Environmental Indicators
Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions Gao ID: GAO-05-52 November 17, 2004Environmental indicator sets assemble quantitative measures of conditions and trends (known as indicators) to assess the state of the environment and natural resources and to gauge progress toward specific goals. Such sets are now being developed to bridge the gap between needed and available information and to prioritize further data collection. The widespread development and use of environmental indicator sets has led federal and nonfederal entities to consider the benefits such sets provide when measuring performance and improving oversight of environmental programs. In this context, GAO was asked to identify (1) the purposes for which federal and nonfederal organizations are developing and using environmental indicator sets, and how they are being used; and (2) the major challenges facing the development and use of environmental indicator sets.
GAO identified the purposes for developing environmental indicator sets and major challenges facing their development and use to inform decisions by interviewing key experts, surveying developers and users, and studying eight major indicator sets. GAO found that federal and nonfederal organizations develop environmental indicator sets for several purposes, including assessing conditions and trends, communicating complex issues, and supporting performance management activities. Some environmental indicator sets are limited to use within specific political jurisdictional boundaries, while others are confined to specific natural areas, such as watersheds, lake basins, or ecosystems. Similarly, some sets address specific resources, such as water quality or land use, while others focus on quality of life issues or sustainable development. The indicator sets GAO reviewed are primarily used to assist in strategic planning efforts, communicate complex environmental issues, and track progress toward environmental goals. Environmental indicator set developers, both federal and nonfederal, commonly face several major challenges. Such challenges include ensuring that a sound, balanced process is used to develop indicators, which can require a resource-intensive effort to address the needs of potential users. Similarly, obtaining sufficient data on environmental conditions and trends and their causes is particularly problematic. Another key challenge in developing useful environmental indicator sets involves coordinating and integrating the various related federal and other indicator sets in order to advance knowledge about the environment. In this regard, the efforts of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination are promising, but they lack the long-term, stable institutional arrangements needed to ensure continued guidance and coordination of federal activity in this area. Moreover, indicator sets designed to link management activities, environmental and natural resource conditions and trends, and human and ecological health have difficulty because many such relationships are not well understood. To that end, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) continuing work to develop indicators to assist the agency's efforts to manage for results highlights this challenge. While EPA has made progress, its efforts to better understand such relationships over many years have been hampered not only by technical difficulties in establishing linkages between program activities and changes in the environment, but also by changes in leadership within the agency and the absence of a systematic approach, including clear expectations, milestones, and designated resources. Such institutional arrangements would enable the agency's senior management, Congress, and other stakeholders to monitor and assist EPA's efforts toward a complete and periodically updated Report on the Environment.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-52, Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-52
entitled 'Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to
Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions' which was
released on November 17, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
November 2004:
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS:
Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets
That Inform Decisions:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-52]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-52, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Environmental indicator sets assemble quantitative measures of
conditions and trends (known as indicators) to assess the state of the
environment and natural resources and to gauge progress toward specific
goals. Such sets are now being developed to bridge the gap between
needed and available information and to prioritize further data
collection. The widespread development and use of environmental
indicator sets has led federal and nonfederal entities to consider the
benefits such sets provide when measuring performance and improving
oversight of environmental programs. In this context, GAO was asked to
identify (1) the purposes for which federal and nonfederal
organizations are developing and using environmental indicator sets,
and how they are being used; and (2) the major challenges facing the
development and use of environmental indicator sets.
What GAO Found:
GAO identified the purposes for developing environmental indicator sets
and major challenges facing their development and use to inform
decisions by interviewing key experts, surveying developers and users,
and studying eight major indicator sets. GAO found that federal and
nonfederal organizations develop environmental indicator sets for
several purposes, including assessing conditions and trends,
communicating complex issues, and supporting performance management
activities. Some environmental indicator sets are limited to use within
specific political jurisdictional boundaries, while others are confined
to specific natural areas, such as watersheds, lake basins, or
ecosystems. Similarly, some sets address specific resources, such as
water quality or land use, while others focus on quality of life issues
or sustainable development. The indicator sets GAO reviewed are
primarily used to assist in strategic planning efforts, communicate
complex environmental issues, and track progress toward environmental
goals.
Environmental indicator set developers, both federal and nonfederal,
commonly face several major challenges. Such challenges include
ensuring that a sound, balanced process is used to develop indicators,
which can require a resource-intensive effort to address the needs of
potential users. Similarly, obtaining sufficient data on environmental
conditions and trends and their causes is particularly problematic.
Another key challenge in developing useful environmental indicator sets
involves coordinating and integrating the various related federal and
other indicator sets in order to advance knowledge about the
environment. In this regard, the efforts of the Council on
Environmental Quality‘s (CEQ) Interagency Working Group on Indicator
Coordination are promising, but they lack the long-term, stable
institutional arrangements needed to ensure continued guidance and
coordination of federal activity in this area. Moreover, indicator sets
designed to link management activities, environmental and natural
resource conditions and trends, and human and ecological health have
difficulty because many such relationships are not well understood. To
that end, the Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) continuing work
to develop indicators to assist the agency‘s efforts to manage for
results highlights this challenge. While EPA has made progress, its
efforts to better understand such relationships over many years have
been hampered not only by technical difficulties in establishing
linkages between program activities and changes in the environment, but
also by changes in leadership within the agency and the absence of a
systematic approach, including clear expectations, milestones, and
designated resources. Such institutional arrangements would enable the
agency‘s senior management, Congress, and other stakeholders to monitor
and assist EPA‘s efforts toward a complete and periodically updated
Report on the Environment.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Chair of CEQ develop institutional arrangements
needed to ensure a concerted, systematic, and stable approach to the
development, coordination, and integration of environmental indicator
sets. Moreover, GAO recommends that the EPA Administrator establish
clear lines of responsibility and accountability and identify specific
requirements for developing and using indicators. CEQ and EPA generally
agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-52.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at
(202) 512-6225 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Environmental Indicator Sets Are Developed for a Variety of Purposes,
and Users Generally Report Positive Impacts:
Major Challenges Facing the Development and Use of Environmental
Indicator Sets:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Compendium of Environmental Indicator Sets:
Survey of Practitioners:
Case Study:
Meeting of Experts Convened by the National Academy of Sciences:
Appendix II: Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by
Experts:
Appendix III: Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles:
The Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
EPA's National Coastal Assessment:
Chesapeake Bay Program:
Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Strategic Conservation
Agenda:
Environmental Protection Indicators for California:
Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida:
Environmental Indicators Project, West Oakland, California:
Appendix IV: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More
Comprehensive Environmental Information:
Appendix V: Environmental Reporting by Private and Public
Organizations:
Appendix VI: Accounting for the Environment:
Appendix VII: The Uncertain Cost of Environmental Information:
Appendix VIII: Selected Options:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality:
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Bibliography:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Major Environmental Research and Monitoring Networks
and ProgramsA:
Table 2: Ten Challenges Most Frequently Cited as Major or Moderate by
Survey Respondents:
Table 3: Ten Criteria Used to Select Indicators Most Frequently Cited
by Survey Respondents:
Table 4: Sufficiency of Current Environmental Data to Support Three
Major National Indicator Sets:
Table 5: Summary of Survey Participants:
Table 6: Environmental Indicator Sets Selected for Case Study Review:
Table 7: Major Pieces of Legislation to Address Federal Environmental
Data and Indicator Issues, 1970-2004:
Table 8: Selected Congressional Hearings Addressing Federal
Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues, 1970-2004:
Table 9: Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal Environmental
Data and Indicator Management Issues:
Table 10: Direct Funding for Major Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources Statistical Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Nitrate Load Carried by Major Rivers:
Figure 2: Historical Wildfires in California, 1950 to 1997:
Figure 3: Ten Purposes for the Development of Environmental Indicator
Sets Most Frequently Cited by Survey Respondents:
Figure 4: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information:
Figure 5: The State of the Nation's Ecosystems Report:
Figure 6: Draft National Coastal Condition Report II:
Figure 7: The State of the Chesapeake Bay Report:
Figure 8: State of the Great Lakes Report:
Figure 9: The Strategic Conservation Agenda Report:
Figure 10: Environmental Protection Indicators for California Report:
Figure 11: Jacksonville's 2003 Quality of Life Progress Report:
Figure 12: West Oakland's Neighborhood Knowledge for Change Report:
Abbreviations:
BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis:
Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
CSERA: Canadian System of Environmental and Resource Accounts:
EII: Environmental Indicators Initiative:
EIP: West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project:
EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPIC: Environmental Protection Indicators for California:
GEOSS: Global Earth Observation System of Systems:
GFT 250: Global Fortune Top 250 international companies:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
IEESA: Integrated Economic and Environmental Satellite Accounts:
JCCI: Jacksonville Community Council Inc.
NAMEA: National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts:
NAS: National Academy of Sciences:
NCA: National Coastal Assessment:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NSTC: National Science and Technology Council:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
ORD: EPA's Office of Research and Development:
OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy:
PART: Performance Assessment Rating Tool:
PSR: pressure-state-response model:
SCA: Strategic Conservation Agenda:
SOLEC: Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference:
TRI: Toxic Release Inventory:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey:
Letter November 17, 2004:
The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert:
Chairman, Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers:
Chairman:
The Honorable Mark Udall:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
Comprehensive and reliable information on the nation's environment and
natural resources is a cornerstone of effective environmental
management and an integral part of a national strategy to anticipate
and address problems. Governments, businesses, and citizens depend on
relevant, accurate, and timely federal data and statistics to make
informed decisions about a range of environmental issues--including
evaluating the performance of environmental programs, aligning the
efficiency of markets with environmental protection, assessing the
state of the environment and natural resources, and identifying
emerging issues and options for action. Although data and statistics
are rarely the sole factors that determine how society should address
any given issue, reliable scientific information is essential to
support the assessment of various alternatives and inform policy
decisions.
Federal environmental monitoring and data collection activities provide
critical inputs into the assessment process, and their planning and
implementation must be linked to assessment and policy needs. The
individual environmental problems that have been given much attention
to date have given way to a growing realization of the overwhelming
degree of interaction among the environmental, economic, and social
sectors, and the degree to which the consequences of these interactions
are cumulative, unpredictable, and--in many cases--difficult to repair.
Developing an integrated understanding of such threats and the options
for dealing with them is a central challenge for the nation. Moreover,
the federal government relies on this information base to assess
progress toward national goals as laid out in legislation and to
improve and better account for its performance. In recent years, a
general consensus has developed on the need to judge the success of the
nation's environmental policies against environmental quality
outcomes, rather than the number of management plans created,
regulations or permits issued, or enforcement actions taken. The
adoption of such a performance-based environmental policy, however, has
been hampered by the lack of reliable scientific information on
environmental conditions and trends.
Federal agencies collect and manage a tremendous volume of
environmental data at a significant cost. The federal government spends
at least $600 million each year on monitoring conditions and trends of
the nation's natural and environmental resources.[Footnote 1] Numerous
federal--and, in some cases, regional, state, or local--organizations
conduct environmental research and monitoring programs using a variety
of methods to address specific problems under different legislative
authorizations, such as the Clean Air Act.[Footnote 2] Such activities
can yield tangible and far-reaching benefits. For example, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) produces climate
forecasts based on data collected through satellites, ocean buoys, and
other data collection activities that are often economically valuable
because they give the public time and incentive to act to reduce
weather-and climate-related losses. In one case, NOAA's forecast
enabled residents of California to avoid an estimated $1.1 billion in
damages during storms in the winter of 1997-'98, according to the
agency.
However, adequate information is not always in place to help Congress
or others determine how well the environment is doing, judge existing
environmental policies, or develop sensible new ones. The nation's
environmental data collection and monitoring systems were never
intended to be comprehensive for all natural and environmental resource
issues nationwide. A comprehensive picture of the nation's
environmental and natural resources is not yet possible.
Numerous public and private initiatives are now developing sets of
environmental indicators to bridge the gap between needed and available
information and to prioritize further data collection. Environmental
indicator sets assemble quantitative measures of conditions and trends
to assess the state of the environment and natural resources and to
gauge progress toward specific goals. In general, indicator sets are
designed to provide environmental decision makers and the public with
comprehensible information to assist developing strategic plans,
setting priorities, and assessing which programs are, or are not,
working well.
The widespread development and use of environmental indicator sets has
led Congress, federal agencies, states, local communities, and
corporations to consider the possible uses for sets of environmental
indicators, such as for measuring performance and improving oversight
of environmental programs. In this context, you asked us to examine (1)
the purposes for which federal and nonfederal organizations are
developing and using environmental indicator sets, and how they are
being used; and (2) the major challenges facing the development and use
of environmental indicator sets.
In addressing these objectives, we performed multiple lines of work:
* To identify a list of environmental indicator sets, we elicited the
help of experts on environmental indicator set development. After
conducting extensive Web and literature searches, conducting multiple
background interviews, and following up with contacts made at
professional conferences, we identified 48 experts. We then distributed
a data collection instrument to these experts, asking them to specify
(1) environmental indicator sets with which they were familiar that
either were being developed or had been developed in the past 10 years,
(2) states that had led or were leading the effort in developing and
using environmental indicator sets, and (3) a contact person for each
set. Twenty-three of the 48 experts responded. After combining
duplicate responses and eliminating the responses that either did not
meet our definition of an indicator set or could not be associated with
enough information to locate a specific initiative, we developed a pool
of 87 environmental indicator sets identified by experts that formed
the basis for this review (see app. II for the complete list).
* To develop a list of environmental indicator set developers and users
(or "practitioners") for GAO to survey, we spoke with representatives
of each of the 87 indicator sets identified by experts and asked them
to name a developer and a user to participate in our survey. This
process yielded 87 practitioners, who collectively represented 52 of
the indicator sets identified by experts. We then surveyed the
practitioners, asking them to identify the primary characteristics of
the indicator set, how it was developed, and how the set was being
used. Forty-nine of the 87 practitioners responded to our survey.
* To gain a better understanding of the mechanics of environmental
indicator set development and use, we conducted in-depth case studies
on 8 of the 87 identified environmental indicator sets: two sets for
each of four geographic scales--national, regional, state, and local.
We selected the sets on the basis of their perceived level of maturity
(current and active) and the availability and accessibility of
individuals involved in their development and use. We conducted
semistructured interviews that allowed practitioners the opportunity to
supply information on a wide range of issues relating to their
involvement with the development and use of the environmental indicator
set. We also reviewed relevant documents that pertained to the
development and use of each of the environmental indicator sets. Based
on the information gathered, we then drafted case study profiles and
provided them to the appropriate program manager for review and comment
(see app. III).
* To assess the current status of environmental indicator sets and
their impact on policy decisions, we contracted with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a 2-day meeting of selected
authorities with expertise in the interaction between science and
policy making and who were familiar with indicator set development and
use. NAS staff helped us identify a pool of authorities from which we
selected 26 who collectively provided the meeting with a balance of
expertise, interdisciplinary knowledge, and cross-jurisdictional
representation. The meeting centered on discussions of three broad
topics: (1) the organizations developing environmental indicator sets
and the impact of these sets across the nation; (2) significant
challenges facing the development and use of environmental indicator
sets; and (3) what remedies, if any, existed to confront or mitigate
these challenges.
In developing our findings, we corroborated the evidence gathered
across these lines of work. A more detailed description of our scope
and methodology is presented in appendix I. The findings in this report
are not intended to apply to all environmental indicator sets. General
references to indicator sets in this report refer to the 47 sets that
we reviewed in detail--the 8 case studies and the 39 sets represented
in our survey results. Furthermore, we did not independently assess the
reliability of the data used in the 47 sets we reviewed because those
data were not material to our findings. We conducted our work from June
2003 to October 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Federal and nonfederal organizations are developing and using
environmental indicator sets for assessing conditions and trends,
communicating complex issues, and supporting performance management
activities. Various organizations in the United States--including
government agencies, nonprofit groups, universities, and corporations-
-have developed hundreds of environmental indicator sets. Some
environmental indicator sets we reviewed are limited to political
jurisdiction, such as county, state, or nation, while others are
restricted to natural areas, such as watersheds, lake basins, or
ecosystems. Some address specific resources, such as water quality or
land use, while others focus on quality of life issues or sustainable
development. For instance, the indicators reported through the Great
Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences encompass the entire
Great Lakes watershed--including aquatic, coastal, and terrestrial
components, as well as human health and societal issues. In other
cases, cities such as New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and Seattle have
developed indicator sets that focus on broader issues that include
economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental quality to
measure and sustain the quality of life for the citizens in the
community. The indicator sets we reviewed are primarily used to assist
in strategic planning efforts, communicate complex environmental
issues, and track progress toward environmental goals.
Whereas many challenges that inhibit the development of useful sets of
environmental indicators are unique to the individual sets being
developed, developers face several common challenges. Indicator set
developers reported the following common challenges:
* Ensuring that a sound process is used to develop the indicator sets.
Developers reported that creating an indicator set can be an intensely
political process that challenges both the credibility and relevance of
a set. Indicator sets we reviewed largely relied on collaborative
processes to balance the various interests. Such processes define the
purpose and intended use of the indicator set, determine the conceptual
models--sets of qualitative assumptions to describe social,
organizational, and natural systems--and criteria for selecting
indicators, and selecting the indicators themselves. Such processes are
difficult to manage, but essential to ensure that a set is ultimately
accepted and used.
* Obtaining sufficient environmental data to report conditions and
trends related to the indicators selected. Obtaining data for use in
indicator sets can be difficult largely because long-standing
limitations of federal environmental monitoring and data collection
activities have not been resolved. Over half of the respondents to our
survey identified obtaining data of sufficient quality as a major
challenge to developing indicator sets. Indicator set developers and
other experts noted that obtaining sufficient data on environmental
conditions is difficult and costly because the many different
organizations that collect data on the nation's environment and natural
resources do so for specific purposes in different forms or on
different geographic scales, and thus cannot be readily integrated to
support indicators. Sharing such data can have significant, and
sometimes prohibitive, costs because transforming the data to suit the
needs of another user would require data managers to divert already
limited resources from other projects. Moreover, past GAO work has
emphasized that the federal government's current environmental
information base suffers from data gaps between what is monitored and
what needs to be monitored. Because of problems filling gaps in
existing data and difficulties in integrating data from different
databases, indicator set developers' efforts to identify data of
sufficient quality from existing data sources has met with limited
success.
* Coordinating and integrating various related indicator sets to
develop a more comprehensive understanding of the environment. Experts
we interviewed noted that the federal government lacks an
organizational framework to provide a consistent basis for working with
international, state, or nongovernmental indicator initiatives.
Federal environmental indicator set developers employ a wide range of
approaches. As a result, significant analytical and technical
differences inhibit integration of related sets or synthesis of the
diverse range of sets to draw a comprehensive picture of the nation's
environment. Recognizing the need for coordination at the highest
levels, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
established an Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination in
2002 to coordinate and integrate the federal investment in
environmental indicator sets. According to officials, the Working Group
was created as an ad hoc organization within the Executive Office of
the President, operating without explicit responsibility and authority
to ensure the continued and full involvement, cooperation, and
resources from other federal agencies. Officials of agencies
participating in the Working Group acknowledge the need for a more
stable structure with the authority and resources necessary to achieve
the Working Group's goals. On the basis of our discussions, we believe
that a number of organizational options exist and should be studied to
determine the most appropriate option or combination of options for
implementing key functions, such as guiding and coordinating the
development and use of environmental indicators.
* Linking specific environmental management actions and program
activities to changes in environmental conditions and trends.
Developers assembling environmental indicator sets to improve the
performance of environmental management programs reported difficulty
(1) accounting for relationships between management actions and other
factors beyond the agency's control that can potentially affect
environmental changes and (2) addressing the time lag between
management actions and achieved results. Such problems are consistent
with GAO's work on performance measurement in general, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular. Since our 1988
report on EPA's management, GAO has stressed numerous times that EPA
place priority on developing indicators to guide the agency's priority
setting, strategic planning, and resource allocation. EPA's
Environmental Indicators Initiative illustrates the difficulties in
developing a set of national environmental indicators useful for
establishing priorities, allocating resources, and assessing results.
Past efforts to develop and use environmental indicators by the agency
underscore both the importance and difficulty of doing so, and the need
for a focused, long-term commitment as changes occur in the agency's
senior management and priorities. These previous efforts have been
hindered not only by technical difficulties in establishing linkages
between program activities and changes in the environment, but also by
changes in leadership within the agency and the lack of needed
resources for monitoring the natural resources and the environment.
Although a noteworthy step, EPA's effort thus far has not functioned as
a key component of an agencywide comprehensive approach for managing
EPA's work to achieve measurable results. EPA has not initiated or
planned an institutional framework with clear lines of responsibility
and accountability for developing and using environmental indicators,
and no processes, procedures, or work plans exist to link the results
of the initiative with EPA's strategic planning and performance
reporting cycle.
In order to provide a comprehensive picture of environmental and
natural resource conditions and trends to assess the nation's position
and progress, we recommend that the Chairman of CEQ develop
institutional arrangements needed to ensure a concerted, systematic,
and stable approach to address the challenges associated with the
development, coordination, and integration of environmental indicator
sets.
Furthermore, building on EPA's initial efforts on indicators and to
evaluate the purposes that indicators might serve, we recommend that
the EPA Administrator establish clear lines of responsibility and
accountability among EPA's various organizational components and
identify specific requirements for developing and using environmental
indicators.
