a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL 

INDICATORS

Better Coordination Is 

Needed to Develop 

Environmental 

Indicator Sets That 

Inform Decisions

GAO-05-52
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-52.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John B. 

Stephenson at (202) 512-6225 or 

stephensonj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-52, a report to 

congressional requesters 

November 2004

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop 

Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform 

Decisions 

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. 

Environmental indicator sets 

assemble quantitative measures of 

conditions and trends (known as 

indicators) to assess the state of 

the environment and natural 

resources and to gauge progress 

toward specific goals. Such sets 

are now being developed to bridge 

the gap between needed and 

available information and to 

prioritize further data collection. 

The widespread development and 

use of environmental indicator sets 

has led federal and nonfederal 

entities to consider the benefits 

such sets provide when measuring 

performance and improving 

oversight of environmental 

programs. In this context, GAO was 

asked to identify (1) the purposes 

for which federal and nonfederal 

organizations are developing and 

using environmental indicator sets, 

and how they are being used; and 

(2) the major challenges facing the 

development and use of 

environmental indicator sets. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Chair of 

CEQ develop institutional 

arrangements needed to ensure a 

concerted, systematic, and stable 

approach to the development, 

coordination, and integration of 

environmental indicator sets. 

Moreover, GAO recommends that 

the EPA Administrator establish 

clear lines of responsibility and 

accountability and identify specific 

requirements for developing and 

using indicators. CEQ and EPA 

generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

Environmental Indicator Sets Are Developed for a Variety of 

Purposes, and Users Generally Report Positive Impacts 14

Major Challenges Facing the Development and Use of 

Environmental Indicator Sets 21

Conclusions 40

Recommendations for Executive Action 42

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 43

Appendixes

Appendix I: 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

Appendix II: Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives Identified by 

Experts 54

Appendix III: 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

Appendix IV: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information 83

Appendix V: Environmental Reporting by Private and Public 

Organizations 92

Appendix VI: Accounting for the Environment 96

Appendix VII: The Uncertain Cost of Environmental Information 100

Appendix VIII: Selected Options 104
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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 111

Related GAO Products 115

Tables Table 1: Selected Major Environmental Research and Monitoring 

Networks and Programsa 12

Table 2: Ten Challenges Most Frequently Cited as Major or 

Moderate by Survey Respondents 22

Table 3: Ten Criteria Used to Select Indicators Most Frequently 

Cited by Survey Respondents 25

Table 4: Sufficiency of Current Environmental Data to Support 

Three Major National Indicator Sets 32

Table 5: Summary of Survey Participants 47

Table 6: Environmental Indicator Sets Selected for Case Study 

Review 49

Table 7: Major Pieces of Legislation to Address Federal 

Environmental Data and Indicator Issues, 1970-2004 84

Table 8: Selected Congressional Hearings Addressing Federal 

Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues, 

1970-2004 88

Table 9: Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal 

Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues 90

Table 10: Direct Funding for Major Environment, Energy, and 

Natural Resources Statistical Programs 102

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

Page iii GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page iv GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 1 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 17, 2004 Letr

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 
Page 2 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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. 

1

It is difficult to determine exactly what the federal government spends each year on 

environmental information. Although the Office of Management and Budget annually 

publishes funding for natural resource, energy, and environmental statistics in Statistical 

Programs of the United States Government, we were not able to disaggregate the totals by 

program. Moreover, the National Science and Technology Council reported in 1997 that, in 

fiscal year 1995, the federal government spent about $650 million on environmental research 

and monitoring networks and programs, but that assessment has not been updated. See 

appendix VII for more information. 

2

In addition, there are several governmentwide requirements that affect environmental data 

management. For example, the Information Quality Act requires the Office of Management 

and Budget to provide guidance to federal agencies for maximizing the quality of 

information they disseminate.
Page 3 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Numerous public and private initiatives are now developing sets of 

environmental indicators to bridge the gap between needed and available 

information and to prioritize further data collection. Environmental 

indicator sets assemble quantitative measures of conditions and trends to 

assess the state of the environment and natural resources and to gauge 

progress toward specific goals. In general, indicator sets are designed to 

provide environmental decision makers and the public with 

comprehensible information to assist developing strategic plans, setting 

priorities, and assessing which programs are, or are not, working well. 

The widespread development and use of environmental indicator sets has 

led Congress, federal agencies, states, local communities, and corporations 

to consider the possible uses for sets of environmental indicators, such as 

for measuring performance and improving oversight of environmental 

programs. In this context, you asked us to examine (1) the purposes for 

which federal and nonfederal organizations are developing and using 

environmental indicator sets, and how they are being used; and (2) the 

major challenges facing the development and use of environmental 

indicator sets. 

In addressing these objectives, we performed multiple lines of work:

• To identify a list of environmental indicator sets, we elicited the help of 

experts on environmental indicator set development. After conducting 

extensive Web and literature searches, conducting multiple background 

interviews, and following up with contacts made at professional 

conferences, we identified 48 experts. We then distributed a data 

collection instrument to these experts, asking them to specify (1) 

environmental indicator sets with which they were familiar that either 

were being developed or had been developed in the past 10 years, (2) 

states that had led or were leading the effort in developing and using 

environmental indicator sets, and (3) a contact person for each set. 

