Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to
Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions
(17-NOV-04, GAO-05-52).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-52
ACCNO: A13535
TITLE: Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed
to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions
DATE: 11/17/2004
SUBJECT: Data collection
Environmental impact statements
Environmental monitoring
Environmental research
Information resources management
Standards and standardization
Environmental indicators
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-52
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
November 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That
Inform Decisions
a
GAO-05-52
[IMG]
November 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets That
Inform Decisions
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.
United States Government Accountability Office
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
1 5 8
14
21 40 42 43
Appendixes
Appendix I:
Appendix II: Appendix III:
Appendix IV:
Appendix V:
Appendix VI: Appendix VII: Appendix VIII:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46 Compendium of Environmental
Indicator Sets 46 Survey of Practitioners 47 Case Study 48 Meeting of
Experts Convened by the National Academy of
Sciences 49
Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by
Experts 54
Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles 58 The Heinz Center's
State of the Nation's Ecosystems 59 EPA's National Coastal Assessment 62
Chesapeake Bay Program 65 Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 68 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Strategic
Conservation Agenda 71 Environmental Protection Indicators for California
74 Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida 77 Environmental
Indicators Project, West Oakland, California 80
Selected Activities Identifying Need for More
Comprehensive Environmental Information 83
Environmental Reporting by Private and Public
Organizations 92
Accounting for the Environment 96
The Uncertain Cost of Environmental Information 100
Selected Options 104
Contents
Appendix IX: Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality 106
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior 109
Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 110 GAO Contact 110
Staff Acknowledgments 110
Bibliography
Related GAO Products
Tables Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5: Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Selected Major Environmental Research and Monitoring
Networks and Programsa
Ten Challenges Most Frequently Cited as Major or
Moderate by Survey Respondents
Ten Criteria Used to Select Indicators Most Frequently
Cited by Survey Respondents
Sufficiency of Current Environmental Data to Support
Three Major National Indicator Sets
Summary of Survey Participants
Environmental Indicator Sets Selected for Case Study
Review
Major Pieces of Legislation to Address Federal
Environmental Data and Indicator Issues, 1970-2004
Selected Congressional Hearings Addressing Federal
Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues,
1970-2004
Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal
Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues
12
22
25
32 47
49
84
88 90 102
Table 10: Direct Funding for Major Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources Statistical Programs
Figures Figure 1: Nitrate Load Carried by Major Rivers 9 Figure 2:
Historical Wildfires in California, 1950 to 1997 10 Figure 3: Ten Purposes
for the Development of Environmental
Indicator Sets Most Frequently Cited by Survey Respondents 16 Figure 4:
Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive Environmental
Information 30 31
Contents
Figure 5: The State of the Nation's Ecosystems Report 60 Figure 6: Draft
National Coastal Condition Report II 63 Figure 7: The State of the
Chesapeake Bay Report 66 Figure 8: State of the Great Lakes Report 69
Figure 9: The Strategic Conservation Agenda Report 72 Figure 10:
Environmental Protection Indicators for California
Report 75 Figure 11: Jacksonville's 2003 Quality of Life Progress Report
78 Figure 12: West Oakland's Neighborhood Knowledge for Change
Report 81
Abbreviations
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
Contents
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
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. However, 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.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
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.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.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.
1It 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.
2In 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.
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:
o 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).
o 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.
o 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).
o 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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
Sources: The Heinz Center; USGS (data).
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
Area burned (thousands of acres) 1,000
800
600
400
200 0 1950
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Annual wildfire area Five-year moving average
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Organizations have developed and used indicator sets to address a broad
array of economic, social, and environmental issues.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.
3Many 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).