Background:
Environmental indicators track changes to the quality and condition of
the air, water, land, and ecosystems on various geographic scales, and
related human health and economic conditions. Whereas definitions of
"environmental indicator" vary, most of them emphasize that an
environmental indicator is a selected quantifiable variable that
describes, analyzes, and presents scientific information and its
significance. Public and private initiatives assemble sets of
indicators to address a variety of environmental issues. Federal
agencies, private corporations, local communities, and others develop
environmental indicator sets to condense complex topics or concepts,
such as the health of ecosystems, into a manageable amount of
meaningful information. Indicators are presented in statistical or
graphical form, but are also referred to as concepts that have meaning
beyond just the numeric value of the metric because of the importance
of the phenomenon or element of a natural system being measured within
the developers' worldview. For example, figure 1 presents the volume of
nitrate carried by major rivers ("nitrate load") per year since the
mid-1950s. Scientists generally accept this measure as an indicator of
the condition of the nation's freshwater system, which, in turn, is a
component of the health of ecosystems in the United States.
Figure 1: Nitrate Load Carried by Major Rivers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Similarly, figure 2 shows an indicator drawn from a set of indicators
addressing state-level environmental protection efforts. This
indicator presents trend data on the extent of wildfires in California
since 1950 as one measure to be used for gauging the performance of
state programs to restore forest health.
Figure 2: Historical Wildfires in California, 1950 to 1997:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Organizations have developed and used indicator sets to address a broad
array of economic, social, and environmental issues.[Footnote 3] For
example, the Healthy People initiative, led by the Department of Health
and Human Services, has worked since 1979 to develop a comprehensive
set of national objectives for disease prevention and health promotion,
and indicators with which to measure them. Healthy People has continued
to be revised once every decade since 1980. Furthermore, economic
indicator sets have been used to enhance understanding of economic
phenomena, such as the business cycle. Economists generally agree that
regular and consistent reporting of economic indicators such as
unemployment, coupled with short explanations and extended discussion
about the causes and consequences of the trends, has supported the
development of economic theories and models and informed decision
making in many institutions. However, as the National Research Council
reported in 2000, while there are many well-known economic indicators,
no current environmental indicators have achieved such status--although
some environmental indicators, such as sea surface temperature as an
indicator of global climate change, have begun to attract considerable
attention. While much of the development of national indicators in the
United States has focused on specific economic, social, and
environmental concerns, the importance of interrelationships among
these dimensions is growing. For example, there is a steady trend today
to broaden and integrate various types of information used in
decisionmaking contexts throughout society. The trend includes
incorporating environmental and social measures into the regular
reporting of economic measures by private corporations (see app. V) and
linking environmental information to the information contained in the
national economic accounts (see app. VI). Striving to understand the
impact that human society has on the environment involves focusing on
the interrelationships among economic, social, and environmental
processes.
Environmental indicator sets are built upon a vast patchwork of
environmental information. Federal agencies collect and manage a
tremendous volume of environmental data at a cost of at least $600
million each year. Across the United States, state, nonprofit, and
private organizations also collect and manage research and monitoring
data that feed into federal databases. Federal and nonfederal
organizations collect such information to address specific problems
under a variety of authorities using various research designs and
methodologies, definitions, collection frequencies, and sites as
determined by the collection agencies. As shown in table 1, numerous
federal agencies are involved in key federal environmental research and
monitoring programs, under a variety of legal authorities. Federal
environmental monitoring and data collection activities provide
critical feedback on the state of the nation's environment.
Table 1: Selected Major Environmental Research and Monitoring Networks
and ProgramsA:
Program name: Coastal Change Analysis Program;
Primary federal agencies: NOAA;
Primary authority: NOAA Authorization Act of 1992.
Program name: Gap Analysis Program;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Program name: National Wetlands Inventory;
Primary federal agencies: FWS;
Primary authority: Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986.
Program name: Breeding Bird Survey;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Program name: Clean Air Status and Trends Network;
Primary federal agencies: EPA;
Primary authority: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Program name: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program;
Primary federal agencies: EPA;
Primary authority: Clean Water Act.
Program name: Forest Health Monitoring;
Primary federal agencies: EPA and Forest Service;
Primary authority: Forest Ecosystem and Atmospheric Pollution Research
Act of 1988.
Program name: Forest Inventory Analysis;
Primary federal agencies: Forest Service;
Primary authority: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act of 1978, as amended by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998.
Program name: National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends
Network;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Program name: National Air Monitoring System/State and Local/
Photochemical Air Monitoring System;
Primary federal agencies: EPA;
Primary authority: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
Program name: National Stream Quality Accounting Network;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: USGS Organic Act.
Program name: National Stream Gauging Network;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: USGS Organic Act.
Program name: National Resources Inventory;
Primary federal agencies: NRCS;
Primary authority: Rural Development Act of 1972.
Program name: National Status and Trends;
Primary federal agencies: NOAA;
Primary authority: Marine Protected Resources and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended.
Program name: NMFS marine mammal stock assessments;
Primary federal agencies: NOAA and NMFS;
Primary authority: Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994.
Program name: Remote Automated Weather System;
Primary federal agencies: Multiagency;
Primary authority: Federal agency land management authorities.
Program name: Snowpack Telemetry;
Primary federal agencies: NRCS;
Primary authority: Pub. L. No. 74-46.
Program name: Agricultural Research Service;
Primary federal agencies: USDA;
Primary authority: USDA research authorities (e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 1010).
Program name: Forest and rangeland sites;
Primary federal agencies: USDA;
Primary authority: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act of 1978.
Program name: Long-term ecological research;
Primary federal agencies: NSF;
Primary authority: National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended.
Program name: National Park Ecological Monitoring Program;
Primary federal agencies: NPS;
Primary authority: NPS Organic Act.
Program name: Coastal Ocean Program;
Primary federal agencies: NOAA;
Primary authority: NOAA Authorization Act of 1992.
Program name: National Marine Sanctuary;
Primary federal agencies: NOAA;
Primary authority: National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000.
Program name: Hydrologic Benchmark Network;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: USGS Organic Act.
Program name: National Water Quality Assessment;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: USGS Organic Act.
Program name: Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets Program;
Primary federal agencies: USGS;
Primary authority: Global Change Research Act of 1990.
Source: GAO analysis of National Science and Technology Council data.
[A] Networks and programs in this list were drawn from an inventory
originally reported by the National Science and Technology Council in
1997.
[End of table]
Although extensive, the environmental information base in the United
States does not support comprehensive environmental and natural
resource assessments. In 1997, the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC)--a Cabinet-level council that serves as the principal
means for the president to coordinate research and development across
federal agencies--evaluated the status of federal agency environmental
monitoring and research activities and found that monitoring programs
do not provide integrated data across multiple natural resources at the
various scales needed to develop policies that take into account
current scientific understanding. The NSTC called for a strategy for
environmental monitoring and research to enable comprehensive
assessments.[Footnote 4] More recently, the National Council for
Science and the Environment--a nonprofit organization addressing the
scientific basis for environmental decision making--convened a national
conference of more than 450 scientists, policymakers, and academicians
in December 2000 that underscored the need for comprehensive national
assessments.[Footnote 5]
Until 2000, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was
required to transmit an annual environmental quality report to
Congress. Although the annual reporting requirement is no longer in
effect, CEQ is still required to accumulate the necessary data and
other information needed for a continuing analysis of changes and
trends in the natural environment and an interpretation of their
underlying causes.[Footnote 6] Whereas scientists, agency officials,
and academicians generally agree on the need for periodic reporting of
conditions and trends of environmental and natural resources, no
consensus has been reached on who should be responsible for this task
or how it would be best achieved.
The federal government relies on such trend information to assess
progress toward national goals and to improve and better account for
its performance, but credible and reliable information cannot always be
obtained. In recent years, a general consensus has developed on the
need to judge the success of the nation's environmental policies
against environmental quality outcomes, rather than the number of
management plans created, regulations or permits issued, or enforcement
actions taken. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)--the
centerpiece of a statutory and management framework laid out in the
1990s as the foundation for strengthening government performance and
accountability--is designed to inform congressional and executive
decision making by providing objective information on the relative
effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending. GPRA
requires both a connection to the structures used in congressional
budget presentations and consultation between the executive and
legislative branches on agency strategic plans to ensure Congress an
oversight stake in GPRA's success. The current administration has made
the integration of performance and budget information one of five
governmentwide management priorities under the President's Management
Agenda. Central to this initiative is the Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART). The Office of Management and Budget developed PART as a
diagnostic tool meant to provide a consistent approach to evaluating
federal programs and as one tool applied it in formulating the
executive branch's fiscal years 2004 and 2005 budget requests. The
adoption of such a performance-based environmental policy, however, has
been hampered by the lack of reliable scientific information on
environmental conditions and trends.
Environmental Indicator Sets Are Developed for a Variety of Purposes,
and Users Generally Report Positive Impacts:
Government agencies, universities, corporations, and other
organizations have developed environmental indicator sets to address
environmental issues on various geographic scales. Most of the
environmental indicator sets we reviewed were developed for a myriad of
purposes, including assessing environmental conditions and trends,
raising public awareness, communicating complex issues, and tracking
progress toward goals. Indicator set users reported that such sets
generally had positive impacts, and were especially useful in assessing
environmental conditions and trends, communicating complex
environmental issues, and developing strategic plans. However, it is
difficult to determine the benefits that arise from these impacts.
Organizations Develop Environmental Indicator Sets for Specific but
Varied Purposes:
Various organizations throughout the United States--including
government agencies at national, state, and local levels; nonprofit
groups; universities; and corporations--have developed hundreds of
environmental indicator sets in recent years to address environmental
issues on a variety of geographic scales. Some environmental indicator
sets are limited to political jurisdiction, such as county, state, or
nation; others are limited to natural areas, such as watersheds, lake
basins, or ecosystems. Many environmental indicator sets address
complex, crosscutting issues--such as ecosystem health--that are
affected by environmental, economic, and social factors. For instance,
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for the development of a
set of about 80 ecosystem health indicators for the Great Lakes to
inform the public and report progress toward achieving the objectives
of the agreement. Indicators address specific geographic zones of the
entire Great Lakes Basin ecosystem--such as offshore, nearshore,
coastal wetlands, and shoreline--and other issues such as human health,
land use, and societal well-being. The indicator list is continually
evolving. Every 2 years, Environment Canada--the Canadian agency
primarily responsible for the preservation and enhancement of the
quality of the natural environment--and EPA host a review and
discussion of the indicators as required under the agreement, either at
the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference or through alternate
processes. Moreover, some cities, such as New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and
Seattle, have developed comprehensive indicator sets that focus on
broader issues that incorporate such factors as economic prosperity,
social equity, and environmental quality to measure and sustain the
quality of life for the citizens in the community.
Respondents to our survey noted that the most common purposes for
developing environmental indicator sets were to assess environmental
conditions and trends, educate and raise awareness among the public,
simplify and communicate complex issues, and track progress toward
environmental goals (see fig. 3).[Footnote 7]
Figure 3: Ten Purposes for the Development of Environmental Indicator
Sets Most Frequently Cited by Survey Respondents:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Results out of a possible total of 42 responses.
[End of figure]
Environmental indicator sets have been developed to serve multiple
purposes and audiences. For example, the H. John Heinz III Center for
Science, Economics, and the Environment (Heinz Center) developed The
State of the Nation's Ecosystems indicator set, published in 2002, to
identify a succinct set of indicators to report on the ecological
condition of the nation, identify data gaps, and provide information to
a broad audience. The intended audience of the indicator set
encompassed members of Congress, executive branch agencies, business
executives, environmental advocacy groups, state and local officials,
and the general public.
Most environmental indicator sets are developed voluntarily. For
example, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) began
developing the Environmental Protection Indicators for California
(EPIC) in 2001 as part of the implementation plan for the agency's 2000
Strategic Vision document. Cal/EPA made a commitment to focus more on
measurable environmental results in assessing the effectiveness of its
environmental programs, and in making program adjustments to better
meet the state's environmental protection goals. EPIC developed about
85 indicators based on categories that mirror the agency's areas of
authority, and reported them in an April 2002 report. Similarly,
Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources developed environmental
indicators and targets for its Strategic Conservation Agenda. The
department developed about 75 indicators in six performance areas to
help the agency better define its priorities, communicate its progress,
and manage for environmental results.
Other environmental indicator sets are developed in response to legal
mandates. For example, the state of Michigan publishes a biennial
report as required under the Michigan Natural Resources and Protection
Act. The publication, prepared jointly by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources, reports
on the conditions and trends of the environment, such as land use and
cover, mammal and fish populations, and ambient air pollutant levels.
At the federal level, the National Park Service created the Natural
Resource Challenge in 1999 in response to the direction of the National
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 to enhance national parks
management by using the highest quality science and information, and to
create a resource inventory and monitoring program to establish
baseline conditions and long-term trends.[Footnote 8] The Natural
Resource Challenge includes indicators--referred to as vital signs--to
identify ecosystem health status and trends and to determine compliance
with laws and regulations. For example, park managers have used vital
signs, such as the concentration of air pollutants in precipitation and
its effects on water quality, to detect potential problems and identify
steps to restore ecological health of park resources.
Environmental Indicator Set Users Generally Report Positive Impacts:
The use of environmental indicator sets has resulted in a variety of
positive impacts. A majority of users of environmental indicator sets
told us that the sets are either useful or very useful for their needs,
especially in (1) assessing environmental conditions and trends, (2)
communicating complex environmental issues, and (3) developing
strategic plans. However, largely because indicator sets themselves do
not create change--instead policymakers employ the information when
making decisions--it is difficult to measure the benefits that accrue
from these impacts.[Footnote 9]
The indicator sets we reviewed assess environmental and natural
resource conditions and trends, and have been used to help identify
data gaps and research needs, provide early warning of potential
environmental problems, allocate resources, and analyze alternatives
for environmental management. Several of the applications help
demonstrate how environmental indicator sets had positive impacts:
* Experts called the Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) indicator set a key factor in identifying needed
management approaches at the and served as a positive catalyst in
promoting collaboration on key issues. In particular, the SOLEC
indicator set helped influence the Fish and Wildlife Service decision
to focus on the development of an ecosystem/watershed approach to
environmental management for the Great Lakes that crosses multiple
political boundaries.
* The ecological framework designed for the Heinz Center's State of the
Nation's Ecosystems indicator set is used to inform the design of the
ecological portion of the international Global Ocean Observing System-
-a major multinational initiative that is designed to observe, model,
and analyze marine resources. In addition, the Heinz Center indicator
set identified a number of missing or inadequate data needed to provide
a complete picture of ecosystem condition, such as data to support an
indicator measuring the biological condition of the soil in use as
farmland. The center is working with federal, state, and local
governmental, nongovernmental, and private organizations to call
attention to the need for identifying priorities for filling data gaps
and the need to fill these gaps.
* The National Coastal Assessment component of EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) provides a more complete
picture of the condition of the nation's estuaries. EPA's Office of
Research and Development led the creation of the indicator set and
monitoring program that constitute the assessment, which includes five
aggregate indicators--water quality, sediment quality, coastal
habitat, benthic community structure, and fish tissue contaminants.
Three coastal states have fully implemented the monitoring and
indicator approach to fulfill reporting requirements under the Clean
Water Act,[Footnote 10] and 21 other states have begun to implement the
approach or have used the approach to assess a part of their estuaries.
Users reported that the indicator set and monitoring design provided a
more effective approach to consistently measuring estuary conditions
for coastal states.
* The development and use of an environmental indicator set for the
Chesapeake Bay influenced the strategic allocation of approximately $18
million of federal funds in fiscal year 2003 toward meeting restoration
goals for the bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program--established by the 1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, one of three overriding agreements aimed at
restoring the health of the bay--began developing environmental
indicators to support goal setting, to define targets and endpoints for
restoration of the bay, and to make the program more accountable to the
public by defining and communicating the bottom line environmental
results achieved by the restoration program. The program distributes
funds in the form of grants to state governments, local governments,
interstate agencies, nonprofits, universities, and colleges to
implement the restoration goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and to
collect data and other information for use in the indicator set. The
indicator set uses monitoring data and other information to measure
environmental conditions of the Chesapeake Bay and progress in meeting
goals.
Environmental indicator sets also serve as powerful tools for
communicating information on complex environmental issues in a way that
makes them more comprehensible and accessible. Two organizations in
particular--the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security through its West Oakland Environmental
Indicators Project and the Jacksonville Community Council Inc. (JCCI)-
-use their respective indicator sets to identify environmental issues,
perform research to better understand the issues, and develop
appropriate solutions. For example, West Oakland's indicator set helped
decision makers identify and eventually close a major source of air
pollution in the community, which likely would not have been
accomplished without extensive public awareness and action galvanized
by the indicator set. Similarly, JCCI uses its indicator set to
identify issues for further study, such as ensuring an adequate water
supply and reducing the municipal garbage burden, which the indicator
set had shown to be areas of existing or emerging problems. At the
culmination of each study, JCCI issues a report with recommendations to
improve the situation and creates a task force to ensure implementation
of the recommendations.[Footnote 11]
The process of developing an environmental indicator set enhances
strategic planning by engaging a broad-based group of individuals in a
structured, collaborative process. As we reported in March 2004,
strategic planning for performance-based, results-oriented management
requires transforming organizational cultures to improve decision
making, maximize performance, and ensure accountability.[Footnote 12]
Such a transformation requires investments of time and resources as
well as sustained leadership, commitment, and attention. Throughout our
review, indicator set developers and users emphasized the importance of
broad collaboration in developing indicators as a way of strengthening
their relevance and broad acceptance. The developers of some indicator
sets use the indicator set development process to advance dialogue
within their community or region by bringing together many different
sectors, fostering new alliances and relationships, and providing a
forum to discuss ways to better measure and manage environment issues.
For instance, staff members of some organizations, such as the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the California
Environmental Protection Agency, told us that the process of developing
and refining their indicator sets helped staff identify and define
environmental management goals to better manage for results. For
instance, California EPA has traditionally assessed the success of its
environmental programs based on measures of activities, such as the
number of permits granted or notices of violations issued. The intent
of developing environmental indicators at California EPA was to measure
environmental results and to be able to use the indicators to support a
results-based management system. The process of developing the
indicators at California EPA brought various staff together to define
issues and parameters to develop indicators that could be used to
manage for results.
Nevertheless, it is not easy--or sometimes even possible--to measure
the benefits of the sets that stem from these impacts. Developers
reported that systematic monitoring of the effectiveness of
environmental indicator sets and their benefits varies due in part to
resource costs. Moreover, developers and users reported that
environmental indicator sets themselves did not create change from
which benefits could be measured; rather, they might influence
environmental management activities and thus yield benefits from
affecting the quality of a decision. However, such difficulties should
not necessarily be seen as a precondition for developing and using
indicator sets. Instead, these unanswered questions highlight the need
for additional research on how to better gauge the return on the
investment for organizations that have invested in indicator sets.
Major Challenges Facing the Development and Use of Environmental
Indicator Sets:
A number of challenges face developers and users of environmental
indicator sets. Selecting from a broad range of issues, survey
respondents most frequently cited the 10 issues presented in table 2 as
major or moderate challenges.
Table 2: Ten Challenges Most Frequently Cited as Major or Moderate by
Survey Respondents:
Challenge: Obtaining data of sufficient quality;
Number of responses: Major: 22;
Number of responses: Moderate: 14;
Number of responses: Total: 36.
Challenge: Obtaining data of appropriate geographic scope;
Number of responses: Major: 19;
Number of responses: Moderate: 13;
Number of responses: Total: 32.
Challenge: Selecting sufficient indicators;
Number of responses: Major: 15;
Number of responses: Moderate: 16;
Number of responses: Total: 31.
Challenge: Obtaining needed funds;
Number of responses: Major: 15;
Number of responses: Moderate: 13;
Number of responses: Total: 28.
Challenge: Clearly defining the phenomena to be measured;
Number of responses: Major: 12;
Number of responses: Moderate: 12;
Number of responses: Total: 24.
Challenge: Determining the criteria for selecting indicators;
Number of responses: Major: 5;
Number of responses: Moderate: 18;
Number of responses: Total: 23.
Challenge: Staff with necessary expertise;
Number of responses: Major: 7;
Number of responses: Moderate: 15;
Number of responses: Total: 22.
Challenge: Clearly defining the purpose of the indicator set;
Number of responses: Major: 4;
Number of responses: Moderate: 18;
Number of responses: Total: 22.
Challenge: Clearly defining the intended use of the set;
Number of responses: Major: 4;
Number of responses: Moderate: 17;
Number of responses: Total: 21.
Challenge: Determining the conceptual framework to use;
Number of responses: Major: 5;
Number of responses: Moderate: 15;
Number of responses: Total: 20.
Source: GAO.
Note: Results out of a possible total of 42 responses. Respondents
chose from five response categories: Major, Moderate, Minor, Not a
Challenge, or Don't Know.
[End of table]
Interviews with indicator set developers and other experts revealed
that many challenges tended to revolve around the specific
circumstances affecting the particular sets. However, we identified
several categories of common challenges faced by indicator set
developers and users on the basis of the survey responses and detailed
interviews with developers and other experts:
* Ensuring that a sound process is used to develop the indicator sets.
Developers reported that support for an indicator set can be undermined
if it is viewed as biased because of its association with a particular
political perspective or leader. The process of developing an indicator
set can be an intensely political process that challenges both the
credibility and relevance of a set. Developers of the sets we reviewed
largely relied on collaborative processes to define the purpose and
intended use of the indicator set, determine the conceptual model and
criteria for select indicators, and selecting the indicators
themselves. Such processes are difficult to manage to ensure a set's
credibility and relevance.