Twenty-three of the 48 experts responded. After combining duplicate 

responses and eliminating the responses that either did not meet our 

definition of an indicator set or could not be associated with enough 

information to locate a specific initiative, we developed a pool of 87 

environmental indicator sets identified by experts that formed the basis 

for this review (see app. II for the complete list). 

• To develop a list of environmental indicator set developers and users (or 

“practitioners”) for GAO to survey, we spoke with representatives of 

each of the 87 indicator sets identified by experts and asked them to 
Page 4 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

name a developer and a user to participate in our survey. This process 

yielded 87 practitioners, who collectively represented 52 of the indicator 

sets identified by experts. We then surveyed the practitioners, asking 

them to identify the primary characteristics of the indicator set, how it 

was developed, and how the set was being used. Forty-nine of the 87 

practitioners responded to our survey.

• To gain a better understanding of the mechanics of environmental 

indicator set development and use, we conducted in-depth case studies 

on 8 of the 87 identified environmental indicator sets: two sets for each 

of four geographic scales—national, regional, state, and local. We 

selected the sets on the basis of their perceived level of maturity 

(current and active) and the availability and accessibility of individuals 

involved in their development and use. We conducted semistructured 

interviews that allowed practitioners the opportunity to supply 

information on a wide range of issues relating to their involvement with 

the development and use of the environmental indicator set. We also 

reviewed relevant documents that pertained to the development and use 

of each of the environmental indicator sets. Based on the information 

gathered, we then drafted case study profiles and provided them to the 

appropriate program manager for review and comment (see app. III).

• To assess the current status of environmental indicator sets and their 

impact on policy decisions, we contracted with the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) to convene a 2-day meeting of selected authorities with 

expertise in the interaction between science and policy making and who 

were familiar with indicator set development and use. NAS staff helped 

us identify a pool of authorities from which we selected 26 who 

collectively provided the meeting with a balance of expertise, 

interdisciplinary knowledge, and cross-jurisdictional representation. 

The meeting centered on discussions of three broad topics: (1) the 

organizations developing environmental indicator sets and the impact of 

these sets across the nation; (2) significant challenges facing the 

development and use of environmental indicator sets; and (3) what 

remedies, if any, existed to confront or mitigate these challenges.

In developing our findings, we corroborated the evidence gathered across 

these lines of work. A more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology is presented in appendix I. The findings in this report are not 

intended to apply to all environmental indicator sets. General references to 

indicator sets in this report refer to the 47 sets that we reviewed in detail—

the 8 case studies and the 39 sets represented in our survey results. 
Page 5 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Furthermore, we did not independently assess the reliability of the data 

used in the 47 sets we reviewed because those data were not material to 

our findings. We conducted our work from June 2003 to October 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Federal and nonfederal organizations are developing and using 

environmental indicator sets for assessing conditions and trends, 

communicating complex issues, and supporting performance management 

activities. Various organizations in the United States—including 

government agencies, nonprofit groups, universities, and corporations—

have developed hundreds of environmental indicator sets. Some 

environmental indicator sets we reviewed are limited to political 

jurisdiction, such as county, state, or nation, while others are restricted to 

natural areas, such as watersheds, lake basins, or ecosystems. Some 

address specific resources, such as water quality or land use, while others 

focus on quality of life issues or sustainable development. For instance, the 

indicators reported through the Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem 

Conferences encompass the entire Great Lakes watershed—including 

aquatic, coastal, and terrestrial components, as well as human health and 

societal issues. In other cases, cities such as New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and 

Seattle have developed indicator sets that focus on broader issues that 

include economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental quality to 

measure and sustain the quality of life for the citizens in the community. 

The indicator sets we reviewed are primarily used to assist in strategic 

planning efforts, communicate complex environmental issues, and track 

progress toward environmental goals. 

Whereas many challenges that inhibit the development of useful sets of 

environmental indicators are unique to the individual sets being developed, 

developers face several common challenges. Indicator set developers 

reported the following common challenges: 

• Ensuring that a sound process is used to develop the indicator sets. 

Developers reported that creating an indicator set can be an intensely 

political process that challenges both the credibility and relevance of a 

set. Indicator sets we reviewed largely relied on collaborative processes 

to balance the various interests. Such processes define the purpose and 

intended use of the indicator set, determine the conceptual models—

sets of qualitative assumptions to describe social, organizational, and 

natural systems—and criteria for selecting indicators, and selecting the 
Page 6 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

indicators themselves. Such processes are difficult to manage, but 

essential to ensure that a set is ultimately accepted and used. 