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
Primary federal Program name agencies Primary authority
Coastal Change Analysis Program NOAA NOAA Authorization Act of 1992
Gap Analysis Program USGS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
National Wetlands Inventory FWS Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986
Breeding Bird Survey USGS Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Clean Air Status and Trends Network EPA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program EPA Clean Water Act
Forest Health Monitoring EPA and Forest Forest Ecosystem and Atmospheric
Pollution Research Service Act of 1988
Forest Inventory Analysis Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Research Act of 1978, as amended by the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998
National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National USGS Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 Trends Network
National Air Monitoring System/State and EPA Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 Local/Photochemical Air Monitoring System
National Stream Quality Accounting Network USGS USGS Organic Act
National Stream Gauging Network USGS USGS Organic Act
National Resources Inventory NRCS Rural Development Act of 1972
National Status and Trends NOAA Marine Protected Resources and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended
NMFS marine mammal stock assessments NOAA and NMFS Marine Mammal
Protection Act Amendments of 1994
Remote Automated Weather System Multiagency Federal agency land management
authorities
Snowpack Telemetry NRCS Pub. L. No. 74-46
Agricultural Research Service USDA USDA research authorities (e.g., 7
U.S.C. S: 1010)
USDA Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Forest and rangeland sites Resources Research
Act of 1978
Long-term ecological research NSF National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended
National Park Ecological NPS NPS Organic Act
Monitoring Program
Coastal Ocean Program NOAA NOAA Authorization Act of 1992
National Marine Sanctuary NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries
Amendments Act of 2000
Hydrologic Benchmark Network USGS USGS Organic Act
National Water Quality Assessment USGS USGS Organic Act
Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical USGS
Budgets Program Global Change Research Act of 1990
Source: GAO analysis of National Science and Technology Council data.
aNetworks and programs in this list were drawn from an inventory
originally reported by the National Science and Technology Council in
1997.
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.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.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.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
4National 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).
5National 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).
6Effective May 15, 2000, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act
(Pub. L. No. 104-66, S: 3003) terminated the CEQ reporting requirement
that had appeared in the National Environmental Policy Act.
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).7
7See appendix I for a more thorough description of our survey methodology
and its limitations.
Figure 3: Ten Purposes for the Development of Environmental Indicator Sets
Most Frequently Cited by Survey Respondents
Number of responses
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Assess Educate the Raise Communicate Track Prioritize Address Research
Evaluate Develop conditions audience awareness complex progress issues
data gaps needs program strategic and trends issues toward goals
performance plans
Purpose for development
Source: GAO.
Note: Results out of a possible total of 42 responses.
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.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.
8P.L. 105-391 (1998).
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.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:
o 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.
o 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.
9Note 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.
o 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,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.
o 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.
10The 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. S: 1315(b).
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.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.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
11For a recent example, see Jacksonville Community Council Inc., Making
Jacksonville a Clean City (Jacksonville, Florida; spring 2002).
12GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
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 A number of challenges face developers and users of
environmental
indicator sets. Selecting from a broad range of issues, survey
respondentsFacing the most frequently cited the 10 issues presented in
table 2 as major or Development and Use moderate challenges.
of Environmental
Indicator Sets
Table 2: Ten Challenges Most Frequently Cited as Major or Moderate by
Survey Respondents
Number of responses
Challenge Major Moderate Total
Obtaining data of sufficient quality 22 14
Obtaining data of appropriate geographic scope 19 13
Selecting sufficient indicators 15 16
Obtaining needed funds 15 13
Clearly defining the phenomena to be 12 12
measured
Determining the criteria for selecting 5 18
indicators
Staff with necessary expertise 7 15
Clearly defining the purpose of the indicator 4 18
set
Clearly defining the intended use of the set 4 17
Determining the conceptual framework to use 5 15
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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 Number of responses
Measurable
Relevant
Appropriate geographic scale
Understandable
Data available
Data quality
Importance
Appropriate temporal scale
Data comparability
Trend data available
Source: GAO.
Note: Results out of a possible total of 42 responses.
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.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
13GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency, GAO-01-257 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1, 2001).
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.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.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.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.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.
14See 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).
15GAO, Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection
Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions, GAO-04-382 (Washington, D.C.:
June 7, 2004).
16Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The First
Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.;
1970).
17William 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).
This page intentionally left blank
Figure 4: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
Source: GAO.
Note: Refer to appendix IV for a description of legislation, hearings, and
reports.
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.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
Number of Indicators with Indicators with
Indicator set indicators sufficient data insufficient data
The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems 103 58 (56%) 45 (44%)
Draft Report on the
Environment 2003 146 44 (30%) 102 (70%)
National Report on
Sustainable
Forests-2003 67 8 (12%) 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.
18An 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.
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 statelevel 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 forestdependent 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.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 sets20 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
1942 U.S.C. 4321.
20These 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.
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:
o designing an information architecture using the best available
information technology;
o providing leadership, vision, and overall scope;
o providing guidance and coordination with regard to environmental
indicator development and use;
o assisting in environmental indicator selection, development,
improvements, and evaluation;
o 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);
o organizing statistical compilation and reporting (connecting data to
environmental indicator sets);
o 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;
o interpreting environmental indicators for planning, policy, management,
and communication purposes; and
o 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.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.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.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.24 In November 2001, at the
direction
21GAO, The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven, GAO/GGD-97-109 (Washington, D.C.: June 2,
1997).
22GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
23GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency, GAO-01-257 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1, 2001).
24EPA 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).
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.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
25As 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).
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 2003,26 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
26GAO-03-112, 4.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
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.
John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources
and Environment
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 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
onEnvironmental four geographic scales-national, regional, state, and
local. Forty-eight Indicator Sets 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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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 National Regional State Local Total
Indicator sets
Indicator sets identified for survey 17 8 14 13
Indicator sets represented by a 15 4 7 13 completed survey
Practitioners
Practitioners identified for survey 28 14 23 22
Practitioners that responded to the 20 6 9 14
survey
Developer 8 3 3 5 19
User 2 1 3 1 7
Both 10 2 3 8 23
Source: GAO.
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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Table 6: Environmental Indicator Sets Selected for Case Study Review
Case study name Geographic scale
The Heinz Center's State of the Nation's Ecosystems National
EPA's National Coastal Assessment National
Chesapeake Bay Program Regional
Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Regional
Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources Strategic State Conservation
Agenda
Environmental Protection Indicators for California State
Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida Local
Environmental Indicators Project, West Oakland, California Local
Source: GAO.
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:
o balance of expertise (e.g., managers, data gathering, developers,
users, scientists, researchers, and policymakers);
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
o balance of knowledge across various disciplines (e.g., natural
resources, ecology, and agriculture); and
o 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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
During the meeting, experts participated in roundtable sessions and
breakout groups to discuss the following:
o Why are organizations developing and using environmental indicator sets
and what impacts are these sets having in the United States?
o What significant scientific, environmental data, communication, and
institutional challenges hinder the development and use of environmental
indicator sets?
o 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.
Appendix II
Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by Experts
Indicator set Web site Scale
initiative
EPA-Draft
Report on the
Environment http://www.epa.gov/indicators/ National
Sustainable
Minerals http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/ National
Roundtable
Sustainable
Water http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr/ National
Resources
Roundtable
Roundtable on
Sustainable http://www.sustainableforests.net/info.php National
Forests
Sustainable
Rangelands http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.edu/ National
Roundtable
State of the
Nation's http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/ National
Ecosystems
Ecological
Monitoring National
and
Assessment http://www.epa.gov/emap/
Program
Ecological
Indicators http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9720.html National
for the
Nation
Index of
Watershed http://www.epa.gov/iwi/ National
Indicators
Chemical and
Pesticide http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/CAPRM/ National
Results
Measures
Waste
Indicator
System for http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/WISE/ National
the
Environment
America's
Children and http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/ National
the
Environment
National
Report on National
Human
Exposure to http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Environmental
Chemicals
Index of
Leading http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.407/book_detail.asp National
Environmental
Indicators
Agricultural
Resource and National
Environmental http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/
Indicators
Sustainable Development in the United States
http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/pcsd/ National
Environmental
Public Health http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/default.htm National
Indicators
Risk-Screening
Environmental http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/ National
Indicators
The Status and
Trends of Our National
Nation's http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/index.htm
Biological
Resources
National Coastal National
Condition Report http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/
The Status of Biodiversity in the United States http://www.natureserve.org
National
National
Estuarine http://nerrs.noaa.gov/ National
Reserves
System Wide
Monitoring
Program
National
Coastal National
Management
Performance http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/
Measurement
System
National Park
Service-Vital http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/index.htm National
Signs Program
Relative Sea http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-233/ppvariables.htm National
Level Trends
U.S. Land National
Cover Trends http://gam.usgs.gov/LandUseDynamics/ludatacollection.shtml
Forest Health Monitoring Vegetation Indicator
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/briefs/fhm99/fhm99.htm National Pilot Program
Chesapeake Bay Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net Regional
State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
Regional Conference
Appendix II Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by Experts
(Continued From Previous Page)
Indicator set initiative Web site Scale
Environmental Indicators in the Estuarine http://www.aceinc.org/ Regional
Environment
Environmental Health Indicators for the U.S.-