* Obtaining sufficient environmental data to report conditions and
trends related to the indicators selected. Over half of the respondents
to our survey identified obtaining data of sufficient quality as a
major challenge to developing indicator sets. Indicator set developers
and other experts noted that the many different organizations that
collect data on the nation's environment and natural resources do so
for specific purposes in different forms or on different geographic
scales.
* Coordinating and integrating various related indicator sets in order
to obtain a better understanding of the environment. Experts that we
interviewed noted the federal government lacks an organizational
framework to provide a consistent basis for working with international,
state, or nongovernmental indicator initiatives. Environmental
indicator set developers employ a wide range of approaches. As a
result, significant analytical and technical differences inhibit
integration of related sets or synthesis of the diverse range of sets
to draw a comprehensive picture of the nation's environment. The White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recognized the need for
coordination and established an Interagency Working Group on Indicator
Coordination (Working Group) in 2002 to coordinate and integrate the
federal investment in environmental indicator sets.
* Linking specific environmental management actions and program
activities to changes in environmental conditions and trends.
Organizations that develop environmental indicator sets to improve the
performance of environmental management programs can struggle with
linking management actions and environmental conditions and trends and
address the time lag between management actions and achieved results.
EPA's past efforts to develop and use environmental indicators
underscore both the importance and difficulty of doing so, and the need
for a focused, long-term commitment as the agency undergoes changes in
management and priorities.
Ensuring a Sound Process to Develop Indicator Sets:
Developers reported that support for an indicator set can be undermined
if it is viewed as biased because of its association with a particular
political perspective or leader. The process of developing an indicator
set can be an intensely political process that challenges both the
credibility and relevance of a set. When selecting one of the many
indicators in a set, others are necessarily excluded because many
indicator set developers strive to keep the number of indicators as
small as possible. In some cases, that means an issue of interest to a
particular stakeholder or user group does not get measured by the set.
For example, the criteria used to select indicators for the Georgia
Basin Puget Sound Ecosystem indicator set limited the number of
indicators to only six, which led to gaps in the presentation of
information on the complete state of the ecosystem.
The process used to select indicators can affect the usefulness of a
set, producing a set of indicators of little or no relevance to the
users' needs. Moreover, developers reported that support for an
indicator set can be undermined if it is viewed as being biased or
nonobjective because of its association with a particular political
perspective or leader.
Indicator set developers stressed the need for a balanced process to
manage such concerns. In particular, involving a set's varied users,
developing and applying sound selection criteria, and identifying
appropriate conceptual models were cited as important elements of the
development process.
Many developers we interviewed noted the importance of--and
difficulties in--incorporating users' needs when selecting indicators.
Identifying, engaging, and balancing the information needs of the users
can be a resource-intensive processes. For example, the Heinz Center
spent significant time conducting outreach to each of four sectors--
businesses; environmental and conservation advocacy organizations;
academia; and federal, state, and local governments--it identified as
potential users of its indicator set on The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems. The Heinz Center engaged about 150 representatives in a 3-
year consensus-building process, leading to the indicator set that was
eventually adopted. Similarly, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resource's indicators supporting the state's Strategic Conservation
Agenda were developed collaboratively by the department's Science
Policy Unit--housed within the department's Office of Management and
Budget Services--and departmental operations managers representing all
divisions and regions. Developers stated that the process, although
resource-intensive, ensured that the agency had support from users and
other stakeholders of the indicator set. However, not all indicator
sets have the resources to develop such a process or sustain it over
time. As a result, indicator sets can have limited applicability to the
users' needs. We found that some affected user groups were not
identified, not effectively involved in the development of indicator
sets, or both.
In many of the cases we reviewed, indicator set developers employed
specific criteria to guide indicator selection. Such criteria describe
desired characteristics, attributes, or standards--such as relevance to
environmental policies or scientific soundness--that indicators must
meet to be eligible for inclusion in a set (see table 3).
Table 3: Ten Criteria Used to Select Indicators Most Frequently Cited
by Survey Respondents:
Criteria: Measurable;
Number of responses: 35.
Criteria: Relevant;
Number of responses: 35.
Criteria: Appropriate geographic scale;
Number of responses: 34.
Criteria: Understandable;
Number of responses: 34.
Criteria: Data available;
Number of responses: 32.
Criteria: Data quality;
Number of responses: 31.
Criteria: Importance;
Number of responses: 28.
Criteria: Appropriate temporal scale;
Number of responses: 28.
Criteria: Data comparability;
Number of responses: 26.
Criteria: Trend data available;
Number of responses: 24.
Source: GAO.
Note: Results out of a possible total of 42 responses.
[End of table]
In some cases, set developers engage users and other stakeholders in
defining selection criteria early in the selection process to screen,
rank, or otherwise prioritize the field of potential indicators before
addressing and selecting the individual indicators. For example, the
process for selecting indicators for the Environmental Protection
Indicators for California indicator set involved developers first
identifying environmental issues that are significant for the state--
such as air quality or human health--along with more specific
components of such issues--such as criteria air pollutants such as
ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Developers then
identified relevant, measurable parameters within each issue, such as
vehicle miles traveled, to help derive candidate indicators. Candidate
indicators were then subject to criteria, such as data quality,
representativeness, sensitivity, and decision support to help select
the final set of indicators.
In addition, many indicator set developers designed conceptual models
to serve as foundations for structuring and selecting indicator sets.
Conceptual models present the set developers' understanding of how
systems operate, and help integrate the different fields of science
relevant to an issue that cuts across environmental disciplines, such
as ecosystem management. Such models can enhance the degree to which an
indicator set incorporates the best available scientific knowledge and
understanding, presents assumed causal relationships between different
variables, and identifies different types of performance management
indicators for assessing the results of specific environmental
policies. For example, one common model is the pressure-state-response
model. Such a model helps developers understand real and potential
causal relationships between human actions, such as population growth
and pollution, on the environment.
Obtaining Sufficient Environmental Data to Report Conditions and
Trends:
Obtaining data for use in indicator sets can be difficult largely
because longstanding limitations of federal environmental monitoring
and data collection activities have not been resolved. Over half of the
respondents to our survey identified obtaining data of sufficient
quality as a major challenge to developing indicator sets. Indicator
set developers and other experts noted that the many different
organizations that collect data on the nation's environment and natural
resources do so for specific purposes. To meet these purposes, these
data are collected in different forms or on different geographic
scales, and thus cannot be readily integrated to support indicators.
Such limitations of federal environmental monitoring and data
collection activities, however, are long-standing and, despite a number
of attempts, have not been resolved.
Responsibility for research, monitoring, and assessment of various
environmental and natural resources currently resides in various
federal and other organizations whose activities focus on achieving
specific programmatic objectives. Differences in definitions, study
design and methodology; frequency of collection; site selection;
quality assessment and control; and other technical issues compound the
fragmentation of data collection activities. For example, our January
2001 report detailed major management issues facing EPA, one of which
was the agency's outmoded data management system that relies on
separately designed, media-specific databases that are generally not
technically compatible.[Footnote 13] Data generated through such
disparate activities are not being integrated in common databases or
otherwise being made accessible to potential users. Data sharing can
have significant costs because environmental data are generally
collected according to the specific needs or purposes of the collecting
agency or organization, and transforming the data to suit the needs of
another user would require data managers to divert already limited
resources--staff time, computing resources, and money--from ongoing
agency projects.
The recent commitment to develop a Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS) by the United States underscores the need for
coordinated information about the environment. GEOSS is a 10-year
international cooperative effort to make it possible for all existing
and new earth-observing hardware and software around the globe to
communicate so they can continuously monitor the land, sea, and air.
GEOSS is built on the idea that the dozens of observational systems now
generating reams of data around the world could be more powerful if
they could be combined and widely disseminated. A completed 10-year
implementation plan will be presented at the third Earth Observation
Summit in February 2005. More than 15 federal agencies--including NOAA
and EPA--and several White House offices are developing a draft
strategic plan for the United States Integrated Earth Observation
System, which will be a key component of the GEOSS 10-year plan.
Moreover, gaps in existing data also limit the usefulness of many
federal environmental datasets to support the crosscutting issues
addressed by indicator sets. Our past work has emphasized that the
federal government's current environmental information base suffers
from data gaps between what is monitored and what needs to be
monitored. For example, we reported in July 1998 and again in December
2002 on how the lack of consistent data on federal wetlands programs
implemented by different agencies prevented the government from
measuring progress toward achieving the governmentwide goal of no net
loss of the nation's wetlands.[Footnote 14] Furthermore, we reported in
June 2004 that hundreds of entities across the nation collect water
quality data that provide a great deal of information about the
condition of the nation's waters--however, the United States does not
have enough information to provide a comprehensive picture at the
national level because of the way in which these entities collect water
quality data.[Footnote 15] This shortfall impairs its understanding of
the state of its waters and complicates decision making on such
critical issues as which waters should be targeted for cleanup and how
such cleanups can best be achieved.
Problems with integrating databases and filling gaps in federal
environmental data are long-standing issues that were recognized at
least 3 decades ago. In 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) noted in its first report to Congress on the nation's environment
that contemporary efforts did not provide the type of information or
the geographic coverage needed to evaluate the condition of the
nation's environment, track changes in its quality, or trace their
causes.[Footnote 16] Moreover, academicians have found that nearly
every comprehensive study during this period on national environmental
protection has called for more coherent and comprehensive information
on the state of our environment and natural resources.[Footnote 17]
Congress has discussed federal environmental data and indicator issues
many times since 1970. Figure 4 shows these efforts, as well as
selected relevant scholarly reports issued during the same period.
Figure 4: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Refer to appendix IV for a description of legislation, hearings,
and reports.
[End of figure]
Although not intended to be exhaustive, this figure illustrates
significant legislative and academic milestones in federal
environmental data and indicator management over the last 35 years. As
shown in the figure, both Congress and the academic community had
already identified and analyzed, but not addressed, many of the
fundamental issues confronting indicator development and data
management by the close of the 1970s.
Because of problems filling gaps in existing data and difficulties in
integrating data from different databases, indicator set developers'
efforts to identify data of sufficient quality from existing data
sources has met with limited success. For example, the developers of
the Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems report were unable
to obtain sufficient data for reporting nationally 45 of 103 indicators
included in the report. The report identified Total Impervious Area--a
classification of urban and suburban areas according to the percentage
of roads, parking lots, driveways, and rooftops that they contain--as
an important measure of the degree of urbanization of the United
States, and closely related to water quality in urban and suburban
areas. However, the report explained that such data had not been
compiled regionally or nationally and there were no standard methods
for estimating this metric.[Footnote 18] As illustrated in table 4,
other national indicator sets experienced a similar challenge.
Table 4: Sufficiency of Current Environmental Data to Support Three
Major National Indicator Sets:
Indicator set: The State of the Nation's Ecosystems;
Number of indicators: 103;
Indicators with sufficient data: 58 (56%);
Indicators with insufficient data: 45 (44%).
Indicator set: Draft Report on the Environment 2003;
Number of indicators: 146;
Indicators with sufficient data: 44 (30%);
Indicators with insufficient data: 102 (70%).
Indicator set: National Report on Sustainable Forests--2003;
Number of indicators: 67;
Indicators with sufficient data: 8 (12%);
Indicators with insufficient data: 59 (88%).
Sources: EPA, Forest Service, and the Heinz Center.
Note: GAO applied the various quality criteria developed and reported
by each project. GAO did not independently evaluate these criteria or
the project's application of the criteria.
[End of table]
Coordinating and Integrating Indicator Sets to Improve the Current
Understanding of Environmental Conditions and Trends:
Experts we interviewed noted the federal government lacks an
organizational framework or institutional arrangements to provide a
consistent basis for working with international, state, or
nongovernmental indicator initiatives. Currently these efforts are not
coordinated, resulting in significant differences and
incompatibilities between sets that inhibit integration and synthesis.
For example, federal environmental indicator sets cannot always be
integrated with each other, or with regional-or state-level indicator
initiatives on similar topics, largely because the sets are based on
different frameworks and include indicators relevant at different
geographic scales. As a result, congressional, federal agency, and
other users must reconcile information that seems to deliver
inconsistent or conflicting messages. For example, both the Forest
Service's National Report on Sustainable Forests--2003 and the Heinz
Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems include an indicator related
to species rarity: the status (threatened, rare, vulnerable,
endangered, or extinct) of forest-dependent species at risk of not
maintaining viable breeding populations, as determined by legislation
or scientific assessment and at-risk native forest species,
respectively. However, though the datasets appear to be similar, the
data in each set are presented in different ways and could appear
confusing--even contradictory--to a reader unfamiliar with the
different risk classification schemes used.
Moreover, even as federal activity developing indicator sets is
increasing, developers at the various agencies may be missing
opportunities to share knowledge and transfer experience. Federal
developers have little to no access to best practices and lessons
learned through others' experience with indicator sets needed to
optimize the federal investment in this activity. Despite the extensive
federal involvement in developing environmental indicators over the
past decade, no clearinghouse has been established for collecting,
classifying, and distributing information on best practices and lessons
learned, either within or outside of the federal government. Experts
involved in our meeting on environmental indicator sets said that such
a clearinghouse could help developers avoid the sometimes duplicative
time and resources currently devoted to identifying the elements of
effective indicator sets. Several federal agencies have acknowledged
the need for such and have begun taking initial actions to address this
need. For example, the Forest Service's Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry unit recently developed a sourcebook and an Internet-
based clearinghouse to disseminate information for states and other
organizations to use when attempting to use indicators for assessing
forest sustainability.
Recognizing the need for improved coordination at the highest federal
levels, the Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination was
created at the request of the Chairman of CEQ in a December 31, 2002,
memo. One purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to
enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources
important to the nation.[Footnote 19] The act requires that CEQ review
and appraise federal programs and activities to determine the extent to
which these activities are achieving the purposes of NEPA and to make
appropriate recommendations to the President. In addition, NEPA
requires CEQ to document and define changes and trends in the natural
environment, and accumulate the necessary data and other information
for a continuing analysis of such changes and trends and an
interpretation of their underlying causes.
The Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination is composed of
representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Health and Human Services, the Interior, and Transportation, as well as
EPA and the White House Offices of the Federal Environmental Executive,
Management and Budget, and Science and Technology Policy. The Working
Group first met in March 2003 to consider ways to enhance the nation's
capacity to regularly report on natural and environmental resources, as
well as related health, social, and economic factors, using a
comprehensive set of indicators. It is currently considering a National
System of Indicators on Natural and Environmental Resources, and is
studying ways to improve institutional arrangements among the federal
agencies for statistical reporting of such indicators.
The Working Group has developed an approach and policy framework for
developing a national indicator system by building on existing federal
and nonfederal efforts and has agreed that the system is a long-term
goal. Furthermore, the Integration and Synthesis Group, an effort to
coordinate several key federal "building block" indicator sets[Footnote
20] under the leadership of the Working Group, has begun to develop a
systems-based framework to organize environmental and natural resource
indicators and provide a strong theoretical foundation for future
integration work. The Working Group has also agreed on a general
conceptual framework to guide the selection and use of indicators and
is working to reach agreement on a detailed architecture to guide the
management and use of data and information technology resources, and
institutional arrangements to develop and operate a national system of
indicators.
Officials of agencies participating in the Working Group acknowledge
the need for a more stable structure with the authority and resources
necessary to achieve the Working Group's goals. In this regard, as an
ad hoc organization within the Executive Office of the President, the
CEQ Working Group lacks a stable institutional arrangement with
explicit responsibility and authority to ensure the continued and full
involvement, cooperation, and resources from other federal agencies.
Experts participating in our two-day meeting on environmental indicator
sets hosted by the National Academy of Sciences--including officials
from CEQ, EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Forest Service
(within the Department of Agriculture)--discussed a number of different
structures that could be employed to create a lead organization
responsible for coordinating and integrating environmental indicator
sets. Specifically, they discussed models ranging from using an
executive order to build upon existing activity to creating a new
quasi-governmental organization with the authority to oversee the
development of a national environmental indicator system. In
particular, the experts emphasized the importance of credibility and
transparency as keys to the success of such an endeavor, in addition to
authorities for addressing the widespread challenges of developing
coordinated federal environmental indicator sets and ensuring the
continued and full involvement, cooperation, and resources of the
federal agencies. The experts did not settle on any particular
approach, but instead noted that all of the options available should be
studied to determine which option or combination of options is most
appropriate. Furthermore, they generally agreed that whatever
institutional arrangements are developed should be capable of
performing the following functions:
* designing an information architecture using the best available
information technology;
* providing leadership, vision, and overall scope;
* providing guidance and coordination with regard to environmental
indicator development and use;
* assisting in environmental indicator selection, development,
improvements, and evaluation;
* designing and managing data collection and monitoring, including
consolidation and prioritization (identifying potential data sources,
identifying areas where no data exist, and establishing ways to fill
data gaps to support environmental indicators);
* organizing statistical compilation and reporting (connecting data to
environmental indicator sets);
* identifying environmental research and development focus areas--
including environmental indicator methods--and developing and
investigating conceptual frameworks, statistical methods,
interpretation, assessment, diagnosis, and basis for interpretation;
* interpreting environmental indicators for planning, policy,
management, and communication purposes; and:
* conducting audience analysis and public engagement to understand what
information is needed to support outside entities.
Linking Environmental Management Actions and Program Activities to
Changes in Environmental Conditions and Trends:
Environmental indicator sets are developed for many purposes, including
tracking progress toward environmental goals and program performance.
However, organizations that develop environmental indicator sets to
improve the performance of environmental management programs can
encounter challenges that inhibit the use of indicator sets in this
context. Specifically, organizations encounter problems accounting for
(1) causal relationships between management actions and other factors
beyond the agency's control that can potentially affect environmental
changes and (2) the delay between management actions and achieved
results. Because complex webs of variables interact to determine
ecological and human health outcomes, the role of a particular program
in shaping environmental or natural resource conditions cannot always
be determined. Organizations sometimes rely on indicator sets as
diagnostic tools to highlight problem areas requiring further study,
rather than as direct measures of performance, because indicator sets
generally demonstrate a correlative--rather than causal--relationship
between specific policies or programs and environmental conditions.
Moreover, management actions can take many years to yield environmental
results. A developer reported concern that the conditions and trends
measured in their indicator sets would be used to determine funding
allocations without regard to the long-term nature of environmental
programs.
Such problems are consistent with our work on performance measurement
in general. We reported in a June 1997 report on GPRA that the limited
or indirect influence that the federal government sometimes has in
determining whether a desired result is achieved complicates the effort
to identify and measure the discrete contribution of the federal
initiative to a specific program result.[Footnote 21] Our March 2004
review of GPRA explained that this impediment occurs primarily because
many federal programs' objectives are the result of complex systems or
phenomena outside the program's control. In such cases, it is
particularly challenging for agencies to confidently attribute changes
in outcomes to their program--the central task of program impact
evaluation.[Footnote 22] Our January 2001 report on management
challenges at EPA noted that environmental programs may not yield
measurable results for many years into the future.[Footnote 23]
However, our prior work also discussed best practices for addressing
challenges to measuring the results of such programs. In particular, to
address the challenge of discerning the impact of a federal program,
when other factors also affect results, we suggested agencies establish
a rationale of how the program delivers results. Establishing such a
rationale involves three related practices: (1) taking a holistic or
"systems" approach to the problem being addressed, (2) building a
program logic model that described how activities translated to
outcomes, and (3) expanding program assessments and evaluations to
validate the model linkages and rationale.
EPA's recent attempts to develop a set of environmental indicators
illustrate the difficulties in linking management actions with the
environmental results of such actions.[Footnote 24] In November 2001,
at the direction of its Administrator, EPA embarked on a major effort-
-called the Environmental Indicators Initiative--to develop an
assessment of the nation's environmental conditions and trends to
enhance the agency's efforts to manage for environmental results, and
to identify data gaps and the research and information collection
efforts needed to fill those gaps. EPA's long-term goal for the
initiative was to improve the data and indicators that are being used
to guide its strategic plans, priorities, performance reports, and
policy and management decisions.[Footnote 25] EPA's initiative, which
resulted in the publication of its Draft Report on the Environment
2003, seeks to provide a coherent picture of the nation's environment.
This initiative is a major step toward developing indicators to provide
a better understanding of the status and trends in human health and
environmental conditions, as well as the more traditional measures of
air, water, and land conditions. While EPA's two independent science
advisory organizations--the Science Advisory Board and the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology--have
identified data limitations and other problems with the draft report,
they commended EPA for its efforts and strongly recommended that EPA
finalize the report after making needed revisions and improvements.
According to EPA, work on EPA's next Report on the Environment--
scheduled for release in the summer of 2006--is currently under way.
The next report will continue the efforts to develop a more
comprehensive set of environmental indicators that could be used for a
variety of purposes. EPA plans to include a set of regional
environmental indicators in the next report that enhances the
comprehensiveness of the indicators at multiple geographic scales. EPA
is also working to integrate environmental information into a variety
of planning processes. For example, the Office of Environmental
Information and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer are currently
working to link the forthcoming Report on the Environment 2006 to the
agency's strategic planning effort.