• Obtaining sufficient environmental data to report conditions and 

trends related to the indicators selected. Obtaining data for use in 

indicator sets can be difficult largely because long-standing limitations 

of federal environmental monitoring and data collection activities have 

not been resolved. Over half of the respondents to our survey identified 

obtaining data of sufficient quality as a major challenge to developing 

indicator sets. Indicator set developers and other experts noted that 

obtaining sufficient data on environmental conditions is difficult and 

costly because the many different organizations that collect data on the 

nation’s environment and natural resources do so for specific purposes 

in different forms or on different geographic scales, and thus cannot be 

readily integrated to support indicators. Sharing such data can have 

significant, and sometimes prohibitive, costs because transforming the 

data to suit the needs of another user would require data managers to 

divert already limited resources from other projects. Moreover, past 

GAO work has emphasized that the federal government’s current 

environmental information base suffers from data gaps between what is 

monitored and what needs to be monitored. Because of problems filling 

gaps in existing data and difficulties in integrating data from different 

databases, indicator set developers’ efforts to identify data of sufficient 

quality from existing data sources has met with limited success.

• Coordinating and integrating various related indicator sets to develop 

a more comprehensive understanding of the environment. Experts we 

interviewed noted that the federal government lacks an organizational 

framework to provide a consistent basis for working with international, 

state, or nongovernmental indicator initiatives. Federal environmental 

indicator set developers employ a wide range of approaches. As a result, 

significant analytical and technical differences inhibit integration of 

related sets or synthesis of the diverse range of sets to draw a 

comprehensive picture of the nation’s environment. Recognizing the 

need for coordination at the highest levels, the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) established an Interagency Working 

Group on Indicator Coordination in 2002 to coordinate and integrate the 

federal investment in environmental indicator sets. According to 

officials, the Working Group was created as an ad hoc organization 

within the Executive Office of the President, operating without explicit 

responsibility and authority to ensure the continued and full 

involvement, cooperation, and resources from other federal agencies. 
Page 7 GAO-05-52 Environmental 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. On the basis of our 

discussions, we believe that a number of organizational options exist 

and should be studied to determine the most appropriate option or 

combination of options for implementing key functions, such as guiding 

and coordinating the development and use of environmental indicators.

• Linking specific environmental management actions and program 

activities to changes in environmental conditions and trends.

Developers assembling environmental indicator sets to improve the 

performance of environmental management programs reported 

difficulty (1) accounting for relationships between management actions 

and other factors beyond the agency’s control that can potentially affect 

environmental changes and (2) addressing the time lag between 

management actions and achieved results. Such problems are consistent 

with GAO’s work on performance measurement in general, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular. Since our 1988 

report on EPA’s management, GAO has stressed numerous times that 

EPA place priority on developing indicators to guide the agency’s 

priority setting, strategic planning, and resource allocation. EPA’s 

Environmental Indicators Initiative illustrates the difficulties in 

developing a set of national environmental indicators useful for 

establishing priorities, allocating resources, and assessing results. Past 

efforts to develop and use environmental indicators by the agency 

underscore both the importance and difficulty of doing so, and the need 

for a focused, long-term commitment as changes occur in the agency’s 

senior management and priorities. These previous efforts have been 

hindered not only by technical difficulties in establishing linkages 

between program activities and changes in the environment, but also by 

changes in leadership within the agency and the lack of needed 

resources for monitoring the natural resources and the environment. 

Although a noteworthy step, EPA’s effort thus far has not functioned as a 

key component of an agencywide comprehensive approach for 

managing EPA’s work to achieve measurable results. EPA has not 

initiated or planned an institutional framework with clear lines of 

responsibility and accountability for developing and using 

environmental indicators, and no processes, procedures, or work plans 

exist to link the results of the initiative with EPA’s strategic planning and 

performance reporting cycle.
Page 8 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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. 
Page 9 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 1: Nitrate Load Carried by Major Rivers

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. 

Sources: The Heinz Center; USGS (data).
Page 10 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 2: Historical Wildfires in California, 1950 to 1997

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. 

3

Many organizations in the United States are developing comprehensive key indicator 

systems—organized, systematic efforts to produce selected economic, social, and 

environmental indicators—to assess position and progress toward specific goals. See GAO, 

Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA’s Position and 

Progress, GAO-05-01 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2004). 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

19501955196019651970197519801985199019952000

Year

Area burned (thousands of acres)

Annual wildfire area

Five-year moving average

Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Page 11 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 12 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Table 1: Selected Major Environmental Research and Monitoring Networks and Programsa

Source: GAO analysis of National Science and Technology Council data.

a

Networks and programs in this list were drawn from an inventory originally reported by the National 

Science and Technology Council in 1997.

Program name

Primary federal 

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 

Service

Forest Ecosystem and Atmospheric Pollution Research 

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 

Trends Network

USGS Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

National Air Monitoring System/State and 

Local/Photochemical Air Monitoring System

EPA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977

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. § 1010)

Forest and rangeland sites USDA Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research 

Act of 1978

Long-term ecological research NSF National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended

National Park Ecological Monitoring Program NPS NPS Organic Act

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 Budgets Program USGS Global Change Research Act of 1990 
Page 13 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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 

4

National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural 

Resources, Integrating the Nation’s Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks 

and Programs: A Proposed Framework (Washington, D.C.; March 1997).

5

National Council for Science and the Environment, Improving the Scientific Basis for 

Decisionmaking: A Report from the first National Conference on Science, Policy, and the 

Environment (Washington, D.C.; December 2000).