http://www.fep.paho.org/english/env/Indicadores/IndSA.htm Regional Mexico
Border
New England
Environmental http://www.gmied.org Regional
Goals and
Indicators Project
Western Regional http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Regional
Climate Center
Puget
Sound/Georgia
Basin Ecosystem http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0201002.html Regional
Indicators
Southeastern
Louisiana Top 10
by 2010 http://www.top10by2010.org/ Regional
Indicators Report
North State
(California) Vital http://www.mcconnellfoundation.org/ Regional
Signs
Mid-Atlantic
Integrated http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/ Regional
Assessment
South
Florida/Everglades
Comprehensive http://www.evergladesplan.org/ Regional
Ecosystem
Restoration Plan
Tennessee Valley
Authority Vital
Signs http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/envreports/index.htm Regional
Program
Pacific Northwest
Salmon Habitat
Indicators http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/99301.html Regional
Aquatic Habitat Indicators for the Pacific
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ecocomm.nsf/0/74476bae1ae7e9fb88256 Regional
Northwest b5f00598b43?OpenDocument
Tampa Bay Estuary Program Baywide http://www.tbep.org/baystate/bemr.html
Regional Environmental Monitoring Report
Ecosystem Indicators for the Lake Champlain
http://www.uvm.edu/envnr/indicators/ Regional Basin Program
Environmental Protection Indicators for
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/ State California
Minnesota Environmental Indicators
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eii/index.html State
Minnesota Strategic Conservation Agenda
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/conservationagenda/index.html State
Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Initiative
http://www.centex-indicators.org/ State
Pennsylvania Environmental Futures
Planning http://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/efp2/PDF_ICF_EFP2X/priorities.
State htm
State of the Texas Environment Report http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/ State
Texas Index of Leading Environmental
http://www.texaspolicy.com/research_reports.php?report_id=143&loc_ State
Indicators 2000 id=1
Texas
Environmental http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/ State
Almanac
Water for Texas http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_Plan/ State
2002/FinalWaterPlan2002.htm
Utah Air
Monitoring-Mobile http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/amc.htm State
Sources
Ambient Air
Monitoring http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/qa/monprog.html State
Program
Minnesota http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/ State
Milestones
Oregon Shines http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/os.shtml State
Appendix II Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by Experts
(Continued From Previous Page)
Indicator set Web site Scale
initiative
Florida
Assessment of http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FACT/ State
Coastal
Trends
Washington
Department of http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ State
Ecology
Oregon State
of the http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/soer2000index.shtml State
Environment
Report
State of
Kentucky's http://www.eqc.ky.gov/pubs/soke/ State
Environment
Illinois
Department of State
Environmental
Quality http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/NRRC/balancedgrowth/indicators.htm
indicators
Indicators of
Livable
Communities http://www.mdf.org/megc/pubs/livable_communities.htm State
Environmental Indicators for Delaware Estuary
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/jan02/envindicator.html State
Oregon's First Approximation
Report http://www.oregonforestry.org/sustainability/first_approximation_report.
State htm
Sustainable Development Indicators for
http://www.paconsortium.state.pa.us/pointing_pa_sustainable_future. State
Pennsylvania htm
New Jersey Hudson Bay Environmental
http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/harborh.htm State Indicators
Initiatives
Everglades Comprehensive Annual Report http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/everglades/
Local
The State of the Bay-a Characterization of
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/topdoc/pd/020/02-Local the Galveston
Bay Ecosystem 04/galvestonbay.html
Index of Silicon Valley http://www.jointventure.org/resources/2002Index/ Local
Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan http://santa-monica.org/epd/scp/ Local
Current Status and Historical Trends http://www.sci.tamucc.edu/ccs/ Local
of
Selected Estuarine and Coastal
Habitats in
Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary
Program
Study Area
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable http://www.bayareaalliance.org/ Local
Communities
Bay Institute http://www.bay.org/main.htm Local
Bay Area EcoAtlas and Pulse of the Bay report http://www.sfei.org/ Local
Mecklenburg County State of the Environment
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/LUESA/Water+and+Land+ Local Report
Resources/State+of+the+Environment+Report.htm
Sustainable Seattle-Indicators of Sustainable
http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Publications/40indicators.shtml Local
Community
Legacy
2002-Greater http://www.hcbs.org/moreInfo.php/source/62/sby/Author/doc/251/ Local
Orlando
Indicators Legacy_2002_-_Greater_Orlando_Indicator's_Report_-
Report
Sierra Nevada http://www.sbcouncil.org/wealth.htm Local
Wealth Index
Sustainable
Nantucket-a Local
Compass for The http://indicators.sustainablenantucket.org/intro.cfm
Future
Community-based
Environmental Local
Health http://www.naccho.org/general955.cfm
Assessment
Program
Multnomah County-Benchmarks
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=39665&c=27347 Local
Valley Vision (California)
http://www.calregions.org/civic/partners/mid-vvr.html Local
King County Benchmarks http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/benchmrk/bench03/
Local
Appendix II Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by Experts
(Continued From Previous Page)
Indicator set initiative Web site Scale
State of Boston Harbor http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/2002-09.htm Local
West Oakland-Environmental Indicators http://www.neip.org/ Local
Jacksonville Community Council Inc. Quality of http://www.jcci.org Local
Life Indicators
Source: GAO.