EPA's recent actions represent noteworthy progress, but the agency
still has considerable distance to travel and important challenges to
overcome in developing a set of national environmental indicators
useful for establishing priorities, allocating resources, and assessing
environmental results. Since our 1998 report on EPA's management, GAO
has stressed numerous times that EPA place priority on developing
indicators to manage for results. In this regard, the few outcome
measures in EPA's collection of performance metrics is largely a
reflection that scientific knowledge essential to permit outcome
measurement is often lacking, and that significant time lags often
exist between actions taken to protect and improve the environment and
demonstrable effects. In the absence of measures to detect and assess
changes in the environment that could be supported with data, it
becomes a matter of judgment as to how efficiently and effectively EPA
is using its resources to address the nation's environmental problems.
Even with the agency's recent progress toward developing better outcome
measures, EPA continues to face substantial challenges in understanding
and describing the complex relationships among its programs, specific
environmental pollutants, and human health and ecological conditions.
EPA plans to continue developing and refining its indicator set as it
seeks to clarify more fully the linkages between environmental
pollution and other factors with human health and ecological
conditions. To do so, it must continue to work to obtain credible and
reliable environmental data from its own and other federal and
nonfederal databases to support the indicators framework laid out in
the Draft Report on the Environment. This task will involve continued
collaborative effort with other federal, state, and tribal agencies.
As we reported in January 2003,[Footnote 26] EPA's progress in managing
for results, particularly in describing current conditions and trends
and identifying and filling research and data gaps, hinges on its
efforts to translate its vision into specific actions. Such actions
include establishing target dates for meeting specific milestones,
identifying and obtaining sufficient staff and financial resources, and
developing a structured approach for establishing direction, setting
priorities, and measuring performance. Identifying and implementing
specific actions aimed at better managing for results by developing and
using environmental measures in planning, budgeting, and evaluating
results continues to be difficult for EPA. The agency's earliest
attempts to do so date back to 1974 and, in 1990, the agency made
measuring changes in environmental conditions and trends a major policy
and operational focus for the agency. These previous efforts to develop
and use environmental indicators illustrate both the importance and
difficulty of doing so, and the need for a focused, long-term
commitment as changes occur in the agency's senior management and
priorities. The previous EPA efforts have been hindered not only by
technical difficulties in establishing linkages between program
activities and changes in the environment, but also by changes in
leadership within the agency and the lack of needed resources for
monitoring environmental conditions. Monitoring activities have had
trouble in competing for limited resources with EPA's regulatory
programs and activities.
Recently, the Administrator of EPA has endorsed the continuation of the
agency's indicators initiative in principle, and EPA has included the
initiative as a performance measure in its annual performance plan for
data quality activities. In addition, two of EPA's external scientific
advisory organizations--the Science Advisory Board and the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology--have lauded
EPA's efforts thus far. Nonetheless, thus far the initiative--managed
by EPA's Office of Information and Office of Research and Development-
-is not a key component of an agencywide comprehensive approach for
identifying priorities, focusing resources on the areas of greatest
concern, and managing EPA's work to achieve measurable results. For
example, EPA has not initiated or planned an institutional framework
with clear lines of responsibility and accountability among its various
program offices and other organizational components for developing and
using environmental indicators. Consequently, EPA has no systematic
means to ensure that its efforts to identify environmental conditions
and trends are used to inform priorities, strategic plans, allocation
of resources, and agency reporting systems to establish accountability
for EPA's efforts and determine whether programs and activities are
having desired results, or need to be modified to better address the
agency's priorities.
Conclusions:
Despite decades of activity and billions of dollars of investment, the
nation is not yet capable of producing a comprehensive picture of
environmental or natural resource conditions or trends. Federal and
nonfederal organizations are developing and using environmental
indicator sets to identify data gaps and bridge the gap between needed
and available information. Despite several significant challenges,
users of the indicator sets that we reviewed reported positive impacts
in enhancing strategic planning efforts, communicating complex
environmental issues, and tracking progress toward environmental goals.
However, it is difficult to determine the benefits that arise from
these impacts because environmental indicator sets themselves do not
create change from which benefits can be measured. Rather, indicator
sets might influence environmental management activities and thus yield
benefits from affecting the quality of a decision. Much research
remains to be done on how to better gauge returns on the investment
made by organizations that have developed indicator sets. Nevertheless,
the picture of the nation's environmental conditions and trends remains
incomplete, as indicator set developers struggle to obtain sufficient
data and coordinate their efforts with those of other set developers.
Federal agencies moving toward developing sets of environmental
indicators face several major common challenges. These challenges
include selecting the most appropriate indicators and sustaining a
balanced process over time, linking the environmental outcomes
represented by the indicators to steer specific environmental programs,
enhancing the compatibility and coverage of environmental data, and
overcoming obstacles to coordinating and integrating indicator sets to
develop a comprehensive picture of the state of the nation's
environment and natural resources. The refinement and usefulness of
future sets of environmental indicators will largely depend on the
extent to which these common challenges are resolved. Nonetheless,
there is no entity with the authority, responsibilities, and resources
to bring a concerted, focused, and systematic approach to addressing
these common challenges and move toward a more fully systematic and
integrated approach to developing federal sets of environmental
indicators. Individual federal organizations may be missing
opportunities to improve the quality of their indicator sets by not
integrating their work with other similar efforts. Moreover,
independently developing sets of indicators runs the risk of
introducing increased possibilities of duplicating the activities of
others.
Recognizing the need for a more coordinated approach to the federal
investment in developing environmental indicator sets, CEQ's
Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination is beginning to
address challenges in developing environmental indicators sets. The
Working Group is focused on developing institutional arrangements to
provide the capacity and collaboration needed to produce and publish
the indicator information, guide the selection and development of
indicators and the organization of data for effective access and use,
and develop processes for the coordination and integration of ongoing
federal indicator development projects. However, the Working Group does
not have a stable institutional arrangement with explicit
responsibility and authority to ensure the continued and full
involvement, cooperation, and resources from other federal agencies.
Participants in our expert meeting convened by the National Academy of
Sciences generally believed that the specific institutional
arrangements utilized to coordinate and integrate federal environmental
indicator projects should be carefully considered to ensure credibility
of the outputs, both inside and outside the federal government.
Moreover, they noted that specific key functions should be addressed,
such as providing guidance for developing and using environmental
indicators, designing an information architecture using the best
available information technology, identifying the most crucial areas
requiring environmental research, and assisting in environmental
indicator selection, development, improvements, and evaluation.
We have long encouraged EPA to develop environmental indicators as a
means to establish priorities, allocate resources, assess progress,
and, in general, manage for environmental results. While we believe
that EPA's Environmental Indicators Initiative and Draft Report on the
Environment are a much-needed step in the right direction, this is not
the first time the agency has tried to develop such environmental
measures. The agency's successive efforts to develop and use
environmental indicators since 1974 illustrate both the importance and
difficulty of doing so and emphasize the need for dedicated, long-term
commitment as changes occur in the agency's senior management and
priorities. Given the complexity of the effort, a strong commitment to
an institutional framework for developing and using indicators that
emphasizes a systematic approach--including clear lines of
responsibility and accountability among program offices and other
organizational components and specific expectations, schedules,
milestones, and resources--would better enable the agency's management
to ensure that indicators of environmental conditions and trends are
incorporated into EPA's efforts to plan strategically, allocate
resources, and assess progress toward meeting environmental goals and
objectives.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To provide a comprehensive picture of environmental and natural
resource conditions and trends to assess the nation's position and
progress, we recommend that the Chairman of CEQ develop institutional
arrangements needed to ensure a concerted, systematic, and stable
approach to address the challenges associated with the development,
coordination, and integration of environmental indicator sets. Such
arrangements should be capable--either separately or jointly--of
assisting in the development, selection, evaluation, and refinement of
a national system of environmental indicators. The arrangements should
provide for the coordination of federal data collection, monitoring,
and statistical compilation activities, including consolidation and
prioritization of data gaps, to support environmental indicators.
Arrangements should also be capable of guiding and coordinating
environmental indicator development and use, including creating a
clearinghouse for best practices and lessons learned. The Chairman's
strategy should incorporate the best available information technology
to develop an information architecture for collecting, maintaining, and
distributing environmental information. Moreover, the Chairman should
provide for methods to identify environmental research and development
focus areas. Finally, the system of arrangements should be designed to
ensure the authority and credibility of its outputs.
Building on EPA's initial efforts on indicators and to evaluate the
purposes that indicators might serve, we recommend that the EPA
Administrator establish clear lines of responsibility and
accountability among EPA's various organizational components and
identify specific milestones, resources, and other requirements for
developing and using environmental indicators to inform the agency's
strategic systems for planning, budgeting, and reporting on progress.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to CEQ, the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, EPA, and NOAA, all of
which provided comment. Each of the agencies generally agreed with the
report's findings and recommendations. Additional agency comments
included the following:
* CEQ said that the report was a timely and comprehensive review of the
many efforts underway, and that the report properly documents the many
advancements and challenges recognized by experts. CEQ noted that the
report should more clearly recognize that a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators has the potential for benefiting environmental
management governmentwide. We agree that environmental indicators stand
to enhance management activities, such as strategic planning or
resource allocation, across all federal agencies. Furthermore, CEQ
commented that the report should make note of the Program Assessment
Rating Tool, recently developed by the Office of Management and Budget,
because it can enable both the executive and legislative branch of
government to better understand program performance and identify
opportunities for improvement. CEQ also noted that the report should
make reference to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems--the
international cooperative effort to bring together existing and new
hardware and software to harmonize the supply data and information. We
modified the report text as appropriate to incorporate these recent
developments.
* The Department of Agriculture noted that the report effectively
recognizes the need for better coordination of environmental indicator
development and reporting among federal and nonfederal entities. Some
Agriculture reviewers believed that, while the report emphasizes EPA's
efforts in this area, many other agencies have authorities and
responsibilities regarding environmental indicators. Additionally,
Agriculture's Economic Research Service thought the report would have
benefited from additional emphasis on the importance of coordinating
behavioral and environmental data.
* The Department of the Interior noted that further efforts to identify
institutional arrangements are essential given the unique
characteristics and complex interrelationships among the range of
agency programs noted in the report.
* EPA expressed some concern that the report implied that the Draft
Report on the Environment 2003 was not successful in achieving its
goals. We do not believe that the report makes such an implication, and
we did not attempt to evaluate the success of the report in meeting its
goals. Rather, we focused on the persistent need for the agency to
provide clear lines of responsibility and accountability for meeting
the goals of the Environmental Indicators Initiative--which produced
the 2003 report--one of which was to improve the agency's ability to
manage for results. EPA noted that it is currently working to link the
planned Report on the Environment 2006 to the agency's strategic
planning effort, and investigating other opportunities to link
environmental information to management reporting and accountability
systems. We modified the report text to better reflect these
activities.
* NOAA questioned the practicality of coordinating the independent
efforts of the many federal agencies currently collecting environmental
monitoring data on coastal conditions. However, NOAA agreed that the
report correctly characterizes the importance--as well as the
difficulty--of doing so.
Finally, CEQ, the departments, and EPA recommended a number of
technical changes to the report, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrators of EPA and
NOAA, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, and other interested
parties. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available free of charge via the GAO Web
site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your respective staffs have any questions about this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-6225, or Ed Kratzer, Assistant
Director, at (202) 512-6553. Key contributors to this report are listed
in appendix XI.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Specifically we were asked to report on the following questions: (1)
How and for what purposes are federal and nonfederal organizations
developing and using environmental indicator sets? And (2) What are the
major challenges facing the development and use of environmental
indicator sets?
For the purpose of this review, we defined an "environmental indicator
set" as a selected group of quantifiable variables that shows a
significant condition or trend of the state of the environment and
natural resources, or related human activity. Our review focused
primarily on the development and use of sets of environmental
indicators, rather than on any single indicator. Our review included
sets organized around environmental conditions and trends, ecological
health, environmental performance, sustainable development, and
corporate environmental information.
To meet our objectives, we performed multiple lines of work as detailed
below, including reviewing literature on the development and use of
environmental indicator sets; interviewing key experts from both the
United States and abroad; developing a compendium of environmental
indicator sets; surveying developers and users affiliated with 39
environmental indicator sets at the national, state, regional, and
local levels; conducting in-depth case studies of 8 indicator sets at
the national, state, regional, and local levels; and contracting with
the National Academy of Sciences to convene a meeting of experts. In
developing our findings, we compiled evidence from across our lines of
work to corroborate and "triangulate" salient themes. However, we did
not intend to exhaustively catalog the universe of environmental
indicator sets. General references to indicator sets in this report
refer to the 47 sets we reviewed in detail--the 8 case studies and the
39 sets represented in our survey results. Moreover, we did not
evaluate the quality of data used in any of the indicator sets we
reviewed, and we did not rely on these data for any of our findings. A
thorough review of the data systems that support the indicator sets we
reviewed was outside the scope of this project.
Compendium of Environmental Indicator Sets:
To identify a list of environmental indicator sets for review, we
solicited input from experts in the field and asked them to identify
indicator sets on four geographic scales--national, regional, state,
and local. Forty-eight experts were selected from extensive Web and
literature searches, background interviews, and contacts from
professional conferences spanning our geographic scales. We distributed
an electronic data collection instrument to each of the experts asking
for information on environmental indicator sets with which they were
familiar that either were being developed or had been developed in the
past 10 years, states that have been or are currently leading the
effort in developing and using environmental indicator sets, and a
project contact person for each set. Twenty-three experts responded. We
combined duplicate responses and eliminated responses that: (1) did not
meet our definition of an indicator set or (2) could not be
substantiated with enough information to locate a specific initiative.
A pool of 87 environmental indicator sets was identified for review in
detail (see app. II.)
Survey of Practitioners:
To develop a list of environmental indicator set developers and users-
-which we called practitioners--to survey, we contacted the points of
contact at the 87 indicator sets identified by the experts and asked
them to provide us with a developer and a user to receive our survey.
This process yielded 87 practitioners to be surveyed, representing 52
of the indicator sets. Forty-nine of the 87 practitioners responded to
our survey for a 56 percent response rate. Table 5 provides summary
information. The survey results are not necessarily representative of
the entire population of environmental indicator set practitioners.
Table 5: Summary of Survey Participants:
Indicator sets:
Indicator sets identified for survey;
National: 17;
Regional: 8;
State: 14;
Local: 13;
Total: 52.
Indicator sets represented by a completed survey;
National: 15;
Regional: 4;
State: 7;
Local: 13;
Total: 39.
Practitioners:
Practitioners identified for survey;
National: 28;
Regional: 14;
State: 23;
Local: 22;
Total: 87.
Practitioners that responded to the survey;
National: 20;
Regional: 6;
State: 9;
Local: 14;
Total: 49.
Developer;
National: 8;
Regional: 3;
State: 3;
Local: 5;
Total: 19.
User;
National: 2;
Regional: 1;
State: 3;
Local: 1;
Total: 7.
Both;
National: 10;
Regional: 2;
State: 3;
Local: 8;
Total: 23.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We identified the areas to cover in the survey based on the assignment
request, the Internet and literature searches, background interviews,
and the professional conferences we had attended. The survey questions
focused on the characteristics of the indicator set, how it was
developed, and how the set is being used.
We pretested the survey with two developers and two users. We evaluated
the appropriateness and quality of the survey questions and responses
and tested the usability of the Internet-based survey. Based on the
pretest results, we made the necessary changes to the survey prior to
its implementation.
We administered the survey through the Internet. During our early
efforts to determine whether we had accurate information on the survey
population, we obtained their e-mail addresses. We used e-mail to
inform the practitioners of the survey administration, and provided
them with the Web link for the survey and their log-in name and
password. To maximize the response rate, we sent an e-mail reminder and
followed up by telephone to encourage survey participation.
The survey was structured in two separate sections: one for developers
to complete and the other for users to complete. At least one developer
or user from 39 of the 52 indicator sets completed our survey. However,
some respondents answered the survey in a capacity other than how we
originally classified them. The survey results for some indicator sets
are represented with answers from two individuals. Given that the
purpose of the survey was to gather general descriptive information on
indicator sets and how they are developed and used, we do not believe
that the multiple responses for some indicator sets greatly influence
the survey results. Our survey of developers and users of environmental
indicator sets and a more complete tabulation of the survey results
(GAO-05-56SP) will also be available on the GAO Web site at
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-56SP.
Case Study:
To contribute to our understanding of the development and use of
environmental indicator sets, we reviewed 8 environmental indicator
sets in-depth through case study. We selected two indicator sets for
case study review at each of four geographic scales--national,
regional, state, and local--from the pool of 87 indicator sets
identified by experts. The selection of case studies for review was
based on the level of maturity of the indicator set (current and
active) and the availability and accessibility of individuals involved
in the development and use of the indicator set. Table 6 provides a
breakdown of the environmental indicator sets selected and the
geographic scale that each set represents.
Table 6: Environmental Indicator Sets Selected for Case Study Review:
Case study name: The Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems;
Geographic scale: National.
Case study name: EPA's National Coastal Assessment;
Geographic scale: National.
Case study name: Chesapeake Bay Program;
Geographic scale: Regional.
Case study name: Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference;
Geographic scale: Regional.
Case study name: Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources Strategic
Conservation Agenda;
Geographic scale: State.
Case study name: Environmental Protection Indicators for California;
Geographic scale: State.
Case study name: Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida;
Geographic scale: Local.
Case study name: Environmental Indicators Project, West Oakland,
California;
Geographic scale: Local.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We conducted semistructured interviews with at least three individuals
who were involved in the development, use, and data gathering
activities of each environmental indicator set. An additional
environmental indicator set was selected to test our interview
questions. Semistructured interviews allowed interviewees the
opportunity to openly and candidly supply information on a wide range
of issues relating to their involvement with the development and use of
the environmental indicator set. We also reviewed relevant documents
pertaining to the development and use of each of the environmental
indicator sets. In addition to providing evidence in the report, the
case study information was used to construct case study profiles that
were provided to the appropriate program manager for review. The
profiles are in appendix III.
Meeting of Experts Convened by the National Academy of Sciences:
To assess the current state of environmental indicator set development
and use, we contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
host a 2-day meeting of experts. The selection of experts to
participate in the meeting was a two-step process. First, we worked
with the NAS staff to identify individuals with expertise in
environmental indicator sets. After reviewing the background of each
expert, we selected participants using the following criteria:
* balance of expertise (e.g., managers, data gathering, developers,
users, scientists, researchers, and policymakers);
* balance of knowledge across various disciplines (e.g., natural
resources, ecology, and agriculture); and:
* balance in representation (e.g., federal agencies, state agencies,
academia, and nonprofit and private organizations).
Based on the availability of the selected participants, we invited 26
experts--representing the geographic levels and sectors--to
participate in the meeting held March 9-10, 2004, in Washington, D.C.,
all of whom attended. Prior to the meeting, we provided the selected
experts with background materials that highlighted past reports written
by GAO, the National Research Council, and other organizations
addressing environmental indicator set issues. The following 26 experts
participated in the meeting:
Albert Abee:
Sustainable Development Coordinator:
U.S. Forest Service:
James R. Bernard:
Environmental Management Consulting:
David Berry:
Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable:
Zach Church:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Policy Office:
J. Clarence Davies, Ph.D.:
Senior Fellow:
Resources for the Future:
Dennis Fenn, Ph.D.:
Center Director:
U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center:
Keith G. Harrison, M.A., R.S., Certified Ecologist:
Executive Director:
Michigan Environmental Science Board:
Special Projects Coordinator:
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality:
R. Lee Hatcher:
Managing Director:
AtKisson Inc.
Theodore Heintz:
Indicator Coordinator:
White House Council on Environmental Quality:
Rainer Hoenicke, Ph.D.:
Environmental Scientist:
San Francisco Estuary Institute:
Robert J. Huggett, Ph.D.:
Professor of Zoology, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies:
Michigan State University:
Suellen Terrill Keiner, J.D.:
Academy General Counsel and Vice President for Academy Programs:
The National Academy of Public Administration:
Daniel Markowitz, Ph.D.:
Associate:
Malcolm Pirnie Inc.
Gary Matlock, Ph.D.:
Director:
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science:
Shelley Metzenbaum, Ph.D.:
Executive Director:
Environmental Compliance Consortium:
Visiting Professor:
University of Maryland School of Public Affairs:
Patrick O'Brien, Ph.D.:
Consulting Environmental Scientist:
Chevron-Texaco Energy Technology Company:
Robin O'Malley:
Senior Fellow:
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment:
Gordon Orians, Ph.D.:
Professor Emeritus:
University of Washington:
Department of Biology:
Duncan Patten, Ph.D.:
Research Professor:
Montana State University:
Big Sky Institute:
Marcus Peacock:
Associate Director:
Office of Management and Budget, Natural Resources, Energy and Science:
Dee Peace Ragsdale:
Performance and Recognition Manager:
Washington Department of Ecology:
Mark Schaefer, Ph.D.:
President and Chief Executive Officer:
NatureServe:
Michael Slimak, Ph.D.:
Associate Director for Environmental Ecology:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental
Assessment:
Greg Wandrey, Ph.D.:
Director of Product Stewardship:
Pioneer Hi-Bred Inc.
John R. Wells:
Sustainable Development Director:
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board:
Robin P. White, Ph.D.:
Senior Associate:
World Resources Institute:
During the meeting, experts participated in roundtable sessions and
breakout groups to discuss the following:
* Why are organizations developing and using environmental indicator
sets and what impacts are these sets having in the United States?