6

Effective May 15, 2000, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act (Pub. L. No. 104-66, 

§ 3003) terminated the CEQ reporting requirement that had appeared in the National 

Environmental Policy Act.
Page 14 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 15 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

 

7

See appendix I for a more thorough description of our survey methodology and its 

limitations.
Page 16 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 3: Ten Purposes for the Development of Environmental Indicator Sets Most Frequently Cited by Survey Respondents

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 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Track 

progress 

toward goals

Prioritize 

issues

Address 

data gaps

Communicate 

complex 

issues

Assess 

conditions 

and trends

Educate the 

audience

Raise 

awareness

Purpose for development

Source: GAO.

Number of responses

Research 

needs

Evaluate 

program 

performance

Develop 

strategic 

plans
Page 17 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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. 

8

P.L. 105-391 (1998).
Page 18 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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: 

• Experts called the Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem 

Conference (SOLEC) indicator set a key factor in identifying needed 

management approaches at the and served as a positive catalyst in 

promoting collaboration on key issues. In particular, the SOLEC 

indicator set helped influence the Fish and Wildlife Service decision to 

focus on the development of an ecosystem/watershed approach to 

environmental management for the Great Lakes that crosses multiple 

political boundaries.

• The ecological framework designed for the Heinz Center’s State of the 

Nation’s Ecosystems indicator set is used to inform the design of the 

ecological portion of the international Global Ocean Observing 

System—a major multinational initiative that is designed to observe, 

model, and analyze marine resources. In addition, the Heinz Center 

indicator set identified a number of missing or inadequate data needed 

to provide a complete picture of ecosystem condition, such as data to 

support an indicator measuring the biological condition of the soil in use 

as farmland. The center is working with federal, state, and local 

governmental, nongovernmental, and private organizations to call 

attention to the need for identifying priorities for filling data gaps and 

the need to fill these gaps.

9

Note that GAO did not attempt to independently evaluate the costs, benefits, or risks of 

developing and using indicator sets that accrue from the positive impacts reported by 

indicator set users.
Page 19 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

• 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.

• 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. § 

1315(b).
Page 20 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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).
Page 21 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

developing and refining their indicator sets helped staff identify and define 

environmental management goals to better manage for results. For 

instance, California EPA has traditionally assessed the success of its 

environmental programs based on measures of activities, such as the 

number of permits granted or notices of violations issued. The intent of 

developing environmental indicators at California EPA was to measure 

environmental results and to be able to use the indicators to support a 

results-based management system. The process of developing the 

indicators at California EPA brought various staff together to define issues 

and parameters to develop indicators that could be used to manage for 

results.

Nevertheless, it is not easy—or sometimes even possible—to measure the 

benefits of the sets that stem from these impacts. Developers reported that 

systematic monitoring of the effectiveness of environmental indicator sets 

and their benefits varies due in part to resource costs. Moreover, 

developers and users reported that environmental indicator sets 

themselves did not create change from which benefits could be measured; 

rather, they might influence environmental management activities and thus 

yield benefits from affecting the quality of a decision. However, such 

difficulties should not necessarily be seen as a precondition for developing 

and using indicator sets. Instead, these unanswered questions highlight the 

need for additional research on how to better gauge the return on the 

investment for organizations that have invested in indicator sets.

Major Challenges 

Facing the 

Development and Use 

of Environmental 

Indicator Sets

A number of challenges face developers and users of environmental 

indicator sets. Selecting from a broad range of issues, survey respondents 

most frequently cited the 10 issues presented in table 2 as major or 

moderate challenges. 
Page 22 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Table 2: Ten Challenges Most Frequently Cited as Major or Moderate by Survey 

Respondents

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: 

• Ensuring that a sound process is used to develop the indicator sets. 

Developers reported that support for an indicator set can be 

undermined if it is viewed as biased because of its association with a 

particular political perspective or leader. The process of developing an 

indicator set can be an intensely political process that challenges both 

the credibility and relevance of a set. Developers of the sets we 

reviewed largely relied on collaborative processes to define the purpose 

and intended use of the indicator set, determine the conceptual model 

and criteria for select indicators, and selecting the indicators 

themselves. Such processes are difficult to manage to ensure a set’s 

credibility and relevance.

• Obtaining sufficient environmental data to report conditions and 

trends related to the indicators selected. Over half of the respondents to 

Number of responses

Challenge Major Moderate Total

Obtaining data of sufficient quality 22 14 36

Obtaining data of appropriate geographic scope 19 13 32

Selecting sufficient indicators 15 16 31

Obtaining needed funds 15 13 28

Clearly defining the phenomena to be 

measured

12 12 24

Determining the criteria for selecting indicators 5 18 23

Staff with necessary expertise 7 15 22

Clearly defining the purpose of the indicator set 4 18 22

Clearly defining the intended use of the set 4 17 21

Determining the conceptual framework to use 5 15 20
Page 23 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

our survey identified obtaining data of sufficient quality as a major 

challenge to developing indicator sets. Indicator set developers and 

other experts noted that the many different organizations that collect 

data on the nation’s environment and natural resources do so for 

specific purposes in different forms or on different geographic scales.