Note: Web addresses are current as of August 10, 2004.
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Figure 5: The State of the Nation's Ecosystems Report
Source: The Heinz Center.
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
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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).
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Figure 6: Draft National Coastal Condition Report II
Sources: EPA, NOAA, and the Department of the Interior.
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
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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).
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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).
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Figure 7: The State of the Chesapeake Bay Report
Source: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
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
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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).
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Figure 8: State of the Great Lakes Report
Sources: EPA and Environment Canada.
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
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Figure 9: The Strategic Conservation Agenda Report
Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Sources: California EPA and California Resources Agency.
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Source: Jacksonville Community Council Inc.
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
Source: Pacific Institute.
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 communitybased 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
Appendix III Environmental Indicator Set Case Study Profiles
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.
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 Table 7 presents selected Congressional bills
introduced since 1970 that Address Federal deal with significant
challenges involving federal environmental data Environmental Data and
management and indicator development. While Congress has been
examining how best to address these challenges for some time, legislative
Indicator Issues 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.
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
Table 7: Major Pieces of Legislation to Address Federal Environmental Data
and Indicator Issues, 1970-2004
Year
introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
H.R. Would amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to create a
Passed House and referred to
17436 National Environmental Data System to serve as the central national
the Senate Committee on coordinating facility for the storage, analysis,
and retrieval of Commerce 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.
H.R. Similar to H.R. 17436. Would amend the Hearing before the
National Environmental Policy
18141 Act of 1969 to provide for a National Subcommittee on Fisheries
Environmental Data Bank for all
data relating to the environment. and Wildlife Conservation,
House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries
H.R. 56 Would create a National Environmental Data System that would
provide Pocket Veto by President for the development and utilization of
information needed to support Richard Nixon 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.
H.R. 5958 Would establish a National Commission on Environmental
Monitoring to Referred to subcommittees of (1) investigate and study the
nation's environmental monitoring programs House Committee on Merchant and
those international monitoring programs in which the United States Marine
and Fisheries and participates; (2) recommend to Congress and the
President a plan to House Committee on Science improve environmental
monitoring; and (3) advise and assist in the and Technology preparation of
an environmental monitoring report.
H.R. 3847 Would redesignate the Environmental Protection Agency as the
Passed House and referred to Department of Environmental Protection and
establish within it a Bureau Senate Committee on of Environmental
Statistics. Would require the Secretary of the Governmental Affairs
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.
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
(Continued From Previous Page)
Year
introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
H.R. 3904 Would establish the National Environmental Institute Commission
to (1) Referred to Subcommittee on make recommendations to the President
and Congress for the Natural Resources, Agricultural establishment of a
National Environmental Institute, a Bureau of Research, and Environment,
Environmental Information and Statistics, and an organization to House
Committee on Science, examine public policies that affect the environment;
and (2) identify areas Space, and Technology of research that require
long-term efforts to mitigate serious risk to the environment.
S. 2006 Would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level
Placed on Senate Calendar 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.
S. 533 Would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level
Passed Senate and referred to status and rename the agency as the
Department of the Environment. the House Committee on Would establish a
Bureau of Environmental Statistics within the Government Operations
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.
S. 2132 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.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearing
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
(Continued From Previous Page)
Year
introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
H.R. 109 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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, House
Committee on Government Operations
H.R. 3425 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.
Failed on House floor
S. 171 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.
Passed Senate; not voted upon in House
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
(Continued From Previous Page)
Year
introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
H.R. 4757 Would require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
an Referred to Subcommittee on integrated environmental reporting system,
including a National Health and Environment, Environmental Data Model that
describes the major data types, House Committee on significant attributes,
and interrelationships common to activities carried Transportation and out
by the Administrator or state, tribal, and local agencies (including
Infrastructure 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.