* What significant scientific, environmental data, communication, and
institutional challenges hinder the development and use of
environmental indicator sets?
* What actions could be taken to overcome the significant challenges to
the development and use of environmental indicator sets?
The meeting was audio recorded to facilitate transcription. We reviewed
the written transcript of the proceedings, the documents produced by
experts, and other notes from the 2-day meeting to produce a summary
document, which was provided to the experts for review. Their comments
were incorporated into the summary, where appropriate. We used the
summary document in preparing this report.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by
Experts:
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Development in the United States;
Web site: http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/pcsd/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: EPA--Draft Report on the Environment;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/indicators/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Minerals Roundtable;
Web site: http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable;
Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Roundtable on Sustainable Forests;
Web site: http://www.sustainableforests.net/info.php;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable;
Web site: http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.edu/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: State of the Nation's Ecosystems;
Web site: http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Program;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/emap/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Ecological Indicators for the Nation;
Web site: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9720.html;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Index of Watershed Indicators;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/iwi/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures;
Web site: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/CAPRM/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Waste Indicator System for the Environment;
Web site: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/WISE/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: America's Children and the Environment;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals;
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Index of Leading Environmental Indicators;
Web site: http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.407/book_detail.asp;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Agricultural Resource and Environmental
Indicators;
Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Environmental Public Health Indicators;
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/default.htm;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: The Status and Trends of Our Nation's
Biological Resources;
Web site: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/index.htm;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: National Coastal Condition Report;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: The Status of Biodiversity in the United
States;
Web site: http://www.natureserve.org;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: National Estuarine Reserves System Wide
Monitoring Program;
Web site: http://nerrs.noaa.gov/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: National Coastal Management Performance
Measurement System;
Web site: http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: National Park Service--Vital Signs Program;
Web site: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/index.htm;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Relative Sea Level Trends;
Web site: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-233/ppvariables.htm;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: U.S. Land Cover Trends;
Web site: http://gam.usgs.gov/LandUseDynamics/ludatacollection.shtml;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Forest Health Monitoring Vegetation Indicator
Pilot Program;
Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/na/briefs/fhm99/fhm99.htm;
Scale: National.
Indicator set initiative: Chesapeake Bay Program;
Web site: http://www.chesapeakebay.net;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Conference;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Environmental Indicators in the Estuarine
Environment;
Web site: http://www.aceinc.org/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Environmental Health Indicators for the U.S.-
-Mexico Border;
Web site: http://www.fep.paho.org/english/env/Indicadores/IndSA.htm;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: New England Environmental Goals and
Indicators Project;
Web site: http://www.gmied.org;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Western Regional Climate Center;
Web site: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Ecosystem
Indicators;
Web site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0201002.html;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Southeastern Louisiana Top 10 by 2010
Indicators Report;
Web site: http://www.top10by2010.org/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: North State (California) Vital Signs;
Web site: http://www.mcconnellfoundation.org/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: South Florida/Everglades Comprehensive
Ecosystem Restoration Plan;
Web site: http://www.evergladesplan.org/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs
Program;
Web site: http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/envreports/index.htm;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Pacific Northwest Salmon Habitat Indicators;
Web site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/99301.html;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Aquatic Habitat Indicators for the Pacific
Northwest;
Web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ecocomm.nsf/0/
74476bae1ae7e9fb88256b5f00598b43?OpenDocument;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Tampa Bay Estuary Program Baywide
Environmental Monitoring Report;
Web site: http://www.tbep.org/baystate/bemr.html;
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Ecosystem Indicators for the Lake Champlain
Basin Program;
Web site: http://www.uvm.edu/envnr/indicators/
Scale: Regional.
Indicator set initiative: Environmental Protection Indicators for
California;
Web site: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Minnesota Environmental Indicators;
Web site: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eii/index.html;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Minnesota Strategic Conservation Agenda;
Web site: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/conservationagenda/index.html;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Central Texas Sustainability Indicators
Initiative;
Web site: http://www.centex-indicators.org/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Pennsylvania Environmental Futures Planning;
Web site: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/efp2/PDF_ICF_EFP2X/
priorities.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: State of the Texas Environment Report;
Web site: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Texas Index of Leading Environmental
Indicators 2000;
Web site: http://www.texaspolicy.com/
research_reports.php?report_id=143&loc_id=1;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Texas Environmental Almanac;
Web site: http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Water for Texas;
Web site: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/
State_Water_Plan/2002/FinalWaterPlan2002.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Utah Air Monitoring--Mobile Sources;
Web site: http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/amc.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Ambient Air Monitoring Program;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/qa/monprog.html;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Minnesota Milestones;
Web site: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Oregon Shines;
Web site: http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/os.shtml;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends;
Web site: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FACT/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Washington Department of Ecology;
Web site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Oregon State of the Environment Report;
Web site: http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/soer2000index.shtml;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: State of Kentucky's Environment;
Web site: http://www.eqc.ky.gov/pubs/soke/
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Illinois Department of Environmental Quality
indicators;
Web site: http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/NRRC/balancedgrowth/
indicators.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Environmental Indicators for Delaware
Estuary;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/jan02/
envindicator.html;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Indicators of Livable Communities;
Web site: http://www.mdf.org/megc/pubs/livable_communities.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Oregon's First Approximation Report;
Web site: http://www.oregonforestry.org/sustainability/
first_approximation_report.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Development Indicators for
Pennsylvania;
Web site: http://www.paconsortium.state.pa.us/
pointing_pa_sustainable_future. htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: New Jersey Hudson Bay Environmental
Indicators Initiatives;
Web site: http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/harborh.htm;
Scale: State.
Indicator set initiative: Everglades Comprehensive Annual Report;
Web site: http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/everglades/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: The State of the Bay--a Characterization of
the Galveston Bay Ecosystem;
Web site: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/topdoc/pd/020/02-04/
galvestonbay.html;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Index of Silicon Valley;
Web site: http://www.jointventure.org/resources/2002Index/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan;
Web site: http://santa-monica.org/epd/scp/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Current Status and Historical Trends of
Selected Estuarine and Coastal Habitats in Corpus Christi Bay National
Estuary Program Study Area;
Web site: http://www.sci.tamucc.edu/ccs/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable
Communities;
Web site: http://www.bayareaalliance.org/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Bay Institute;
Web site: http://www.bay.org/main.htm;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Bay Area EcoAtlas and Pulse of the Bay
report;
Web site: http://www.sfei.org/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Mecklenburg County State of the Environment
Report;
Web site: http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/LUESA/
Water+and+Land+Resources/State+of+the+Environment+Report.htm;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Seattle--Indicators of
Sustainable Community;
Web site: http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Publications/
40indicators.shtml;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Legacy 2002--Greater Orlando;
Indicators Report;
Web site: http://www.hcbs.org/moreInfo.php/source/62/sby/Author/doc/
251/Legacy_2002_-_Greater_Orlando_Indicator's_Report_-;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Sierra Nevada Wealth Index;
Web site: http://www.sbcouncil.org/wealth.htm;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Sustainable Nantucket--a Compass for The
Future;
Web site: http://indicators.sustainablenantucket.org/intro.cfm;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Community-based Environmental Health
Assessment Program;
Web site: http://www.naccho.org/general955.cfm;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Multnomah County--Benchmarks;
Web site: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/
index.cfm?&a=39665&c=27347;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Valley Vision (California);
Web site: http://www.calregions.org/civic/partners/mid-vvr.html;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: King County Benchmarks;
Web site: http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/benchmrk/bench03/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: State of Boston Harbor;
Web site: http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/2002-09.htm;
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: West Oakland--Environmental Indicators;
Web site: http://www.neip.org/
Scale: Local.
Indicator set initiative: Jacksonville Community Council Inc. Quality
of Life Indicators;
Web site: http://www.jcci.org;
Scale: Local.
Source: GAO.
Note: Web addresses are current as of August 10, 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles:
We conducted eight in-depth case studies of environmental indicator
sets over the course of the review. We reviewed two environmental
indicator sets at each of the following geographic scales: national,
regional, state, and local. The indicator sets profiled are:
1. The Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems;
2. EPA's National Coastal Assessment;
3. Chesapeake Bay Program;
4. Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference;
5. Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources Strategic Conservation
Agenda;
6. Environmental Protection Indicators for California;
7. Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida; and:
8. Environmental Indicators Project, West Oakland, California.
Each profile contains a brief overview of the program, the process of
development, the use and impact of the indicator set, and next steps
planned for the indicator set.
The Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Overview: In early 1997, as a follow up to a major review of federal
environmental monitoring efforts, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) requested that the H. John Heinz III Center
for Science, Economics, and the Environment (Heinz Center)--a nonprofit
institution--develop a nonpartisan, science-based report on the state
of the nation's environment.
The Heinz Center lists 103 indicators in the set, with approximately 15
indicators for each of 6 major ecosystem types (Coasts and Oceans,
Farmlands, Forests, Fresh Waters, Grasslands and Shrublands, Urban and
Suburban Areas) and 10 additional core national indicators that provide
a broad yet succinct view of the national ecosystem condition and use.
The indicator set is national in scope with limited breakout by
regions. The indicators focus on the condition of ecosystems that
support policy debate and decision-making at the national scale. The
environmental indicator set information was disseminated through a
report in 2002 (see fig. 5) that was issued simultaneously in print and
on the Web.
Figure 5: The State of the Nation's Ecosystems Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: The Heinz Center assembled a small in-house staff and a
large team of part-time contributors drawn from government, the private
sector, environmental organizations, and academia. A design committee
oversaw the entire project and technical work groups, which provided
expertise in particular ecosystems, identified the indicators and
selected and assessed the data sources. Overall, nearly 150 individuals
participated in the project as committee and group members, with many
more participating as contributors, reviewers, and advisers.
The committee selected indicators that could provide a broad, balanced
description of each ecosystem type based on 10 characteristics that
covered the physical dimensions of the systems, their chemical and
physical conditions, the status of their biological components, and the
amounts of goods and services people receive from them. Once the
committee chose an indicator and identified relevant sources of data,
it reviewed the data based on the following three criteria: (1) Data
had to be of sufficient quality to provide a scientifically credible
description of actual ecosystem conditions; (2) data had to have
adequate geographic coverage to represent the state of the nation's
ecosystems; and (3) data had to be collected through an established
monitoring program that offered a reasonable likelihood of future data
availability.
Use: The indicator set highlights the need for a comprehensive view of
ecosystem condition and change and the need for additional information
to fill the gaps in data available to describe key aspects of the
nation's ecosystems. The major use to date has been by managers of
major monitoring systems who are using it in designing their collection
and reporting systems.
Next steps: The 2002 report was the first in what is intended to be a
regular series of reports on the state of the nation's ecosystems every
5 years. The next edition in the series is planned for issuance in
2007. Between the issuance of major editions, substantial revisions--
such as the incorporation of new data sets--will be issued in a
periodic update on the Web. Before the next version is published, Heinz
Center staff will fill data gaps and improve the consistency of both
data and indicators; consult with key scientific communities in order
to refine and clarify certain indicators; work with public and private
agencies to regularly provide data in the form needed for national
reporting; and strengthen the linkages between the Heinz Center project
and other efforts related to ecosystem reporting.
EPA's National Coastal Assessment:
Overview: In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science
Advisory Board charged the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to
develop a nationally consistent way to report on the condition of
coasts for the purpose of Clean Water Act Section 305(b) reporting.
ORD's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), which
involved the efforts of several other federal agencies, developed the
National Coastal Assessment (NCA) indicator set and monitoring program.
The program was implemented in 2000 as a 5-year effort to evaluate the
assessment methods and environmental indicators that ORD had developed
to advance the science of ecosystem condition monitoring and
evaluation. The program created an integrated, comprehensive coastal
monitoring program and environmental indicator set among the coastal
states to assess the condition of the nation's estuaries and offshore
waters. Through strategic partnerships with 24 coastal states using a
compatible, probabilistic design and a common set of survey indicators,
each of the 24 states involved in the NCA program have conducted the
survey and assessed the conditions of their respective coastal
resources. These assessments in turn can be aggregated to assess
conditions at the EPA regional, biogeographical, and national levels.
The NCA includes five aggregate indicators--water quality, sediment
quality, coastal habitat, benthic community structure, and fish tissue
contaminants--based on 200 to 250 separate measurements. The indicators
cover a range of geographic scales--state, regional, biogeographical,
and national. The indicators focus on showing the condition of
estuaries and the association between condition and stressors
(effects). As such, the indicators are based on science rather than on
administrative policy performance. The states report the indicators
through state Section 305(b) reports to EPA, which submits them to
Congress. The indicators are also aggregated with other data collection
efforts and reported through the National Coastal Condition Report (see
fig. 6).
Figure 6: Draft National Coastal Condition Report II:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: A number of pilot projects held over a 10-year period at
different geographic areas, helped identify and develop the indicators.
The indicators were developed based on 15 guidelines organized around
four evaluation phases: conceptual relevance, feasibility of
implementation, response variability, and interpretation and utility.
Use: The NCA indicator set and monitoring program are used by 24 marine
coastal states and Puerto Rico to provide an assessment of estuary
conditions for the purposes of Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
reporting. Before development of NCA, states or territories had little
or no coastal monitoring in place and no mechanism to evaluate the
condition of the resource. The NCA indicators provided states with a
small set of indicators that are adaptable to the specific needs of the
state utilizing them. Three coastal states have fully implemented the
NCA monitoring and indicator approach to fulfill Section 305(b)
reporting requirements; the other 21 states either are just beginning
to implement the approach or have used the approach to assess a part of
their estuaries.
Next steps: The 5-year NCA program is set to expire in the summer of
2004, after which the EPA Office of Water may take over the program. At
the end of the period, ORD officials will evaluate the effectiveness of
the program and provide assistance to the Office of Water as needed.
ORD is currently structuring monitoring programs and indicator
development to provide tools to states to monitor and evaluate not only
the conditions of waters for reporting purposes (Section 305(b)) but
also for other provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as nonpoint
source control (Section 319), Total Maximum Daily Loads allocation
(Section 303(d)), and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permitting program (Section 402).
Chesapeake Bay Program:
Overview: In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, headed by EPA,
began developing environmental indicators to support goal setting, to
define targets and end points for restoration of the bay, and to make
the program more accountable to the public by defining and
communicating the bottom-line environmental results achieved by the
restoration program. The EPA coordinates the development, revision, and
updates of the environmental indicators with more than 50 federal,
state, and local government agencies and nongovernmental organizations
that participate as bay program partners. The bay program carries out
its work through a series of committees, advisory committees, and
subcommittees.
A basic tenet of the bay program's environmental indicators effort is
that environmental indicators (outcome measures) need to be clearly
associated with strategic goals for the program. As such, the bay
program has developed a framework for linking environmental outcome
measures to strategic program goals. The Chesapeake Bay Program
currently utilizes nearly 90 environmental indicators to gauge the
Chesapeake Bay's environmental condition and progress made in
restoration. The Chesapeake Bay Program organizes the indicators into
six levels that range from indicators that measure management actions-
-such as implementing advanced treatment of wastewater to reduce
nutrient discharges--to those that are direct or indirect measures of
ecological or human health. The indicators are further categorized into
a performance measure; context indicator; emerging science indicator;
or pressure, state, or response indicator (these indicators are based
on a concept of causality, where human activities place pressures on
the environment that cause a change in the state of the environment;
these changes alert society, which then implements a response to reduce
the pressures or to change the affected environment). Environmental
indicator set information is reported by a variety of mechanisms, such
as briefing packages, presentations, and fact sheets, and a triennial
State of the Chesapeake Bay report (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: The State of the Chesapeake Bay Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: The process of developing and subsequently adding,
deleting, or modifying indicators is collaborative and includes
hundreds of individuals working through bay program committees,
subcommittees, and work groups. The criteria for indicator selection
are: (1) data availability; (2) environmental results measure; (3)
management needs; (4) and request of the public. Indicators are
developed to measure performance of restoration goals, which have been
primarily established through three overriding Chesapeake Bay
agreements. The most recent of the agreements--the Chesapeake 2000
agreement--establishes many goals to be achieved by 2010.
Use: Goal setting through Chesapeake Bay agreements has given the
Chesapeake Bay Program an important tool to develop and use indicators
that improve its ability to garner and target resources and to evaluate
the bay program's management strategies. The indicator set also
presents information to the public on the condition of the Chesapeake
Bay through various reporting mechanisms. The environmental indicator
set has supported goal setting for the bay program both in longer-term
strategic implementation plans and for annual planning and budgeting.
Next steps: The Chesapeake Bay Program office plans to develop more
river-specific or subwatershed indicators in addition to baywide
average indicators. They also plan to modify, replace or develop new
indicators as necessary to measure goals in the Chesapeake 2000
agreement, fill key gaps in the indicators hierarchy and continuum to
complete the "cause and effect picture" for the watershed, and initiate
the development of sustainable development indicators that reflect
stewardship and land use.
Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference:
Overview: The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended,
calls for the development of a set of comprehensive ecosystem health
indicators for the Great Lakes. Accordingly, the indicator set is meant
to be used to inform the public and report progress in achieving the
objectives of the agreement. The indicators are reviewed and discussed
every 2 years at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC),
hosted by the EPA and Environment Canada in response to a reporting
requirement of the agreement. The two governments established SOLEC in
1992 to report on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the major
factors impacting it, and to provide a forum for exchange of this
information among Great Lakes decision makers. In the year following
each conference, the governments prepare a report on the state of the
lakes based in large part upon the conference process and environmental
indicators discussed there. The first conference was held in 1994, and
the first comprehensive basinwide set of indicators was developed after
the 1996 conference. The 1998 SOLEC conference was the first to utilize
a comprehensive set of indicators.
Approximately 80 indicators address specific geographic zones of the
entire Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, such as offshore, nearshore,
coastal wetlands, and shoreline and address issues, such as human
health, land use, and societal. The indicators are based on a pressure-
state-response (PSR) model--a causality framework where human
activities place pressures on the environment that cause a change in
the state of the environment; these changes alert society, which then
implements a response to reduce the pressures or to change the affected
environment. These changes alert society, which then implements a
response to reduce the pressures or to change the affected environment.
The indicators are reported primarily through biennial State of the
Great Lakes reports (see fig. 8).
Figure 8: State of the Great Lakes Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: Over 130 experts participated in the development and
selection of indicators. Experts divided into seven core groups, which
directly selected and developed indicators or reviewed draft products
throughout the process for the more than 850 indicators they
identified. Expert panels initially screened the indicators according
to the criteria--necessary, sufficient, and feasible--and then analyzed
them for validity, understandability, interpretability, information
richness, data availability, timeliness, and cost considerations. This
vetting process reduced the number of indicators to 80. The Great Lakes
indicator set draws upon and complements indicators used for more
specific purposes, such as management plans created for individual
lakes.
Use: The indicator development and revision process has in itself
proved beneficial by providing to scientists, resources managers, and
the public a forum in which to discuss and better understand the
conditions of the Great Lakes and the impacts affecting its quality.
The SOLEC indicator set has also identified key data gaps and has
spurred collaborative monitoring efforts between the United States and
Canada.
Next steps: In order to establish a consistent, easily understood
indicator set, EPA and Environment Canada will continue to review and
refine the indicator set. Indicators are currently being grouped into
bundles to reduce and organize essential information to a few
understandable topics. EPA and Environment Canada also plan to build
appropriate monitoring and reporting activities into existing Great
Lakes programs at the federal, provincial, state, tribal, and industry
levels to fully report on all of the approximately 80 indicators.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Strategic Conservation
Agenda:
Overview: In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
began the development of a Strategic Conservation Agenda (SCA)
indicator set in response to a directive from the DNR Commissioner's
office to strengthen accountability and public confidence by better
communicating progress toward conservation results. The objective of
the SCA was to provide internal management direction for defining
agency-level performance goals, demonstrating accountability to
citizens, and fulfilling the governor's expectations for agency
accountability to results. The SCA is one piece in a larger policy
hierarchy as it fits within a DNR mission statement and strategic plan,
and the department's budgeting process.
The SCA indicator set includes about 75 indicators that target natural
resource conditions, DNR management activities, and results toward
which DNR will strive through management efforts. The indicator set
does not represent all of the natural resources in Minnesota but the
areas in which DNR will commit resources to achieve specific results.
The SCA indicators measure natural resource trends or resource work
performed. The SCA indicator set is defined by six key performance
areas at DNR: Natural Lands, Fisheries and Wildlife, Healthy Waters and
Watersheds, Forests, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources
Stewardship Education. Targets are assigned to each indicator to define
expected results and serve as specific milestones that help DNR gauge
progress toward long-term goals. Environmental indicator set
information was presented in the first SCA report (see fig. 9), which
was issued to the public through the DNR Web site in March 2004.
Figure 9: The Strategic Conservation Agenda Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: DNR developed the indicator set through a multistep,
agencywide process under the direction of the DNR Commissioner's
Office. The Science Policy Unit, housed in DNR's Office of Management
and Budget Services, worked with DNR operations managers representing
all DNR divisions and regions to develop the indicators. The model used
by DNR for the selection of indicators was based on prior work through
the Minnesota Environmental Indicators Initiative, which existed from
1995 through 2000. The DNR relied on that past work to select
indicators for its focused use. Indicators were selected within goal
areas established in DNR's strategic planning process called
Directions. Different DNR divisions provided a menu of existing and new
indicators along with initial targets. The targets state strategic
goals in specific and measurable terms where indicators track progress
and document results. Senior management at DNR then reviewed, modified
as needed, and approved a final set of indicators that were designed to
be measurable, accurate, meaningful, and compelling.