• Coordinating and integrating various related indicator sets in order 

to obtain a better understanding of the environment. Experts that we 

interviewed noted the federal government lacks an organizational 

framework to provide a consistent basis for working with international, 

state, or nongovernmental indicator initiatives. Environmental indicator 

set developers employ a wide range of approaches. As a result, 

significant analytical and technical differences inhibit integration of 

related sets or synthesis of the diverse range of sets to draw a 

comprehensive picture of the nation’s environment. The White House 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recognized the need for 

coordination and established an Interagency Working Group on 

Indicator Coordination (Working Group) in 2002 to coordinate and 

integrate the federal investment in environmental indicator sets. 

• Linking specific environmental management actions and program 

activities to changes in environmental conditions and trends. 

Organizations that develop environmental indicator sets to improve the 

performance of environmental management programs can struggle with 

linking management actions and environmental conditions and trends 

and address the time lag between management actions and achieved 

results. EPA’s past efforts to develop and use environmental indicators 

underscore both the importance and difficulty of doing so, and the need 

for a focused, long-term commitment as the agency undergoes changes 

in management and priorities.

Ensuring a Sound Process 

to Develop Indicator Sets

Developers reported that support for an indicator set can be undermined if 

it is viewed as biased because of its association with a particular political 

perspective or leader. The process of developing an indicator set can be an 

intensely political process that challenges both the credibility and 

relevance of a set. When selecting one of the many indicators in a set, 

others are necessarily excluded because many indicator set developers 

strive to keep the number of indicators as small as possible. In some cases, 

that means an issue of interest to a particular stakeholder or user group 

does not get measured by the set. For example, the criteria used to select 

indicators for the Georgia Basin Puget Sound Ecosystem indicator set 
Page 24 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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). 
Page 25 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Table 3: Ten Criteria Used to Select Indicators Most Frequently Cited by Survey 

Respondents

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 

Criteria Number of responses

Measurable 35

Relevant 35

Appropriate geographic scale 34

Understandable 34

Data available 32

Data quality 31

Importance 28

Appropriate temporal scale 28

Data comparability 26

Trend data available 24
Page 26 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 27 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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).
Page 28 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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).
Page 29 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

This page intentionally left blank
Page 30 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 4: Selected Activities Identifying Need for More Comprehensive Environmental Information

Note: Refer to appendix IV for a description of legislation, hearings, and reports.

Hearing:

Environmental 

Monitoring

Legislation

Hearings and reports

'70s '80s 1970 1982 1983 1984 1988 1971 1977 1978

H.R. 17436H.R. 18141H.R. 56H.R. 5958

Hearing:

Environmental 

Monitoring 2

Report:

The Conservation 

Foundation

Hearing:

National 

Environmental 

Monitoring

Hearing:

Environmental 

Monitoring 

Improvement 

Act

Hearing:

Environmental 

Data Bank

Highlights Report by National Academy of Sciences:

Stated the United States cannot effectively manage the 

environment without knowing what it is, what it was, and 

what it can be. Recommended giving the highest priority to 

developing a centralized comprehensive federal program for 

monitoring the environment, and incorporating 

environmental quality indices. 

Article in Columbia Journal of Environmental Law:

Recommended the creation of a Bureau of Environmental 

Statistics because the United States does not adequately 

collect, analyze, and disseminate information about 

environmental conditions and trends. Environmental data is 

also not collected in a systematic way to make the data 

useful to interested parties. 

Indicates a break in time

Source: GAO.
Page 31 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Report:

National Advisory 

Council for 

Environmental 

Policy and 

Technology

Hearing:

Establish a 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

'90s 1990 1991 1993 1997 1998 2000s 2000 2001 2002 2003

S. 2006H.R. 3847

H.R. 3904S. 533S. 2132H.R. 109H.R. 3425

S. 171

H.R. 4757H.R. 5422H.R. 2694

H.R. 2138

Report:

National Council 

for Science and 

the Environment

Hearing:

EPA Elevation

Report:

EPA Science 

Advisory Board

Report by National Science and Technology Council:

Proposed a conceptual framework for integrating the 

nation's environmental research and monitoring networks 

to deliver scientific data and information needed to produce 

integrated environmental assessments and enhance 

understanding, evaluation, and forecasting of natural 

resources. 

H.R. 2138:

Bill would elevate EPA to cabinet level, and establish a 

Bureau of Environmental Statistics to analyze and publish 

data on environmental quality. The bureau would be 

required to ensure that the data are accurate, reliable, and 

relevant, as well as report annually on environmental 

conditions. 
Page 32 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

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.

Indicator set

Number of 

indicators

Indicators with 

sufficient data

Indicators with 

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%)
Page 33 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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. 
Page 34 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 35 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Group has also agreed on a general conceptual framework to guide the 

selection and use of indicators and is working to reach agreement on a 

detailed architecture to guide the management and use of data and 

information technology resources, and institutional arrangements to 

develop and operate a national system of indicators. 

Officials of agencies participating in the Working Group acknowledge the 

need for a more stable structure with the authority and resources 

necessary to achieve the Working Group’s goals. In this regard, as an ad hoc 

organization within the Executive Office of the President, the CEQ Working 

Group lacks a stable institutional arrangement with explicit responsibility 

and authority to ensure the continued and full involvement, cooperation, 

and resources from other federal agencies. 