H.R. 5422 Similar to H.R. 4757, but with some modifications. For example,
H.R. Referred to Subcommittee on
5422 contained an authorization of appropriations. Health and
Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
H.R. 2694 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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs, House Committee on Government Reform
H.R. 2138 Similar to H.R. 2694. In addition, would require the bureau to
(1) prepare House Committee on and submit to Congress and the department
an annual report on Government Reform held environmental conditions and
public health conditions, using, to the hearing 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.
Source: GAO.
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
Selected Congressional Table 8 highlights congressional hearings since
1970 that have addressed Hearings Addressing one or more salient aspects
of the federal environmental information Federal Environmental Data
management challenge. As the table indicates, emphasis has shifted over
time from creating a data bank centralizing all federal environmentaland
Indicator Management information to the creation of a federal statistical
agency that would be Issues 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 Committee Related bills Hearing purpose and description
The purpose of the
Environmental Data House Committee on H.R. 17436 hearing was to examine a
proposed amendment to
the National
Bank, 1970 Merchant Marine H.R. 17779 Environmental Policy Act
and of 1969, which would
provide for
the establishment of a
Fisheries, H.R. 18141 National Environmental
Data Bank. The Data
Bank would serve as the
Subcommittee on central national
depository of all
information,
Fisheries and knowledge, and data
Wildlife relating to the
environment, including
information, knowledge
Conservation 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.
Environmental House Committee on The purpose of the hearing was to (1)
examine the existing monitoring
Monitoring, 1977 Science and efforts of the federal agencies
chiefly responsible for environmental
Technology, monitoring; and (2) investigate the
feasibility and practicality of
Subcommittee on the developing and implementing a
prototype monitoring system. The
Environment and the system could eventually be expanded
into a comprehensive national
Atmosphere or international monitoring program.
The purpose of the
Environmental House Committee on Draft bill hearing was to examine a
draft bill developed
after
the 1977 hearings on
Monitoring 2, 1978 Science and Environmental Monitoring.
The legislation would
establish a coordinated,
Technology, integrative, and
cooperative prototype
Subcommittee on management system of
the selected, diverse
environmental monitoring
activities as a possible
Environment and first step toward a
the national system to
improve
the effectiveness and
Atmosphere 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.
National House Committee on The purpose of the hearing was to
explore the condition of the nation's
Environmental Science and environmental monitoring programs and
(1) identify problems in
Monitoring, 1983 Technology, monitoring efforts, and (2) provide
recommendations that would lead
Subcommittee on to improvements in environmental
monitoring.
Natural Resources,
Agricultural
Research and
Environment
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
(Continued From Previous Page)
Hearing Committee Related Hearing purpose and
bills description
The purpose of the hearing
Environmental House Committee on Draft bill was to examine a draft
bill that would
create a commission to act
Monitoring Science and as the prime coordinating
body for the
nation's environmental
Improvement Act, Technology, monitoring efforts. The
charge of the
commission would be to
Subcommittee on clearly define the
operational changes and
the administrative
Natural Resources, coordination necessary to
assure that cost-effective
and statistically sound
Agricultural and reliable data are
available to support U.S.
Research and environmental policy
making.
Environment
The purpose of the hearing
Establish a House Committee on H.R. 3847 was to examine two bills
that would
elevate EPA to Cabinet
Department of Government status. One of the bills
(H.R. 3847) would
establish a Bureau of
Environmental Operations, Environmental Statistics,
which would make
accessible a standardized
Protection, 1989- Subcommittee on set of environmental
quality data to improve
the effectiveness and
Legislation and objectivity of central
environmental data
collection and analyses so
National Security 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.
The purpose of the hearing was
EPA Elevation, House Committee on H.R. 2694 to examine two bills that
would
elevate EPA to Cabinet status.
2001-2002 Government Reform, One of the bills (H.R. 2694)
would
establish a Bureau of
Subcommittee on Environmental Statistics to
provide
environmental quality and
Energy Policy, related public health and
economic
information and analyses to
Natural Resources meet the needs of the
department and
and Regulatory Congress.
Affairs
Source: GAO.
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
Selected Academic Reports Table 9 highlights a few of the most significant
academic reports analyzing Addressing Federal federal environmental
information management since 1970. Collectively, Environmental Data and
these reports clearly indicate that most of the significant information
challenges have long been recognized. Our report makes
recommendationsIndicator Management that, if implemented, would begin to
address these long-standingIssues challenges.