Use: DNR uses the indicator set to assist in management decision
making, to communicate how DNR programs are achieving results, and to
provide accountability to citizens. For example, the indicator "number
of cords of wood offered for sale on DNR lands" allows DNR to set
targets to ensure a predictable, sustainable supply of quality wood.
The indicator would be reported on and tracked by DNR as well as the
public to evaluate management practices and be held accountable for
sustaining timber supplies. DNR staff's involvement in the process of
development has provided them an opportunity to think about natural
resource management along the dimensions of performance measurement.
Next steps: DNR will update the indicators periodically. Existing
indicators will be tracked over time to chart and report progress
toward conservation targets. New indicators will be added to fill
information gaps. DNR will work with the public to adjust targets as
conditions change and develop new targets as opportunities arise to
better conserve natural resources.
Environmental Protection Indicators for California:
Overview: The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)
developed the Environmental Protection Indicators for California
(EPIC), in response to the agency's July 2000 Strategic Vision document
that committed the agency to manage for environmental results as well
as to adopt environmental indicators as a priority. The environmental
indicators in EPIC were developed for the purposes of strategic
planning, policy formulation, resource allocation, and priority setting
under a results-based management system.
The EPIC project developed an initial set of indicators based on issue
categories that generally mirror Cal/EPA areas of authority. EPIC is
designed to measure the pressures exerted on the environment in
California by human activities and ambient environmental conditions, as
well as the resulting effects on human and ecological health in
California. Most of the indicators focus on environmental resources at
the state level. Global or transboundary issues that affect the state,
such as global climate change, are also included in EPIC. In total,
Cal/EPA identified about 85 indicators for inclusion in EPIC. The
indicators are organized into six levels that range from indicators
measuring management actions to those that are direct or indirect
measures of ecological or human health. The indicators were presented
by Cal/EPA and the California Resources Agency in an April 2002 report
(see fig. 10) and a shorter summary document created to provide a more
general overview of the project and the indicators.
Figure 10: Environmental Protection Indicators for California Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: The EPIC project began in January 2001 with a conference
designed to engage individuals other than those in the participating
state agencies in discussions about the areas the indicators should
address. Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment was
designated by Cal/EPA to lead and oversee EPIC as a whole. The offices,
departments and boards within Cal/EPA participated in the development
of EPIC by identifying data sources and developing indicators. In
addition, recognizing the need of EPIC to address environmental
protection issues in tandem with resource management issues and the
interplay between environment and human health, both the California
Resources Agency and the California Department of Health Services
collaborated in the development. Approximately 130 individuals
representing various groups were involved in the selection and
development of the indicators--an external advisory group, interagency
advisory group, project staff, and seven work groups.
Within each issue area, work groups identified parameters that could be
used to derive candidate indicators. The indicators they developed in
the various issue areas were subject to criteria that included data
quality, representativeness, sensitivity, and decision support.
Indicators that met criteria were further evaluated as to whether data
are available to present a condition or trend for the issue area.
Indicators were then classified into three categories according to the
availability of data that are collected on a systematic basis.
Use: Because EPIC's primary purpose is to evaluate Cal/EPA programs,
Cal/EPA has begun to use the indicators in a pilot project to institute
a performance management system. The project was scheduled for
completion in June 2004. Participants in the indicator development
process stated that EPIC helped to get the agency to initiate
discussion between boards and departments on what indicators were
available, and how the agency could begin to measure results. The
process also helped to identify data gaps.
Next steps: California has suspended funding for the EPIC project. Cal/
EPA staff, however, will continue to evaluate the current set of
indicators, identify new indicators, revise and replace existing
indicators as appropriate, and publish a progress report outlining its
activities on a regular basis.
Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida:
Overview: The Jacksonville Community Council Inc. (JCCI)--a nonprofit
organization in Florida--started the Quality of Life indicator set in
1985 to measure the quality of community life and identify aspects of
the community that, if improved, would yield significant benefits. As
an indicator set, the Quality of Life Progress Report provides
information about the community by showing its history, its current
status, and the areas requiring attention to reach the Jacksonville's
goals. The Quality of Life indicator set provides a source of local,
summary-level information about Jacksonville. Each annual update
represents the community's report card, containing information used to
inform the community, ensure public accountability, and guide decision
makers to help promote and enhance the quality of life for all citizens
in the community.
The Quality of Life project initially identified about 75 indicators to
track. The latest report (see fig. 11) included 115 indicators focusing
on nine areas: environment, economy, education, government, health,
recreation, safety, social well-being, and transportation. Each of
these areas contains between 8 and 19 individual indicators. The
geographic scale of reporting includes Duval County, which encompasses
Jacksonville's metropolitan area.
Figure 11: Jacksonville's 2003 Quality of Life Progress Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: The Quality of Life project began with the efforts of a
citizen's task force, composed of about 100 individuals. The Chairman
of the JCCI chose the head of a steering committee, which then selected
committee members based on their volunteer experiences, leadership
capabilities, and areas of expertise. The steering committee formed
subcommittees/task forces for nine basic quality of life topic areas.
For each topic area, the group selected various indicators based on the
following criteria: validity; availability and timeliness; stability
and reliability; understandability; responsiveness; policy relevance;
and representativeness. The task forces periodically update the
indicators and the associated targets. There was an update process
carried out in 2000 that consumed almost 90 meetings over 6 months. The
process included volunteers from various groups to assist in the
review. Efforts have already been completed to revise the indicators,
identify linkages, and set targets for 2005.
Use: The Quality of Life indicator set was developed to help track the
progress that Jacksonville is making toward meeting established
environmental and other goals. To this end, the City Council, Chamber
of Commerce, citywide departments, and others all use this information.
The biggest impact of the indicator set has been its ability to educate
the public, highlight the environment, and increase community awareness
of the environmental issues facing Jacksonville. In addition, the
Quality of Life report has provided the essential information for
decision makers to address various issues.
Next steps: JCCI will continually revise and update the indicators and
associated targets to include in its annual progress reports. Recently,
JCCI has begun developing indicators that address key issues in the
community, such as illiteracy and racial disparity. In addition, JCCI
has developed a Replication Kit for communities interested in
establishing an indicator project, and provided direct consulting
practices.
Environmental Indicators Project, West Oakland, California:
Overview: The Environmental Indicators Project (EIP) was created to
assist policymakers and residents to use indicator information to
initiate a dialogue among residents, policymakers, and the private
sector to improve quality of life and create a healthy, safe
environment in West Oakland, California. Community participation in the
EIP development process was a critical part of achieving this goal.
The EIP began in 2000 with the partnership of the Pacific Institute (a
nonprofit organization) and a West Oakland neighborhood organization.
The EIP's 17 indicators represent a broad range of environmental
concerns in the community, from issues of air quality and toxics to
environmental health, land use, housing affordability, transportation,
and civic engagement. The EIP includes "environmental indicators" that
are broadly defined in an effort to integrate environmental measures
with the community's social and economic well-being. The indicators are
reported through indicator reports (see fig. 12) to the community and
through brochures on groups of indicators relevant to specific
community campaigns.
Figure 12: West Oakland's Neighborhood Knowledge for Change Report:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Development: The EIP established a task force of neighborhood residents
to identify a core set of indicators that address issues of importance
in the neighborhood. Participation in the indicator development process
broadened community involvement beyond the staff of the community-based
organizations to include residents who had previously not had access to
such information. Task force members selected and developed the
indicators by defining the term "environment" in the context of West
Oakland; identifying environmental issues in the community; selecting
the indicators community members would want to measure and track; and
determining how such information could be incorporated into current
advocacy, policy, and education. The Pacific Institute's team of
researchers then collected and analyzed data from city, county, state,
and national agencies to develop the indicators. An additional four
indicators were selected by the community as important but were not
reported on, either because (1) data were not available or (2) the
available data were not reliable, consistent, or regularly updated. The
EIP released its report in January 2002 and also designed brochures on
groups of indicators relevant to the campaigns to make the information
more accessible and understandable to community stakeholders, and to
help educate residents on community advocacy efforts.
Use: Residents, policymakers, and agencies have used indicator
information to begin to improving the quality of life for West Oakland
residents. For example, the indicators provided evidence that a Red
Star Yeast factory that was located in the community was releasing
illegal amounts of toxic air pollutants and was subsequently closed.
The EIP has also been valuable to the work of numerous community
campaigns and in working with agencies because community testimonials
can now be combined with the information presented through the
indicators.
Next steps: The Pacific Institute will continue to work with community
partners to develop a system that ensures that indicators remain
accessible to, and are used by, the community. The Pacific Institute
also plans to update the existing indicators and incorporate new ones
as necessary.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More
Comprehensive Environmental Information:
The following tables summarize major congressional attempts to address
federal environmental data and indicator issues since 1970, as well as
selected academic reports issued during the same period. None of the
tables are exhaustive. Rather, the purpose of these lists is to
illustrate significant legislative and academic milestones in federal
environmental data and indicator management over the last 35 years.
While there have been numerous such efforts, both Congress and the
academic community had already identified and analyzed many of the
fundamental issues confronting indicator development and data
management by the close of the 1970s. Perhaps the most significant
recent development is the focus since 1990 on the creation of an
objective, nonpolitical environmental statistical agency within the
federal government, an idea that has appeared in several recent
legislative proposals to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to
Cabinet level. Two bills to elevate the EPA, one of which would
establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics, were introduced in the
108th Congress.
Selected Legislation to Address Federal Environmental Data and
Indicator Issues:
Table 7 presents selected Congressional bills introduced since 1970
that deal with significant challenges involving federal environmental
data management and indicator development. While Congress has been
examining how best to address these challenges for some time,
legislative consensus has yet to emerge on many key topics, including
whether a Bureau of Environmental Statistics should be established--and
if so, whether it should be done as part of legislation to elevate EPA
to Cabinet status.
Table 7: Major Pieces of Legislation to Address Federal Environmental
Data and Indicator Issues, 1970-2004:
Year introduced: 1970;
Bill: H.R. 17436;
Principal provisions: Would amend the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 to create a National Environmental Data System to serve as the
central national coordinating facility for the storage, analysis, and
retrieval of environmental information to support environmental
decisions in a timely manner. Would require each federal agency to make
environmental data available to the Data System and would require data
in the Data System to be available to Congress, federal agencies,
states, and the public. The system would be operated by a director
under the guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality. It would
develop and publish environmental quality indicators for all of the
regions in the United States;
Last action: Passed House and referred to the Senate Committee on
Commerce.
Year introduced: 1970;
Bill: H.R. 18141;
Principal provisions: Similar to H.R. 17436. Would amend the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to provide for a National
Environmental Data Bank for all data relating to the environment;
Last action: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Year introduced: 1971;
Bill: H.R. 56;
Principal provisions: Would create a National Environmental Data System
that would provide for the development and utilization of information
needed to support management of the environment. The Data System would
serve as the central national facility for the selection, storage,
analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of information, knowledge, and
data specifically related to the environment. Would require data in the
Data System to be available to Congress, federal agencies, states, and
the public. The Data System would be operated by a director under the
guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality and it would develop
and publish environmental quality indicators for all of the regions in
the United States;
Last action: Pocket Veto by President Richard Nixon.
Year introduced: 1984;
Bill: H.R. 5958;
Principal provisions: Would establish a National Commission on
Environmental Monitoring to (1) investigate and study the nation's
environmental monitoring programs and those international monitoring
programs in which the United States participates; (2) recommend to
Congress and the President a plan to improve environmental monitoring;
and (3) advise and assist in the preparation of an environmental
monitoring report;
Last action: Referred to subcommittees of House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries and House Committee on Science and Technology.
Year introduced: 1990;
Bill: H.R. 3847;
Principal provisions: Would redesignate the Environmental Protection
Agency as the Department of Environmental Protection and establish
within it a Bureau of Environmental Statistics. Would require the
Secretary of the department to establish an Advisory Committee on
Environmental Statistics to (1) advise the director of the bureau and
Congress on the collection and dissemination of statistical data, and
(2) ensure that the statistics and analyses reported by the bureau are
of high quality, publicly accessible, and not subject to political
influence;
Last action: Passed House and referred to Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Year introduced: 1990;
Bill: H.R. 3904;
Principal provisions: Would establish the National Environmental
Institute Commission to (1) make recommendations to the President and
Congress for the establishment of a National Environmental Institute, a
Bureau of Environmental Information and Statistics, and an organization
to examine public policies that affect the environment; and (2)
identify areas of research that require long-term efforts to mitigate
serious risk to the environment;
Last action: Referred to Subcommittee on Natural Resources,
Agricultural Research, and Environment, House Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
Year introduced: 1990;
Bill: S. 2006;
Principal provisions: Would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency
to Cabinet-level status and rename the agency as the Department of the
Environment. Would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics
within the Department and create an Advisory Council on Environmental
Statistics to advise the bureau on statistics and analyses, including
whether the statistics and analyses disseminated by the bureau (1) were
of high quality, and (2) were based upon the best available objective
information. It also would authorize the Secretary of the Environment
to make grants to, and enter into contracts with, state and local
governments to assist in data collection;
Last action: Placed on Senate Calendar.
Year introduced: 1991;
Bill: S. 533;
Principal provisions: Would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency
to Cabinet-level status and rename the agency as the Department of the
Environment. Would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics
within the Department and create an Advisory Council on Environmental
Statistics to advise the bureau on statistics and analyses. It also
would authorize the Secretary of the Environment to make grants to, and
enter into contracts with, state and local governments to assist in
statistic data collection. Would also direct the Secretary to enter
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for a study and
report on the adequacy of the department's data collection procedures
and capabilities;
Last action: Passed Senate and referred to the House Committee on
Government Operations.
Year introduced: 1991;
Bill: S. 2132;
Principal provisions: Would require the Environmental Protection Agency
to conduct a research program in environmental risk assessment in order
to (1) ensure that the risk assessment process is based upon adequate
environmental data and scientific understanding, and (2) provide for
the most cost-effective use of environmental protection resources.
Would direct the Administrator to conduct an environmental monitoring
and assessment program to (1) design and evaluate methods and networks
to collect monitoring data on the current and changing condition of the
environment, (2) implement monitoring programs and manage data from
such programs in formats readily accessible to the public, and (3)
provide annual statistical reports of the results of such programs to
Congress and the public;
Last action: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held
hearing.
Year introduced: 1993;
Bill: H.R. 109;
Principal provisions: Would establish the Department of the Environment
and create a Bureau of Environmental Statistics within the department
to (1) compile, analyze, and publish a comprehensive set of
environmental quality statistics, which should provide timely summary
in the form of aggregates, multiyear averages, or totals and include
information on the nature, source, and amount of pollutants in the
environment and the effects of those pollutants on the public and the
environment; (2) promulgate guidelines to ensure that information
collected is accurate, reliable, relevant, and in a form that permits
systematic analysis; (3) coordinate the collection of information by
the department for developing statistics with related information-
gathering activities conducted by other federal agencies; (4) make the
bureau's published statistics readily accessible; and (5) identify data
gaps, review the gaps at least annually with the Science Advisory
Board, and make recommendations to the department concerning research
programs to provide information to fill the data gaps identified;
Last action: Referred to the Subcommittee on Legislation and National
Security, House Committee on Government Operations.
Year introduced: 1993;
Bill: H.R. 3425;
Principal provisions: Would establish a Department of Environmental
Protection and a Bureau of Environmental Statistics within the
department to (1) collect, compile, analyze, and publish a
comprehensive set of environmental quality and related public health,
economic, and statistical data for determining environmental quality
and related measures of public health, over both the short and long
term, including assessing ambient conditions and trends and the
distribution of environmental conditions and related public health
conditions; (2) evaluate the adequacy of available statistical measures
to determine the department's success in fulfilling statutory
requirements; (3) ensure that data and measures referred to in this
subsection are accurate, reliable, relevant, and in a form that permits
systematic analysis; (4) collect and analyze such other data as may be
required to fulfill the bureau's responsibilities and identify new
environmental problems; (5) conduct specialized analyses and prepare
special reports; and (6) make readily accessible all publicly available
data collected;
Last action: Failed on House floor.
Year introduced: 1993;
Bill: S. 171;
Principal provisions: Would establish the Department of Environmental
Protection and provide for a Bureau of Environmental Statistics within
the department, as well as a presidential commission on improving
environmental protection. Would require the bureau to issue an annual
report on (1) statistics on environmental quality; (2) statistics on
the effects of changes in environmental quality on human health and
nonhuman species and ecosystems; (3) documentation of the method used
to obtain and assure the quality of the statistics presented in the
report; (4) economic information on the current and projected costs and
benefits of environmental protection; and (5) recommendations on
improving environmental statistical information. Would authorize the
department to make grants to, and contracts with, state and local
governments, Indian tribes, universities, and other organizations to
assist in data collection. Would abolish the Council on Environmental
Quality and transfer all of the council's functions to the Secretary of
the new department;
Last action: Passed Senate;
not voted upon in House.
Year introduced: 2000;
Bill: H.R. 4757;
Principal provisions: Would require the Environmental Protection Agency
to establish an integrated environmental reporting system, including a
National Environmental Data Model that describes the major data types,
significant attributes, and interrelationships common to activities
carried out by the Administrator or state, tribal, and local agencies
(including permitting, compliance, enforcement, budgeting, performance
tracking, and collection and analysis of environmental samples and
results). Would require EPA to use the model as the framework for
databases on which the data reported to the Administrator through the
integrated system would be kept;
Last action: Referred to Subcommittee on Health and Environment, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Year introduced: 2000;
Bill: H.R. 5422;
Principal provisions: Similar to H.R. 4757, but with some
modifications. For example, H.R. 5422 contained an authorization of
appropriations;
Last action: Referred to Subcommittee on Health and Environment, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Year introduced: 2001;
Bill: H.R. 2694;
Principal provisions: Would establish the Department of Environmental
Protection and a Bureau of Environmental Statistics within the
department to (1) collect, compile, analyze, and publish a
comprehensive set of environmental quality and related public health,
economic, and statistical data for determining environmental quality
and related measures of public health, over both the short and long
term, including assessing ambient conditions and trends and the
distribution of environmental conditions and related public health
conditions; (2) evaluate the adequacy of available statistical measures
to determine the department's success in fulfilling statutory
requirements; (3) ensure that data and measures referred to in this
subsection are accurate, reliable, relevant, and in a form that permits
systematic analysis; (4) collect and analyze such other data as may be
required to fulfill the bureau's responsibilities and identify new
environmental problems; (5) conduct specialized analyses and prepare
special reports; and (6) make readily accessible all publicly available
data collected;
Last action: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural
Resources and Regulatory Affairs, House Committee on Government Reform.
Year introduced: 2003;
Bill: H.R. 2138;
Principal provisions: Similar to H.R. 2694. In addition, would require
the bureau to (1) prepare and submit to Congress and the department an
annual report on environmental conditions and public health conditions,
using, to the maximum extent practicable, reliable statistical sampling
techniques; and (2) make the annual report available to the public upon
request, and publish a notice of such availability in the Federal
Register. Would also require the statistical procedures and methodology
of the Bureau of Environmental Statistics to periodically undergo peer
review;
Last action: House Committee on Government Reform held hearing.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Selected Congressional Hearings Addressing Federal Environmental Data
and Indicator Management Issues:
Table 8 highlights congressional hearings since 1970 that have
addressed one or more salient aspects of the federal environmental
information management challenge. As the table indicates, emphasis has
shifted over time from creating a data bank centralizing all federal
environmental information to the creation of a federal statistical
agency that would be responsible for keeping environmental statistical
information and establishing data quality standards. Hearings have also
frequently examined the critical topic of environmental monitoring.
Table 8: Selected Congressional Hearings Addressing Federal
Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues, 1970-2004:
Hearing: Environmental Data Bank, 1970;
Committee: House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation;
Related bills: H.R. 17436 H.R. 17779 H.R. 18141;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to
examine a proposed amendment to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, which would provide for the establishment of a National
Environmental Data Bank. The Data Bank would serve as the central
national depository of all information, knowledge, and data relating to
the environment, including information, knowledge and data from the
head of each department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive
branch of the United States government as a result of its operations.
Hearing: Environmental Monitoring, 1977;
Committee: House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
the Environment and the Atmosphere;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to (1)
examine the existing monitoring efforts of the federal agencies chiefly
responsible for environmental monitoring; and (2) investigate the
feasibility and practicality of developing and implementing a prototype
monitoring system. The system could eventually be expanded into a
comprehensive national or international monitoring program.
Hearing: Environmental Monitoring 2, 1978;
Committee: House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
the Environment and the Atmosphere;
Related bills: Draft bill;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to
examine a draft bill developed after the 1977 hearings on Environmental
Monitoring. The legislation would establish a coordinated, integrative,
and cooperative prototype management system of selected, diverse
environmental monitoring activities as a possible first step toward a
national system to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
environmental monitoring activities. The President would establish and
appoint a panel of 10 people, chaired by the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, to develop a prototype monitoring system
to demonstrate on a small scale how a national monitoring management
system might work.
Hearing: National Environmental Monitoring, 1983;
Committee: House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, Agricultural Research and Environment;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to
explore the condition of the nation's environmental monitoring programs
and (1) identify problems in monitoring efforts, and (2) provide
recommendations that would lead to improvements in environmental
monitoring.