Experts participating in our two-day meeting on environmental indicator 

sets hosted by the National Academy of Sciences—including officials from 

CEQ, EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Forest Service 

(within the Department of Agriculture)—discussed a number of different 

structures that could be employed to create a lead organization responsible 

for coordinating and integrating environmental indicator sets. Specifically, 

they discussed models ranging from using an executive order to build upon 

existing activity to creating a new quasi-governmental organization with 

the authority to oversee the development of a national environmental 

indicator system. In particular, the experts emphasized the importance of 

credibility and transparency as keys to the success of such an endeavor, in 

addition to authorities for addressing the widespread challenges of 

developing coordinated federal environmental indicator sets and ensuring 

the continued and full involvement, cooperation, and resources of the 

federal agencies. The experts did not settle on any particular approach, but 

instead noted that all of the options available should be studied to 

determine which option or combination of options is most appropriate. 

Furthermore, they generally agreed that whatever institutional 

arrangements are developed should be capable of performing the following 

functions:

• designing an information architecture using the best available 

information technology;

• providing leadership, vision, and overall scope;

• providing guidance and coordination with regard to environmental 

indicator development and use;
Page 36 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

• assisting in environmental indicator selection, development, 

improvements, and evaluation;

• designing and managing data collection and monitoring, including 

consolidation and prioritization (identifying potential data sources, 

identifying areas where no data exist, and establishing ways to fill data 

gaps to support environmental indicators);

• organizing statistical compilation and reporting (connecting data to 

environmental indicator sets);

• identifying environmental research and development focus areas—

including environmental indicator methods—and developing and 

investigating conceptual frameworks, statistical methods, 

interpretation, assessment, diagnosis, and basis for interpretation;

• interpreting environmental indicators for planning, policy, management, 

and communication purposes; and

• conducting audience analysis and public engagement to understand 

what information is needed to support outside entities.

Linking Environmental 

Management Actions and 

Program Activities to 

Changes in Environmental 

Conditions and Trends

Environmental indicator sets are developed for many purposes, including 

tracking progress toward environmental goals and program performance. 

However, organizations that develop environmental indicator sets to 

improve the performance of environmental management programs can 

encounter challenges that inhibit the use of indicator sets in this context. 

Specifically, organizations encounter problems accounting for (1) causal 

relationships between management actions and other factors beyond the 

agency’s control that can potentially affect environmental changes and (2) 

the delay between management actions and achieved results. Because 

complex webs of variables interact to determine ecological and human 

health outcomes, the role of a particular program in shaping environmental 

or natural resource conditions cannot always be determined. Organizations 

sometimes rely on indicator sets as diagnostic tools to highlight problem 

areas requiring further study, rather than as direct measures of 

performance, because indicator sets generally demonstrate a correlative—

rather than causal—relationship between specific policies or programs and 

environmental conditions. Moreover, management actions can take many 

years to yield environmental results. A developer reported concern that the 

conditions and trends measured in their indicator sets would be used to 
Page 37 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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).
Page 38 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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).
Page 39 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 40 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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 
Page 41 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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 
Page 42 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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, 
Page 43 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

including consolidation and prioritization of data gaps, to support 

environmental indicators. Arrangements should also be capable of guiding 

and coordinating environmental indicator development and use, including 

creating a clearinghouse for best practices and lessons learned. The 

Chairman’s strategy should incorporate the best available information 

technology to develop an information architecture for collecting, 

maintaining, and distributing environmental information. Moreover, the 

Chairman should provide for methods to identify environmental research 

and development focus areas. Finally, the system of arrangements should 

be designed to ensure the authority and credibility of its outputs. 

Building on EPA’s initial efforts on indicators and to evaluate the purposes 

that indicators might serve, we recommend that the EPA Administrator 

establish clear lines of responsibility and accountability among EPA’s 

various organizational components and identify specific milestones, 

resources, and other requirements for developing and using environmental 

indicators to inform the agency’s strategic systems for planning, budgeting, 

and reporting on progress.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to CEQ, the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, EPA, and NOAA, all of which 

provided comment. Each of the agencies generally agreed with the report’s 

findings and recommendations. Additional agency comments included the 

following:

• CEQ said that the report was a timely and comprehensive review of the 

many efforts underway, and that the report properly documents the 

many advancements and challenges recognized by experts. CEQ noted 

that the report should more clearly recognize that a comprehensive set 

of environmental indicators has the potential for benefiting 

environmental management governmentwide. We agree that 

environmental indicators stand to enhance management activities, such 

as strategic planning or resource allocation, across all federal agencies. 

Furthermore, CEQ commented that the report should make note of the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool, recently developed by the Office of 

Management and Budget, because it can enable both the executive and 

legislative branch of government to better understand program 

performance and identify opportunities for improvement. CEQ also 

noted that the report should make reference to the Global Earth 

Observation System of Systems—the international cooperative effort to 

bring together existing and new hardware and software to harmonize 
Page 44 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

the supply data and information. We modified the report text as 

appropriate to incorporate these recent developments.

