitating the marketing of agricultural products; voluntary conservation agreements on private land; rural development; animal and plant health inspection services; foreign market access; and nutritional guidelines for Americans (US Department of Agriculture 2013).

In this research, the US program under analysis is the Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (a non- Cabinet Department). The EPA has 10 regional offices across the country, each of which is responsible for several states and in some cases, territories or special environmental programs. The EPA mission is to ‘protect human health and the environment’ across the US (EPA 2006; EPA 2013a). It was originally established in 1970 to administer the growing body of federal environmental legislation, particularly the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (Howes 2005). The National

Environmental Policy Act contains a clause requiring federal agencies to conduct environmental impact assessments on new government projects (Howes 2005).

The EPA operates in both a regulatory capacity through the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Water; and on a scientific capacity through the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The ESRP is coordinated by ORD, which is charged with

conducting ‘research necessary to ensure the Agency’s policies, programs and

regulations are based on a scientifically defensible foundation’ (EPA 2008, p. 1). The ESRP builds on decades of ecological and toxicological research conducted under ORD’s Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Program 1990 - 2006 (EMAP) (EPA 2008).

As the EPA has the charge of interpreting and enforcing the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and many environmental laws and Executive Orders related to other pollutants and aquatic ecosystems, EMAP focused its research on issues such as air quality,

toxicology, water quality, human health, microbiology, nanotechnology, pesticides and toxic substances, wetlands, streams/rivers and land protection (EPA 2011a). EMAP aimed to advance the science of ecological monitoring and ecological risk assessment and guide national monitoring (EPA 2010a). Specifically, the ESRP evolved from EMAP’s third Long Term Goal (EPA 2008, p. 1): ‘Decision-makers understand the importance of ecosystem services and make informed, proactive management decisions that consider a range of alternative outcomes’.

Globally, the ESRP established in 2006 is the largest (by budget and staff) of all national research programs into the development and application of an ecosystem services framework. Fourteen interviews were conducted with 13 ESRP Leads between 24th June 2011 and 7th August 2011. These interviews were conducted in four locations across the US: Western Ecology Division (Corvallis, Oregon), Atlantic Ecology

Division (Narragansett, Rhode Island), Gulf Ecology Division (Gulf Breeze, Florida) and the EPA’s Head Office in Research Triangle Park (Durham, North Carolina). Leads interviewed included:

 the National Program Director;

 the Lead for the classification and monitoring of ecosystem services;

 the Lead for mapping ecosystem services;

 the Lead for modelling ecosystem services and three Leads working on specific models;

 the Lead for overseeing all place-based studies;

 two Leads working on different place-based studies;

 the two Leads working on well-being assessments;

 the Lead working on human health associations; and

 the Lead charged with assisting the integration of the ESRP into the next research program the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.

Chapter 5 provides outcomes of the analysis into the methodology developed under the ESRP. The process applied to develop the framework is recorded in Section 5.1. The information and tools developed as an outcome of this process are discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. Reflections by Leads on the program are in Section 5.4 and a synopsis of findings is in Section 5.5. The following section provides background to the second case

94