Table 9: Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal Environmental Data
and Indicator Management Issues
Year Name of organization Description Citation
1970 Reported that the United National Academy of
National Academy of States cannot Sciences, Institutions
Sciences effectively manage the for Effective
environment without Management of the
knowing what it is, what Environment, report
it was, and what it can (part 1) of the
be. Recommended giving Environmental Study
the highest priority to Group to the
developing a centralized Environmental Studies
comprehensive federal Board of the National
program for monitoring Academy of Sciences,
the environment, National Academy of
incorporating Engineering,
environmental quality (Washington, D.C.;
indices. January
1970).
Reported that the nation had The Conservation
1982 The Conservation made progress in Foundation, State of
the
its attack on some conventional Environment 1982
Foundation environmental (Washington, D.C.;
1982).
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.
1988 Paul Portney, Resources for Recommended the creation of a Bureau of
Paul Portney, "Reforming Environmental
the Future Environmental Statistics because the U.S. does Regulation:
Three Modest Proposals," not adequately collect, analyze, and Columbia
Journal of Environmental Law, vol. disseminate information about
environmental 13 (1988). conditions and trends. Environmental data are
also not collected in a systematic way to make it useful to interested
parties.
1997 National Science Proposed a conceptual National Science and
and framework for Technology Council,
Technology Council integrating the nation's Integrating the
environmental research Nation's Environmental
and monitoring networks to Monitoring and Research
deliver scientific Networks and
data and information Programs: A Proposed
needed to produce Framework, a report
integrated environmental by the Committee on
assessments and Environment and
enhance understanding, Natural Resources
evaluation, and (Washington, D.C.;
March
forecasting of natural
resources. 1997).
Appendix IV Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive
Environmental Information
(Continued From Previous Page)
Year Name of organization Description Citation
National Advisory Reported that EPA National Advisory
1998 Council information systems do not Council for
Environmental
for Environmental provide sufficient, Policy and Technology,
Policy appropriate, or accurate EPA-Managing
information to (1) inform Information as a
and Technology decision making, (2) Strategic Resource:
Final
ensure accountability, or Report and
(3) document results Recommendations of the
and achievements. However, Information Impacts
the systems have Committee, EPA 100-R-
for the most part satisfied 98-002 (Washington,
regulatory D.C.; January 1998).
requirements for collecting
environmental
information.
1999 National Research Addresses the question of National Research
Council whether the U.S. Council, Nature's
National Income and Numbers: Expanding the
Product Accounts should National Economic
be broadened to include Accounts to Include the
activities involving Environment
natural resources and the (Washington, D.C.;
environment. National Academy Press,
Concludes that the 1999)
development of
environmental and natural
resource accounts is
an essential investment
for the nation.
National Council Reported that the National Council for
2000 for Science fragmented Science and the
administrative
and the Environment jurisdictions among Environment,
federal agencies charged Recommendations for
with environmental Improving the Scientific
stewardship compound Basis for
difficulties in Environmental
coordinating Decisionmaking, report
environmental from
research and in the first National
communicating scientific Conference on Science,
results to decision Policy and the
makers and the public. Environment (Washington,
Changes in governmental D.C.; December 2000).
institutions could
significantly improve
efficiency and
communication among
scientists and between
scientists and decision
makers.
2002 EPA Science Reported that many scientists, U.S. Environmental
Advisory most decision Protection Agency,
Board makers, and nearly all members of Science Advisory Board,
the public A Framework for
still have little understanding Assessing and Reporting
of the "health" or on Ecological
integrity of the nation's Condition: An SAB
ecological systems. Report (Washington,
Recommended EPA would benefit D.C.; June 2002).
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.
Source: GAO.
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."1
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.2 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 1999.3
1United Nations, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
Agenda 21 (1992).
2KPMG, KPMG Global Sustainability Services, KPMG International Survey of
Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002 (De Meern, The Netherlands; June
2002).
3Corporate Social Responsibility Network, The State of Global
Environmental and Social Reporting, (Shrewsbury, United Kingdom; 2001).
Appendix V
Environmental Reporting by Private and
Public Organizations
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.4 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
4World 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).
Appendix V
Environmental Reporting by Private and
Public Organizations
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.5
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
5KPMG, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting
2002.
Appendix V
Environmental Reporting by Private and
Public Organizations
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.