• The Department of Agriculture noted that the report effectively 

recognizes the need for better coordination of environmental indicator 

development and reporting among federal and nonfederal entities. Some 

Agriculture reviewers believed that, while the report emphasizes EPA’s 

efforts in this area, many other agencies have authorities and 

responsibilities regarding environmental indicators. Additionally, 

Agriculture’s Economic Research Service thought the report would have 

benefited from additional emphasis on the importance of coordinating 

behavioral and environmental data. 

• The Department of the Interior noted that further efforts to identify 

institutional arrangements are essential given the unique characteristics 

and complex interrelationships among the range of agency programs 

noted in the report.

• EPA expressed some concern that the report implied that the Draft 

Report on the Environment 2003 was not successful in achieving its 

goals. We do not believe that the report makes such an implication, and 

we did not attempt to evaluate the success of the report in meeting its 

goals. Rather, we focused on the persistent need for the agency to 

provide clear lines of responsibility and accountability for meeting the 

goals of the Environmental Indicators Initiative—which produced the 

2003 report—one of which was to improve the agency’s ability to 

manage for results. EPA noted that it is currently working to link the 

planned Report on the Environment 2006 to the agency’s strategic 

planning effort, and investigating other opportunities to link 

environmental information to management reporting and accountability 

systems. We modified the report text to better reflect these activities.

• NOAA questioned the practicality of coordinating the independent 

efforts of the many federal agencies currently collecting environmental 

monitoring data on coastal conditions. However, NOAA agreed that the 

report correctly characterizes the importance—as well as the 

difficulty—of doing so. 

Finally, CEQ, the departments, and EPA recommended a number of 

technical changes to the report, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Page 45 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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
Page 46 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

Specifically we were asked to report on the following questions: (1) How 

and for what purposes are federal and nonfederal organizations developing 

and using environmental indicator sets? And (2) What are the major 

challenges facing the development and use of environmental indicator 

sets?

For the purpose of this review, we defined an “environmental indicator set” 

as a selected group of quantifiable variables that shows a significant 

condition or trend of the state of the environment and natural resources, or 

related human activity. Our review focused primarily on the development 

and use of sets of environmental indicators, rather than on any single 

indicator. Our review included sets organized around environmental 

conditions and trends, ecological health, environmental performance, 

sustainable development, and corporate environmental information. 

To meet our objectives, we performed multiple lines of work as detailed 

below, including reviewing literature on the development and use of 

environmental indicator sets; interviewing key experts from both the 

United States and abroad; developing a compendium of environmental 

indicator sets; surveying developers and users affiliated with 39 

environmental indicator sets at the national, state, regional, and local 

levels; conducting in-depth case studies of 8 indicator sets at the national, 

state, regional, and local levels; and contracting with the National Academy 

of Sciences to convene a meeting of experts. In developing our findings, we 

compiled evidence from across our lines of work to corroborate and 

“triangulate” salient themes. However, we did not intend to exhaustively 

catalog the universe of environmental indicator sets. General references to 

indicator sets in this report refer to the 47 sets we reviewed in detail—the 8 

case studies and the 39 sets represented in our survey results. Moreover, 

we did not evaluate the quality of data used in any of the indicator sets we 

reviewed, and we did not rely on these data for any of our findings. A 

thorough review of the data systems that support the indicator sets we 

reviewed was outside the scope of this project.

Compendium of 

Environmental 

Indicator Sets

To identify a list of environmental indicator sets for review, we solicited 

input from experts in the field and asked them to identify indicator sets on 

four geographic scales—national, regional, state, and local. Forty-eight 

experts were selected from extensive Web and literature searches, 

background interviews, and contacts from professional conferences 

spanning our geographic scales. We distributed an electronic data 

collection instrument to each of the experts asking for information on 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 47 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

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 

National Regional State Local Total

Indicator sets

Indicator sets identified for survey 17 8 14 13 52

Indicator sets represented by a 

completed survey

15 4 7 13 39

Practitioners

Practitioners identified for survey 28 14 23 22 87

Practitioners that responded to the 

survey

20 6 9 14 49

 Developer 8 3 3 5 19

 User 2 1 3 1 7

 Both 10 2 3 8 23
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 48 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 49 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Table 6: Environmental Indicator Sets Selected for Case Study Review

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:

• balance of expertise (e.g., managers, data gathering, developers, users, 

scientists, researchers, and policymakers); 

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 

Conservation Agenda

State

Environmental Protection Indicators for California State

Quality of Life Indicator Set, Jacksonville, Florida Local

Environmental Indicators Project, West Oakland, California Local
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

• balance of knowledge across various disciplines (e.g., natural resources, 

ecology, and agriculture); and 

• balance in representation (e.g., federal agencies, state agencies, 

academia, and nonprofit and private organizations). 

Based on the availability of the selected participants, we invited 26 

experts—representing the geographic levels and sectors—to participate in 

the meeting held March 9-10, 2004, in Washington, D.C., all of whom 

attended. Prior to the meeting, we provided the selected experts with 

background materials that highlighted past reports written by GAO, the 

National Research Council, and other organizations addressing 

environmental indicator set issues. The following 26 experts participated in 

the meeting:

Albert Abee

Sustainable Development Coordinator

U.S. Forest Service

James R. Bernard

Environmental Management Consulting

David Berry

Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable

Zach Church

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Policy Office

J. Clarence Davies, Ph.D.

Senior Fellow

Resources for the Future

Dennis Fenn, Ph.D.