Hearing: Environmental Monitoring Improvement Act, 1984;
Committee: House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, Agricultural Research and Environment;
Related bills: Draft bill;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to
examine a draft bill that would create a commission to act as the prime
coordinating body for the nation's environmental monitoring efforts.
The charge of the commission would be to clearly define the operational
changes and the administrative coordination necessary to assure that
cost-effective and statistically sound and reliable data are available
to support U.S. environmental policy making.
Hearing: Establish a Department of Environmental Protection, 1989-1990;
Committee: House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on
Legislation and National Security;
Related bills: H.R. 3847;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to
examine two bills that would elevate EPA to Cabinet status. One of the
bills (H.R. 3847) would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics,
which would make accessible a standardized set of environmental quality
data to improve the effectiveness and objectivity of central
environmental data collection and analyses so that the President,
Congress, and the public can be adequately informed about conditions
and trends in environmental quality and so that the department can
better evaluate its programs.
Hearing: EPA Elevation, 2001-2002;
Committee: House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Energy
Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs;
Related bills: H.R. 2694;
Hearing purpose and description: The purpose of the hearing was to
examine two bills that would elevate EPA to Cabinet status. One of the
bills (H.R. 2694) would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics
to provide environmental quality and related public health and economic
information and analyses to meet the needs of the department and
Congress.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal Environmental Data and
Indicator Management Issues:
Table 9 highlights a few of the most significant academic reports
analyzing federal environmental information management since 1970.
Collectively, these reports clearly indicate that most of the
significant information challenges have long been recognized. Our
report makes recommendations that, if implemented, would begin to
address these long-standing challenges.
Table 9: Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal Environmental
Data and Indicator Management Issues:
Year: 1970;
Name of organization: National Academy of Sciences;
Description: Reported that the United States cannot effectively manage
the environment without knowing what it is, what it was, and what it
can be. Recommended giving the highest priority to developing a
centralized comprehensive federal program for monitoring the
environment, incorporating environmental quality indices;
Citation: National Academy of Sciences, Institutions for Effective
Management of the Environment, report (part 1) of the Environmental
Study Group to the Environmental Studies Board of the National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, (Washington, D.C; January
1970).
Year: 1982;
Name of organization: The Conservation Foundation;
Description: Reported that the nation had made progress in its attack
on some conventional environmental problems; however, the information
base on which sound environmental policy depends is inadequate and
deteriorating. The nation has no monitoring data sufficient to describe
accurately the extent or developing seriousness of any environmental
problem;
Citation: The Conservation Foundation, State of the Environment 1982
(Washington, D.C; 1982).
Year: 1988;
Name of organization: Paul Portney, Resources for the Future;
Description: Recommended the creation of a Bureau of Environmental
Statistics because the U.S. does not adequately collect, analyze, and
disseminate information about environmental conditions and trends.
Environmental data are also not collected in a systematic way to make
it useful to interested parties;
Citation: Paul Portney, "Reforming Environmental Regulation: Three
Modest Proposals," Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 13
(1988).
Year: 1997;
Name of organization: National Science and Technology Council;
Description: Proposed a conceptual framework for integrating the
nation's environmental research and monitoring networks to deliver
scientific data and information needed to produce integrated
environmental assessments and enhance understanding, evaluation, and
forecasting of natural resources;
Citation: National Science and Technology Council, Integrating the
Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A
Proposed Framework, a report by the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources (Washington, D.C; March 1997).
Year: 1998;
Name of organization: National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology;
Description: Reported that EPA information systems do not provide
sufficient, appropriate, or accurate information to (1) inform decision
making, (2) ensure accountability, or (3) document results and
achievements. However, the systems have for the most part satisfied
regulatory requirements for collecting environmental information;
Citation: National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology, EPA--Managing Information as a Strategic Resource: Final
Report and Recommendations of the Information Impacts Committee, EPA
100-R-98-002 (Washington, D.C; January 1998).
Year: 1999;
Name of organization: National Research Council;
Description: Addresses the question of whether the U.S. National Income
and Product Accounts should be broadened to include activities
involving natural resources and the environment. Concludes that the
development of environmental and natural resource accounts is an
essential investment for the nation;
Citation: National Research Council, Nature's Numbers: Expanding the
National Economic Accounts to Include the Environment (Washington, D.C;
National Academy Press, 1999).
Year: 2000;
Name of organization: National Council for Science and the Environment;
Description: Reported that the fragmented administrative jurisdictions
among federal agencies charged with environmental stewardship compound
difficulties in coordinating environmental research and in
communicating scientific results to decision makers and the public.
Changes in governmental institutions could significantly improve
efficiency and communication among scientists and between scientists
and decision makers;
Citation: National Council for Science and the Environment,
Recommendations for Improving the Scientific Basis for Environmental
Decisionmaking, report from the first National Conference on Science,
Policy and the Environment (Washington, D.C; December 2000).
Year: 2002;
Name of organization: EPA Science Advisory Board;
Description: Reported that many scientists, most decision makers, and
nearly all members of the public still have little understanding of the
"health" or integrity of the nation's ecological systems. Recommended
EPA would benefit from the development of a systematic framework for
assessing and reporting on ecological condition by helping assure that
required information is measured systematically and provide a template
for assembling information across EPA and other agencies;
Citation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board,
A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB
Report (Washington, D.C; June 2002).
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Environmental Reporting by Private and Public
Organizations:
Environmental reporting involves the disclosure of information on
environmental performance and management practices that convey
environmental impacts and the actions being taken to manage these
impacts. Some private corporations and public institutions now conduct
this type of environmental reporting. For example, some entities report
environmental impacts, such as the amount of natural resources used,
the amount of waste generated, and the amount of emissions released by
a facility. Reports may also include information on the management
efforts that are used to influence environmental impacts such as
details on how a facility is implementing a pollution reduction
program. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development has recognized the importance of this type of information,
encouraging private facilities to report "annually on their
environmental records, as well as on their use of energy and natural
resources" and "on the implementation of codes of conduct promoting
best environmental practice."[Footnote 27]
Corporate reporting of environmental information is becoming
increasingly prevalent in the United States and worldwide. A 2002
survey of the Global Fortune Top 250 international companies (GFT 250)
found that since 1999, there has been a 29 percent increase in the
number of companies that publish separate reports on various aspects of
corporate performance in addition to annual financial reports.[Footnote
28] The majority of these separate reports contained environmental
information. The United States had the largest number of reporting
companies, with 32 of the 105 U.S. companies in the GFT 250 issuing a
report--four more companies than reported in 1999. The survey also
examined the top 100 companies in each of 19 different countries. The
results show that Japan and the United Kingdom have the largest
percentage of top 100 companies publishing reports--72 percent and 49
percent, respectively. The United States was third with 36 percent of
the top 100 U.S. companies reporting in 2002, an increase from 30
percent in 1999. A separate survey conducted in 2001 found similar
increases in reporting as results show that 50 percent of the GFT 100
companies produced environmental reports, up from 44 percent in
1999.[Footnote 29]
Corporate reporting of environmental information in the United States
is sometimes a regulatory requirement. For example, certain facilities
are required to submit information on the manufacture, process, and use
of approximately 650 different types of toxic chemicals to the
Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
database. The Environmental Protection Agency reported that almost
25,000 facilities submitted TRI information in 2001. Another form of
mandatory reporting is the disclosure of information relating to
environmental issues required in companies' financial filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Companies may also voluntarily collect and report environmental
information when it is not required because of the benefits that this
information provides. The environmental information included in these
reports can help corporations communicate the environmental impact of
economic activities to a wide variety of stakeholders, such as local
and planning authorities, community groups, the media, and the general
public. Such communications can potentially benefit the corporation by
enhancing its reputation and standing as environmentally responsible.
This information also provides corporations benefits by identifying
possible cost savings in both the resources used and operating costs
and by identifying potential environmental risks, allowing corporations
to better anticipate potential problems and avoid negative publicity on
environmental issues. For example, this information can direct a
corporation's attention to ways to change resource use that results in
efficiency savings from lower energy, water, and material costs.
Reporting of standardized information is important in order to examine
the progress of a facility over time and compare or aggregate
information for many different facilities. Consequently, private and
public facilities are adopting voluntary standards and guidelines for
environmental reporting. A recent survey of multinational corporations
identified some of the most influential voluntary standards now being
used by corporations to standardize environmental
information.[Footnote 30] Included on this list are the International
Organization for Standardization 14000 standards, the Global Reporting
Initiative, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the
United Nation's Global Compact, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises.
Verification of the quality of the information contained in voluntary
reports is also important to assuage the inherent tension between a
facility's desire to present its side of the story and a stakeholder's
demand for greater transparency. Just as investors look to independent
audits to certify the accuracy and completeness of financial reporting,
stakeholders seek such assurances for the information contained in
environmental reports. Even so, according to a 2002 study, only 3
percent of those top 100 U.S. companies that reported information had
their reports verified by third parties.[Footnote 31]
Environmental reporting is an important consideration for public
governmental facilities as well. Executive Order 13148 calls for
federal agencies to implement environmental management systems by
December 31, 2005, at all appropriate agency facilities. The executive
order states that these environmental management systems shall include
measurable environmental goals, objectives, and targets to be reviewed
and updated annually. According to the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive, more than 180 federal facilities have already
developed and are implementing environmental management systems to
ensure compliance with environmental requirements and integrate
environmental accountability into decision making and planning. It also
reports that, as of December 2002, hundreds of other facilities had
initiated the education process needed to ensure commitment to the
development of environmental management systems.
Whether the basis for environmental reporting is mandatory or
voluntary, environmental reports contain information that can be used
by a variety of stakeholders to monitor environmental impacts and
inform decision making. For example, this information can inform
community leaders and residents in local communities of environmental
hazards, show how facilities are addressing specific environmental
concerns, and provide an opportunity for the community to identify how
a local facility is performing relative to other similar facilities.
Employees can also use this information to understand a facility's
existing occupational risks. In addition, information that identifies
the environmental impacts associated with a product or service
throughout its lifecycle can be of interest to customers and consumers
and help inform the choices they make. Reporting can also yield
information on a facility's environmental vision, environmental
performance, future environmental plans, and environmental risks and
liability. These issues may interest potential business partners,
investors, insurers, and lenders. Finally, this information can further
the understanding of government policy analysts regarding current
environmental circumstances and inform government decisions on how best
to achieve specific environmental objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Accounting for the Environment:
Environmental accounts can be used to develop indicators that examine
the nexus between the environment and the economy. As a result, the
development of environmental accounts is widely recognized as
important. However, the United States currently has no federal effort
to develop comprehensive environmental accounts.
Accounts Yield Indicators with Beneficial Uses:
Environmental accounts provide a framework that is used to link
environmental information to the information that is contained in the
national economic accounts. Combining this information allows
environmental and economic issues to be examined jointly. For example,
by linking information on the amount of pollution released during a
manufacturing process with knowledge of the amount of economic output
derived through that manufacturing, policymakers could better
understand how a change in regulations, such as on pollution limits,
might affect the ensuing economic performance of an industry.
Several federal agencies are responsible for managing and protecting
the nation's environment and have developed strategic plans that
highlight the importance of the interaction between the environment and
the economy. For example, the strategic plan of the Environmental
Protection Agency identifies procedures to ensure sound analysis of the
economic effects of its environmental regulations, policies, and
programs. The Department of the Interior's plan sets an objective of
managing natural resources in a way that promotes responsible use while
sustaining a dynamic economy. The Department of Agriculture's plan
identifies the need to manage forests and rangelands that are resilient
to natural and human disturbance while also managing for economic uses
such as oil, natural gas, and timber. Finally, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's plan seeks to achieve a balance between
the protection and use of the ocean's resources to ensure
sustainability while also achieving an optimal contribution to the
nation's economy.
Environmental accounts provide information that is useful in creating
indicators to examine the interaction of the environment and the
economy. The following are examples of these potential indicators.
* Policymakers could use efficiency indicators to determine the volume
of waste created in production processes and allow for comparison with
the resources used in production and the total economic output.
Policymakers could use these indicators to measure and track the use of
resources and to determine how best to improve the efficiency of
resource use and minimize waste generation while considering the
potential economic effects of such policies.
* Policymakers could use resource management indicators to determine
the amounts of unharvested natural resources still available for future
consumption. This information could provide policymakers with a better
understanding of the rate of current resource use, allow for more
effective long-term management of natural resources and help
policymakers understand the potential economic effects resulting from
changes in resources use.
* Policymakers could use environmental expenditure indicators to manage
and track the amount of economic resources being devoted to abating
pollution. Such indicators would allow policymakers to identify where
resources are being spent to reduce pollution, evaluate the
effectiveness of the nation's efforts, and determine the economic
impacts on the economy resulting from the costs of abating pollution.
Importance of Environmental Accounts Recognized around the World:
There are several efforts under way to develop environmental accounts
by governments and nongovernmental organizations. A recent report
identifies 19 countries that are developing some type of environmental
accounts in their statistical offices or other government
ministries.[Footnote 32] Also, the United Nations, along with other
international organizations, has developed guidelines to be used by
both national and international agencies for compiling environmental
accounts.[Footnote 33]
Canada and the Netherlands are currently developing environmental
accounts alongside national economic accounts to inform policymakers in
these countries. First published in 1997, the Canadian System of
Environmental and Resource Accounts (CSERA) provides a comprehensive
framework for understanding the environment and the economy by
supplementing environmental information alongside information in the
national economic accounts.[Footnote 34] According to Statistics
Canada, while CSERA is a work in progress, information in the accounts
has improved policymakers' knowledge of interactions between the
environment and the economy in Canada. Statistics Netherlands has
published a National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts
(NAMEA) for the years 1987 through 1992 and continues to further
develop the accounts. NAMEA functions as an instrument for a variety of
analyses, including the identification of the economic and
environmental effects of consumption of certain products and the
consequences of regulating energy use on environmental themes like
greenhouse gases and economic issues, such as national income.
The World Bank and World Resources Institute have developed their own
environmental accounts. The World Bank has developed a measure of net
savings that calculates a nation's overall savings rate by including
the value of a nation's natural resources along with traditional
economic factors. The World Bank currently updates this measure
annually for approximately 50 counties. This measure of adjusted net
savings can be used to compare and contrast the traditional economic
measures of savings in order to monitor the potential impacts of
natural resource use. The World Resources Institute has created
material flow accounts for several industrialized countries. These
accounts track the physical flows of natural resources as they move
through the economy, including extraction, production, fabrication,
use, recycling, and final disposal. According to a World Resources
Institute official, a goal of these accounts is to demonstrate to
government agencies the value of this environmental and economic
information for formulating public policy.
Finally, the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences has reported that environmental accounts can provide
policymakers with information that would improve decision making
resulting in substantial monetary benefit for the United States. The
nation currently invests a substantial amount of money in pollution
control to clean the air, water, and land, and environmental accounts
could provide the information necessary to help identify how
regulations may be refined, so that expenditures on pollution control
would be allocated more efficiently. For example, the National Research
Council estimates that improvements in regulations resulting in a 10
percent reduction in pollution control expenditures would save the
nation more than $10 billion per year.
The United States Has No Plans to Develop Federal Environmental
Accounts:
In the United States, no federal effort to create comprehensive
environmental accounts is either under way or planned. In 1992, the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), within the Department of Commerce,
began developing a set of comprehensive accounts called the Integrated
Economic and Environmental Satellite Accounts (IEESA). BEA created
prototype accounts for the mineral resources sector and planned to
continue its IEESA work and develop accounts for other sectors, but in
1995, a committee report accompanying the Department of Commerce's
fiscal year 1995 appropriation directed BEA to suspend this effort and
allow for an independent review of the IEESA. The National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council conducted this review and released
its final report in 1999,[Footnote 35] recommending that Congress
authorize and fund BEA to recommence its work developing the IEESA.
However, Congressional appropriations committees up until fiscal year
2002 directed BEA not to pursue the IEESA initiative. Although this
restriction has now been lifted, to date no funding has been
appropriated and BEA currently has no plans to continue with its work.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: The Uncertain Cost of Environmental Information:
The collection and provision of federal environmental data and
statistics are costly, but it is uncertain how much the federal
government spends each year on these activities. While there are no
agreed-upon sources of the costs to the federal government of
environmental information, there are two frequently cited sources that,
despite known shortcomings, represent the best available federal
estimates of such costs.
In July 1995, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
convened a team of federal scientists and program managers to develop a
national framework for integrating and coordinating environmental
monitoring and related research by amalgamating and building upon
existing networks and programs. In 1997, the team's final report,
Integrating the Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks
and Programs, reported that the federal government spent about $650
million on about 31 major federal environmental monitoring and research
programs and networks in fiscal year 1995.[Footnote 36] The team
arrived at this total by combining the amounts that agencies reported
to the team on a project-by-project basis. The total was not
disaggregated in NSTC's final report, and the effort has not been
updated.
Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) annually
reports actual and estimated funding for major federal statistical
programs[Footnote 37] in Statistical Programs of the United States
Government, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.[Footnote 38]
Major statistical programs differ in organizational structure and in
the means through which they are funded. A particular agency may carry
out some major statistical programs on its own. For example, according
to OMB the sole mission of the Energy Information Administration,
within the Department of Energy, is to develop energy statistics. Other
agencies have statistical programs that are an outgrowth of their
administrative responsibilities or that support their program planning
and evaluation functions. In these cases, the budget for statistical
activities comprises a portion of an agency's total appropriations,
including an allocation of the salaries and operating expenses for the
statistical program. Funding for statistical activities may increase or
decrease as a result of the cyclical nature of surveys. Such increases
or decreases should not be interpreted as changes in agency priorities,
but rather as the normal and expected consequences of the nature of the
programs. Agencies may also experience increases or decreases in their
budgets when they conduct one-time surveys or studies in a particular
fiscal year. Additionally, a statistical program may not always be
executed by the agency that sponsors it. In these instances, the work
is done on a reimbursable basis by another federal agency or by a state
or local government or a private organization under contract. OMB's
reported totals reflect statistical activities in support of the
agency's mission, whether the activities are performed by the agency or
by contract.
OMB divides federal statistical activities into four categories: Health
and Safety; Social and Demographic; Natural Resources, Energy, and
Environment; and Economic. Table 10 provides the direct funding levels
that Congress appropriated for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 for
statistical activities in the Natural Resources, Energy, and
Environment category.
Table 10: Direct Funding for Major Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources Statistical Programs:
Millions of dollars;
Agency: Forest Service;
Fiscal year 1998: 19;
Fiscal year 1999: 14;
Fiscal year 2000: 23;
Fiscal year 2001: 29;
Fiscal year 2002: 29.
Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Fiscal year 1998: 107;
Fiscal year 1999: 107;
Fiscal year 2000: 108;
Fiscal year 2001: 113;
Fiscal year 2002: 111.
Agency: NOAA;
Fiscal year 1998: 49;
Fiscal year 1999: 53;
Fiscal year 2000: 54;
Fiscal year 2001: 87;
Fiscal year 2002: 87.
Agency: Office of Environment, Safety, and Health;
Fiscal year 1998: 24;
Fiscal year 1999: 24;
Fiscal year 2000: 24;
Fiscal year 2001: 33;
Fiscal year 2002: 34.
Agency: Energy Information Administration;
Fiscal year 1998: 66;
Fiscal year 1999: 70;
Fiscal year 2000: 72;
Fiscal year 2001: 78;
Fiscal year 2002: 78.
Agency: National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences;
Fiscal year 1998: 26;
Fiscal year 1999: 30;
Fiscal year 2000: 39;
Fiscal year 2001: 56;
Fiscal year 2002: 65.
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Fiscal year 1998: 6;
Fiscal year 1999: 3;
Fiscal year 2000: 4;
Fiscal year 2001: 9;
Fiscal year 2002: 9.
Agency: Minerals Management Service;
Fiscal year 1998: 2;
Fiscal year 1999: 2;
Fiscal year 2000: 3;
Fiscal year 2001: 3;
Fiscal year 2002: 4.
Agency: National Park Service;
Fiscal year 1998: 2;
Fiscal year 1999: 2;
Fiscal year 2000: 2;
Fiscal year 2001: 2;
Fiscal year 2002: 1.
Agency: Bureau of Reclamation;
Fiscal year 1998: 2;
Fiscal year 1999: 3;
Fiscal year 2000: 3;
Fiscal year 2001: 3;
Fiscal year 2002: 4.
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey;
Fiscal year 1998: 64;
Fiscal year 1999: 60;
Fiscal year 2000: 73;
Fiscal year 2001: 83;
Fiscal year 2002: 84.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Fiscal year 1998: 144;
Fiscal year 1999: 192;
Fiscal year 2000: 202;
Fiscal year 2001: 174;
Fiscal year 2002: 148.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Fiscal year 1998: 17;
Fiscal year 1999: 17;
Fiscal year 2000: 17;
Fiscal year 2001: 17;
Fiscal year 2002: 17.
Total for major environment, energy, and natural resources statistical
programs;
Fiscal year 1998: 528;
Fiscal year 1999: 577;
Fiscal year 2000: 624;
Fiscal year 2001: 687;
Fiscal year 2002: 671.
Total for all federal statistical activities;
Fiscal year 1998: 3,205;
Fiscal year 1999: 4,167;
Fiscal year 2000: 7,755;
Fiscal year 2001: 4,179;
Fiscal year 2002: 4,212.
Source: OMB.
Note: Totals reflect actual appropriations.