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.
o 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
Appendix VI
Accounting for the Environment
resource use and minimize waste generation while considering the potential
economic effects of such policies.
o 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.
o 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 There are several efforts under way to develop environmental
accounts by Environmental Accounts governments and nongovernmental
organizations. A recent report Recognized around the identifies 19
countries that are developing some type of environmental
accounts in their statistical offices or other government ministries.1
Also,
World the United Nations, along with other international organizations,
has developed guidelines to be used by both national and international
agencies for compiling environmental accounts.2
1G. Lange, Policy Applications of Environmental Accounting, Paper 88,
World Bank Environmental Economic Series (Washington, D.C.; January 2003).
2United Nations, Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003:
Handbook of National Accounting (1992).
Appendix VI
Accounting for the Environment
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.3 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,
3CSERA was first published in 1997, then again in 2000, and updates are
planned for 2004.
Appendix VI
Accounting for the Environment
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 1999,4 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.
4National Research Council, Nature's Numbers: Expanding the National
Economic Accounts to Include the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1999).
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 1995.1 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 programs2 in
Statistical Programs of the United States Government, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act.3 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
1National 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).
2OMB 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.
3Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. S:3504(e)(2).
Appendix VII
The Uncertain Cost of Environmental
Information
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.
Appendix VII
The Uncertain Cost of Environmental
Information
Table 10: Direct Funding for Major Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources Statistical Programs
Millions of dollars
Fiscal years
Agency 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Forest Service 19 14 23 29
Natural Resources
Conservation Service 107 107 108 113 111
NOAA 49 53 54 87
Office of Environment,
Safety, and Health 24 24 24 33
Energy Information
Administration 66 70 72 78
National Institute on
Environmental Health
Sciences 26 30 39 56
Fish and Wildlife Service 6 3 4 9
Minerals Management
Service 2 2 3 3
National Park Service 2 2 2 2
Bureau of Reclamation 2 3 3 3
U.S. Geological Survey 64 60 73 83
Environmental Protection
Agency 144 192 202 174 148
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration 17 17 17 17
Total for major
environment, energy, and
natural resources
statistical programs 528 577 624 687 671
Total for all federal
statistical activities 3,205 4,167 7,755 4,179 4,212
Source: OMB.
Note: Totals reflect actual appropriations.
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
Appendix VII
The Uncertain Cost of Environmental
Information
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.
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.
o 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.
o The Office of Management and Budget should hold a hearing to receive
feedback from agencies on the Program Assessment Rating Tool.
o Congress should charge GAO or the Congressional Research Service with
an annual review of environmental indicators, their adequacy, and utility.
o 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.
o 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.
o Congress should charge an entity with starting the process of
coordinating environmental information and developing and compiling
existing and past environmental indicator efforts.
o 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.
o 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
Appendix VIII Selected Options
data. Portal developers should ensure linked data are compliant with
current Federal Geographic Data Committee standards.
o Congress should continue to support ongoing federal partnerships
promoting integration of environmental data and interagency work on
developing standards to ensure data interoperability.
Appendix IX
Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality
Appendix IX
Comments from the Council on
Environmental Quality
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 Ed Kratzer, (202) 512-6553
Staff Key contributions to this report were made by Nancy Bowser, Chase
Huntley, Richard Johnson, Kerry Lipsitz, Jonathan McMurray, Mark
Acknowledgments Metcalfe, and Nathan Morris. Also contributing to this
report were Jonathan Dent, Evan Gilman, Scott Heacock, R. Denton Herring,
Kim Raheb, and Greg Wilmoth.
Bibliography
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
Bibliography
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
Bibliography
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
Bibliography
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-02009.
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.
Related GAO Products
Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA's
Position and Progress. GAO-05-01. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2004.
Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts
Needed to Support Key Decisions. 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. 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. GAO-03-515. Washington, D.C.:
April 30, 2003.
Environmental Protection: Observations on Elevating the Environmental
Protection Agency to Cabinet Status. GAO-02-552T. Washington, D.C.: March
21, 2002.
Environmental Information: EPA Needs Better Information to Manage Risks
and Measure Results. GAO-01-97T. Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2000.
Environmental Information: EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve Information
Management, but Challenges Remain. 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. GAO/RCED-91-97. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1991.
Environmental Protection Agency: Protecting Human Health and the
Environment through Improved Management. GAO/RCED-88-101. Washington,
D.C.: August 16, 1988.
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and 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 The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***