[End of table]
It is important to note that the totals produced through these efforts
are not necessarily representative of the magnitude of federal
investment in environmental information--the total produced by NSTC and
the figures produced annually by OMB both likely have significant
omissions. Moreover, the totals produced by these efforts do not
necessarily cover similar activities, although there is likely
significant overlap. OMB's classification includes issues (such as
energy) and activities (such as statistical consulting or training)
that were not necessarily included in the NSTC's calculations. GAO was
not able to compare the various programs and subprogram activities that
constitute the totals produced by these efforts. Reconciling the
methodologies used by NSTC and OMB to produce these totals is beyond
the scope of GAO's report.
In preparing this report, GAO used the estimate reported by NSTC to
generally reflect the annual cost to the federal government of
collecting environmental information--at least $600 million. However,
this figure provides a limited snapshot of all spending related to
collecting and maintaining information on the environment. Agency
officials and other experts noted that the actual annual costs of
environmental information to the federal government through monitoring,
research, statistical, data management, and other activities will
remain uncertain until a comprehensive assessment is performed that
examines the completeness, overlap, gaps, and quality of the existing
programs that produce environmental information.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Selected Options:
Experts who participated in the environmental indicator set meeting
jointly convened by GAO and the National Academy of Sciences identified
a number of short-term alternatives to assist environmental indicator
set developers and users. These options were not independently
evaluated by GAO and are presented in no specific order. Appearance in
this appendix does not constitute an endorsement of the ideas.
* Congress should reinstate Section 201 of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), requiring the Council for Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to submit an annual report to the Congress on the environment.
* The Office of Management and Budget should hold a hearing to receive
feedback from agencies on the Program Assessment Rating Tool.
* Congress should charge GAO or the Congressional Research Service with
an annual review of environmental indicators, their adequacy, and
utility.
* Federal agencies should pursue an executive order that would
establish an interagency work group to deal with environmental
information and data, specifically regarding the development of
environmental indicators. One expert suggested using Executive Order
13112 (National Invasive Species Council) as a model.
* Congress should commission a study by an independent expert
organization, such as the National Academy for Public Administration or
the National Academy of Sciences, to review appropriate institutional
structures for housing an entity to coordinate the production of
environmental information.
* Congress should charge an entity with starting the process of
coordinating environmental information and developing and compiling
existing and past environmental indicator efforts.
* Congress should consider acting upon the recommendations presented by
the National Science and Technology Council's 1997 report Integrating
the Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and
Programs: A Proposed Framework.
* Congress should task an agency with creating a fully searchable
Internet clearinghouse to distribute information about developing and
using environmental indicator sets, including links to related
environmental data. Portal developers should ensure linked data are
compliant with current Federal Geographic Data Committee standards.
* Congress should continue to support ongoing federal partnerships
promoting integration of environmental data and interagency work on
developing standards to ensure data interoperability.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503:
CHAIRMAN:
November 1, 2004:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. General Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed report entitled
Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop
Environmental Indicator Sets that Inform Decisions (GAO-05-52). The
proposed report is a very timely and comprehensive review of the many
efforts underway to improve the reporting of indicators measuring
environmental conditions. Your report properly documents the many
advancements and challenges that experts in development of
environmental indicators recognize.
As your proposed report describes, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) has long been recognized by Congress and others as an appropriate
institution to lead such efforts. Consistent with the sections of NEPA
that are cited in the report on p. 36, Congress directed CEQ to,
"review the adequacy of existing systems for monitoring and predicting
environmental changes in order to achieve effective coverage and
efficient use of research facilities and other resources", and to
assist and advise the President by "collecting, collating, analyzing,
and interpreting data and information on environmental quality,
ecological research and evaluation." 42 U.S.C. 4372(d))(3)(7). Further,
CEQ has been directed by Executive Order to "(e) Promote the
development and use of indices and monitoring systems (1) to assess
environmental conditions and trends, (2) to predict the environmental
impact of proposed public and private actions, and (3) to determine the
effectiveness of programs for protecting and enhancing environmental
quality." Executive Order 11514, as amended by Executive Order 11991,
May 24, 1977.
Several years ago, CEQ established an Interagency Working Group on
Indicator Coordination. The Working Group developed a Framework for a
National System of Indicators on Natural and Environmental Resources
and has studied the current institutional arrangements for performing
the various functions needed for development and operation of such a
system. It has been drawing upon the work of a number of key "building
block" projects that are selecting and identifying indicators for
managing natural and environmental resources. These include the EPA
Draft Report on the Environment, the Heinz Center's State of the
Nation's Ecosystems Report, and the work of four roundtables that are
using collaborative processes to develop criteria and indicators for
sustainable management of natural resources, including forests,
rangelands, minerals, and water resources. Further, four agencies with
significant responsibility for monitoring and managing - the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and the Environmental
Protection Agency - have begun studies of ways to improve their
institutional arrangements for statistical reporting of the indicators
that would be included in a comprehensive national system.
While your proposed report recognizes these steps, it suggests that a
quasi-governmental agency also be studied. This approach may have
merit, particularly if such an organization is created for reporting on
a broader set of key national indicators. However, improvements in
coordination and statistical reporting within the Federal government
will be important irrespective of whether a quasi-governmental agency
is formed. Gains can be achieved by moving ahead with improvements
within Federal agencies, even while studying iterative organizational
options.
One shortcoming in the proposed report is that its main focus is on
the status of efforts in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Other agencies have equally important missions for managing natural
resources and the environment and collecting data on their conditions.
For example, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for
managing public lands, National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges,
and for monitoring water resources; the Department of Agriculture has
responsibility for monitoring forest land, managing the National
Forests and implementing billions of dollars in conservation programs
on agricultural land; and the National Oceans and Atmospheric
Administration has responsibility for oceans, fisheries and marine
sanctuaries.. Their contributions to the development and operation of a
comprehensive system of indicators and their use of indicators in
planning and management are essential to the effectiveness of the
Federal government's environmental programs. Other agencies, such as
NASA, National Science Foundation, the Center for Disease Control,
OSHA, Department of Defense and Department of Energy also have a direct
or indirect role in this issue. The GAO report should more clearly
recognize that a comprehensive set of environmental indicators has the
potential for benefiting environmental management across all Federal
agencies.
On pages 7, 22 and 30, the proposed report identifies two closely
related challenges to effective indicators: linking management actions
to environmental conditions and integrating various indicators to
better understand the environment. On page 37, the proposed report
mentions the work of the Integration and Synthesis Group, an important
effort to address these challenges. Over the past year, the group has
made significant progress in the development of a systems-based
conceptual framework designed to facilitate the selection,
interpretation and reporting of indicators based on a better
understanding of the linkages among management actions, social and
economic processes and environmental processes. Participants in the
Integration and Synthesis Group hope that the conceptual framework can
be used as the basis for promoting greater integration among the
various indicator projects and, as a basis for developing of a
comprehensive national system of indicators that draws upon such
projects.
I also recommend that the report take note of the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) recently developed by the Office of Management and
Budget to improve program performance. Evaluation of federal agencies'
indicator work through PART will enable both the executive and
legislative branch of government to better understand program
performance and identify opportunities for improvement.
Finally, any indicator system is only as strong as the relevance, scope
and accuracy of the data that informs it. Your proposed report
currently does not discuss the recent advancement, led by the federal
government, of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)
which will include an Integrated Ocean Observing System. The
Administration pressed for and obtained worldwide acknowledgement of
the need for such a system in the Johannesburg Plan of Action that was
produced at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The
Administration then obtained a concrete commitment to action from our
G-8 partners. Two subsequent summits have lead to a formal partnership
that continues. A detailed description can be found at http://
earthobservations.org/ I suggest that your report include a discussion
of this effort.
In closing, I would like to emphasize the CEQ's commitment to improving
our capacity to promote coordination and integration of information on
environmental and natural resource conditions in the United States. The
proposed GAO report documents many of the challenges that this effort
involves and provides thoughtful recommendations for addressing them. I
look forward to the broader discussion that I know your report will
stimulate.
Yours Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Connaughton:
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
OCT 25 2004:
Mr. Ed Kratzer:
Assistant Director:
Natural Resources and Environment Division:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Kratzer:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the Draft U. S. Government Accountability
Office report entitled "Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination
Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets that Inform
Decisions" (GAO-05-52). In general, we agree with the findings and
recommendations in the report, including the recommendation that the
Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) direct the
Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination to study options
for performing the functions necessary to guide the development,
coordination, and integration of environmental indicator sets. This is
essential to assure full consideration of the range of agency programs
that are noted in the report, including their unique characteristics
and complex interrelationships.
The enclosure provides specific comments from the Minerals Management
Service and the National Park Service. We hope our comments will assist
you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Ed Kratzer, (202) 512-6553:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Key contributions to this report were made by Nancy Bowser, Chase
Huntley, Richard Johnson, Kerry Lipsitz, Jonathan McMurray, Mark
Metcalfe, and Nathan Morris. Also contributing to this report were
Jonathan Dent, Evan Gilman, Scott Heacock, R. Denton Herring, Kim
Raheb, and Greg Wilmoth.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
[End of section]
Bakkes, J.A., G.J. van den Born, J.C. Helder, R.J. Swart, C.W. Hope,
and J.D.E. Parker. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of
the Art and Perspectives. Report commissioned by the United Nations
Environment Programme. June 1994.
Bernard, James. State of the Science Ecological Indicators Report.
Unpublished draft prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 2002.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Integrated Economic and Environmental
Satellite Accounts." Survey of Current Business. Washington, D.C;
April 1994: 33-49.
Carter, J. "Environmental Priorities and Programs--a Message to
Congress." Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 15, no.
26 (July 2, 1979): 1353-1373.
Clarke, David P. "The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States." Environment,
vol. 45, no. 5 (2003): 40-43.
Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve Performance?
Project final report: Executive summary prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. January 2003.
Duncan, Joseph W., and Andrew C. Gross. Statistics for the 21st
Century: Proposals for Improving Statistics for Better Decision Making.
Chicago: Irwin, 1995.
Energy, Environment, and Resources Center, University of Tennessee.
Expertise and the Policy Cycle, by Jack Barkenbus. Knoxville,
Tennessee: September 1998.
Environment Canada. Environmental Indicators and State of the Reporting
in Canada--Part 1: Current Trends, Status, and Perceptions. Draft
background paper to a national environmental indicator and state of the
environment reporting strategy; Washington, D.C; August 2003.
Environment Canada. Canadian Information System for the Environment:
Sharing Environmental Decisions. Final report by the Task Force on a
Canadian Information System for the Environment. Cat. No. EN21-207/
2001E. Hull, Quebec; October 2001.
Environment Canada. A National Strategy for Environmental Indicators
and State of the Environment Reporting in Canada: Proposed Options.
Draft report. Hull, Quebec; August 2003.
Environmental Council of States and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Information Management Workgroup. National Environmental
Information Exchange Network: Information Package. Washington, D.C;
June 2001.
Flynn, Patrice, David Berry, and Theodore Heintz. "Sustainability and
Quality of Life Indicators: Toward the Integration of Economic, Social
and Environmental Measures." Indicators: The Journal of Social Health,
vol. 1, no. 4 (fall 2002): 1-21.
Harwell, Mark A., Victoria Myers, Terry Young, Ann Bartuska, Nancy
Gassman, John H. Gentile, Christine C. Harwell, Stuart Appelbaum, John
Barko, Billy Causey, Christine Johnson, Agnes McLean, Ron Smola, Paul
Templet, and Stephen Tosini. "A Framework for an Ecosystem Integrity
Report Card: Examples from South Florida Show How an Ecosystem Report
Card Links Societal Values and Scientific Information." BioScience,
vol. 49, no. 7 (July 1999): 543-556.
Innes, Judith E. Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful
Indicators, 2nd ed. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers,
2002.
International Council for Science. Making Science for Sustainable
Development More Policy Relevant: New Tools for Analysis. ICSU Series
on Science for Sustainable Development No. 8. Paris, 2002.
International Institute for Sustainable Development. "Review Paper on
Selected Capital Based Sustainable Development Indicator Frameworks."
Study for the Steering Committee of the National Roundtable on
Environment and the Economy (Canada). Winnipeg, Manitoba; December
2000.
National Academy of Public Administration. Evaluating Environmental
Progress: How EPA and the States Can Improve the Quality of Enforcement
and Compliance Information. Report for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. June 2001.
National Academy of Public Administration. Setting Priorities, Getting
Results: A New Direction for EPA. Report to the U.S. Congress. Silver
Spring, Maryland: Sherwood Fletcher Associates, 1995.
National Council for Science and the Environment. Recommendations for
Improving the Scientific Basis for Environmental Decisionmaking. Report
of the first National Conference on Science, Policy, and the
Environment. Washington, D.C; December 2000.
National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the Nation.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.
National Research Council. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward
Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
National Research Council. Nature's Numbers: Expanding the National
Economic Accounts to Include the Environment. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1999.
National Science and Technology Council. Integrating the Nation's
Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed
Framework. Report by the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources. Washington, D.C; March 1997.
O'Malley, Robin, Kent Cavender-Bares, and William C. Clark. "Providing
'Better' Data: Not as Simple as It Might Seem." Environment, vol. 45,
no. 4 (May 2003): 8-18.
Riche, Martha Farnsworth. The United States of America: Developing Key
National Indicators. Paper presented at the Forum on Key National
Indicators; Washington, D.C; February 2003.
Sustainability Institute. Indicators and Information Systems for
Sustainable Development, by Donella Meadows. Report to the Balaton
Group. Hartland, Vermont; September 1998.
Tonn, Bruce, and Robert Turner. Environmental Decision Making and
Information Technology: Issues Assessment. NCEDR/99-01. National
Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research. Knoxville,
Tennessee; May 1999.
Train, Russell. "The Quest for Environmental Indices." Science 178, no.
4057 (October 1972): 1.
United Nations, Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003:
Handbook of National Accounting. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/61/Rev.1. (1992).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Framework for Assessing and
Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB Report. EPA SAB-EPEC-02-009.
Science Advisory Board. June 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Statistics and
Information Division, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. A
Conceptual Framework to Support Development and Use of Environmental
Information in Decision-Making. EPA 239-R-95-012, Washington, D.C;
April 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology. Managing Information as a
Strategic Resource: Final Report and Recommendations of the Information
Impacts Committee. EPA 100-R-98-002. Washington, D.C; January 1998.
World Bank. Policy Applications of Environmental Accounting, by G.
Lange. Environmental Economic Series, Paper No. 88. New York, January
2003.
World Conservation Union. Lessons Learned from Environmental
Accounting: Findings from Nine Case Studies, by Joy Hecht. Washington,
D.C; October 2000.
World Resources Institute. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic
Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance
in the Context of Sustainable Development, by Allen Hammond, Albert
Adriaanse, Eric Rodenburg, Dirk Bryant, and Richard Woodward.
Washington, D.C; May 1995.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA's
Position and Progress.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-01]
Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2004.
Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts
Needed to Support Key Decisions.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi- bin/getrpt?GAO-04-382]
Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2004.
Geographic Information Systems: Challenges to Effective Data Sharing.
GAO-03-874T.
Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2003.
Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation's Position and
Progress.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03- 672SP]
Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003.
Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress
Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-515]
Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003.
Environmental Protection: Observations on Elevating the Environmental
Protection Agency to Cabinet Status.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-552T]
Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2002.
Environmental Information: EPA Needs Better Information to Manage Risks
and Measure Results.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-97T]
Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2000.
Environmental Information: EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve Information
Management, but Challenges Remain.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-261]
Washington, D.C.: September 17, 1999.
Environmental Protection: EPA's Problems with Collection and Management
of Scientific Data and Its Efforts to Address Them. GAO/T-RCED-95-174.
Washington, D.C.: May 12, 1995.
Environmental Protection: Meeting Public Expectations with Limited
Resources.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED- 91-97]
Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1991.
Environmental Protection Agency: Protecting Human Health and the
Environment through Improved Management.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-88-101]
Washington, D.C.: August 16, 1988.
(360343):
FOOTNOTES
[1] It is difficult to determine exactly what the federal government
spends each year on environmental information. Although the Office of
Management and Budget annually publishes funding for natural resource,
energy, and environmental statistics in Statistical Programs of the
United States Government, we were not able to disaggregate the totals
by program. Moreover, the National Science and Technology Council
reported in 1997 that, in fiscal year 1995, the federal government
spent about $650 million on environmental research and monitoring
networks and programs, but that assessment has not been updated. See
appendix VII for more information.
[2] In addition, there are several governmentwide requirements that
affect environmental data management. For example, the Information
Quality Act requires the Office of Management and Budget to provide
guidance to federal agencies for maximizing the quality of information
they disseminate.
[3] Many organizations in the United States are developing
comprehensive key indicator systems--organized, systematic efforts to
produce selected economic, social, and environmental indicators--to
assess position and progress toward specific goals. See GAO, Informing
Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA's Position
and Progress, GAO-05-01 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2004).
[4] National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources, Integrating the Nation's Environmental
Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework
(Washington, D.C; March 1997).
[5] National Council for Science and the Environment, Improving the
Scientific Basis for Decisionmaking: A Report from the first National
Conference on Science, Policy, and the Environment (Washington, D.C;
December 2000).
[6] Effective May 15, 2000, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset
Act (Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003) terminated the CEQ reporting
requirement that had appeared in the National Environmental Policy Act.
[7] See appendix I for a more thorough description of our survey
methodology and its limitations.
[8] P.L. 105-391 (1998).
[9] Note that GAO did not attempt to independently evaluate the costs,
benefits, or risks of developing and using indicator sets that accrue
from the positive impacts reported by indicator set users.
[10] The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972--which,
as amended, is commonly known as Clean Water Act--requires EPA to
compile states' biennial reports on the quality of their waters into
the National Water Quality Inventory. See 33 U.S.C.A. § 1315(b).
[11] For a recent example, see Jacksonville Community Council Inc.,
Making Jacksonville a Clean City (Jacksonville, Florida; spring 2002).
[12] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[13] GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency, GAO-01-257 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1, 2001).
[14] See GAO, Wetlands Overview: Problems with Acreage Data Persist,
GAO/RCED-98-150 (Washington, D.C.: July 1998); and Results-Oriented
Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Border Control,
Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management,
GAO-03-321 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2002).
[15] GAO, Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection
Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions, GAO-04-382 (Washington, D.C.:
June 7, 2004).
[16] Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The First
Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington,
D.C; 1970).
[17] William Clark, Thomas Jorling, and William Merrell, "Foreword,"
Designing a Report on the State of the Nation's Ecosystems (Washington,
D.C.: H. John Heinz III Center for Economics and the Environment,
1999).
[18] An official from the Heinz Center reported that efforts have been
made to enhance the likelihood that future reports will be able to
quantify this metric.
[19] 42 U.S.C. 4321.
[20] These indictor sets include those developed by the Roundtable on
Sustainable Forests, Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable, Sustainable
Water Resources Roundtable, Sustainable Minerals Roundtable, EPA's
Environmental Indicators Initiative, and the Heinz Center's State of
the Nation's Ecosystems project.
[21] GAO, The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997
Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven, GAO/GGD-97-109
(Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1997).
[22] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[23] GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency, GAO-01-257 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1, 2001).
[24] EPA is not the only agency to struggle with this issue. See GAO,
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Interior, GAO-03-104 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1, 2003); and Department
of Agriculture: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major
Management Challenges, GAO-01-761 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 2001).
[25] As we noted in our January 2003 report on EPA's major management
challenges and program risks, the indicators initiative has the
potential to make a substantial contribution to measuring EPA's
progress within an overall framework of ecological and human health,
assisting EPA's strategic planning efforts, and facilitating a
transition to performance-based management driven by environmental
goals. See GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Environmental Protection Agency, GAO-03-112 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1,
2003).
[26] GAO-03-112, 4.
[27] United Nations, United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Agenda 21 (1992).
[28] KPMG, KPMG Global Sustainability Services, KPMG International
Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002 (De Meern, The
Netherlands; June 2002).
[29] Corporate Social Responsibility Network, The State of Global
Environmental and Social Reporting, (Shrewsbury, United Kingdom; 2001).
[30] World Bank, International Finance Corporation, Race to the Top:
Attracting and Enabling Global Sustainable Business, Business Survey
Report, by J. Berman and T. Webb (Washington, D.C; October 2003).
[31] KPMG, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability
Reporting 2002.
[32] G. Lange, Policy Applications of Environmental Accounting, Paper
88, World Bank Environmental Economic Series (Washington, D.C; January
2003).
[33] United Nations, Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting
2003: Handbook of National Accounting (1992).
[34] CSERA was first published in 1997, then again in 2000, and updates
are planned for 2004.
[35] National Research Council, Nature's Numbers: Expanding the
National Economic Accounts to Include the Environment (Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999).
[36] National Science and Technology Council, Integrating the Nation's
Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed
Framework, a report by the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources (Washington, D.C; March 1997).
[37] OMB reports on programs that receive direct funding of at least
$500,000 on statistical activities, which include: (1) the planning of
surveys and other techniques of data collection; (2) personnel; (3)
collection, processing, or tabulation of statistical data for
publication, dissemination, research, analysis, or program management
and evaluation; (4) publication of data and studies; (5) methodological
research; (6) data analysis; (7) forecasts or projections made
available for governmentwide or public use; (8) publication of data
collected by others; (9) secondary data series or models that are an
integral part of generating statistical series or forecasts; (10)
management or coordination of statistical operations; and (11)
statistical consulting or training.
[38] Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. §3504(e)(2).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