Center Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center 

Keith G. Harrison, M.A., R.S., Certified Ecologist

Executive Director

Michigan Environmental Science Board 

Special Projects Coordinator

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 52 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 53 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

During the meeting, experts participated in roundtable sessions and 

breakout groups to discuss the following:

• Why are organizations developing and using environmental indicator 

sets and what impacts are these sets having in the United States?

• What significant scientific, environmental data, communication, and 

institutional challenges hinder the development and use of 

environmental indicator sets?

• What actions could be taken to overcome the significant challenges to 

the development and use of environmental indicator sets? 

The meeting was audio recorded to facilitate transcription. We reviewed 

the written transcript of the proceedings, the documents produced by 

experts, and other notes from the 2-day meeting to produce a summary 

document, which was provided to the experts for review. Their comments 

were incorporated into the summary, where appropriate. We used the 

summary document in preparing this report.
Page 54 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix II

Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives 

Identified by Experts ApendxiI

Indicator set initiative Web site Scale

Sustainable Development in the United States http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/pcsd/ National

EPA—Draft Report on the Environment http://www.epa.gov/indicators/ National

Sustainable Minerals Roundtable http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/ National

Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr/ National

Roundtable on Sustainable Forests http://www.sustainableforests.net/info.php National

Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.edu/ National

State of the Nation’s Ecosystems http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/ National

Ecological Monitoring and Assessment 

Program

http://www.epa.gov/emap/ National

Ecological Indicators for the Nation http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9720.html National

Index of Watershed Indicators http://www.epa.gov/iwi/ National

Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/CAPRM/ National

Waste Indicator System for the Environment http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/WISE/ National

America's Children and the Environment http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/ National

National Report on Human Exposure to 

Environmental Chemicals

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/ National

Index of Leading Environmental Indicators http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.407/book_detail.asp National

Agricultural Resource and Environmental 

Indicators

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ National

Environmental Public Health Indicators http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/default.htm National

Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/ National

The Status and Trends of Our Nation's 

Biological Resources

http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/index.htm National

National Coastal Condition Report http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/ National

The Status of Biodiversity in the United States http://www.natureserve.org National

National Estuarine Reserves System Wide 

Monitoring Program

http://nerrs.noaa.gov/ National

National Coastal Management Performance 

Measurement System

http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/ National

National Park Service—Vital Signs Program http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/index.htm National

Relative Sea Level Trends http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-233/ppvariables.htm National

U.S. Land Cover Trends http://gam.usgs.gov/LandUseDynamics/ludatacollection.shtml National

Forest Health Monitoring Vegetation Indicator 

Pilot Program

http://www.fs.fed.us/na/briefs/fhm99/fhm99.htm National

Chesapeake Bay Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net Regional

State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem 

Conference

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/ Regional
Appendix II

Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives 

Identified by Experts

Page 55 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Environmental Indicators in the Estuarine 

Environment

http://www.aceinc.org/ Regional

Environmental Health Indicators for the U.S.—

Mexico Border

http://www.fep.paho.org/english/env/Indicadores/IndSA.htm Regional

New England Environmental Goals and 

Indicators Project

http://www.gmied.org Regional

Western Regional Climate Center http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Regional

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Ecosystem 

Indicators

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0201002.html Regional

Southeastern Louisiana Top 10 by 2010 

Indicators Report

http://www.top10by2010.org/ Regional

North State (California) Vital Signs http://www.mcconnellfoundation.org/ Regional

Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/ Regional

South Florida/Everglades Comprehensive 

Ecosystem Restoration Plan

http://www.evergladesplan.org/ Regional

Tennessee Valley Authority Vital Signs 

Program

http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/envreports/index.htm Regional

Pacific Northwest Salmon Habitat Indicators http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/99301.html Regional

Aquatic Habitat Indicators for the Pacific 

Northwest

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ecocomm.nsf/0/74476bae1ae7e9fb88256

b5f00598b43?OpenDocument

Regional

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Baywide 

Environmental Monitoring Report

http://www.tbep.org/baystate/bemr.html Regional

Ecosystem Indicators for the Lake Champlain 

Basin Program

http://www.uvm.edu/envnr/indicators/ Regional

Environmental Protection Indicators for 

California

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/ State

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.

htm

State

State of the Texas Environment Report http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/ State

Texas Index of Leading Environmental 

Indicators 2000

http://www.texaspolicy.com/research_reports.php?report_id=143&loc_

id=1

State

Texas Environmental Almanac http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/ State

Water for Texas http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_Plan/

2002/FinalWaterPlan2002.htm

State

Utah Air Monitoring—Mobile Sources http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/amc.htm State

Ambient Air Monitoring Program http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/qa/monprog.html State

Minnesota Milestones http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/ State

Oregon Shines http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/os.shtml State

(Continued From Previous Page)

Indicator set initiative Web site Scale
Appendix II

Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives 

Identified by Experts

Page 56 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FACT/ State

Washington Department of Ecology http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ State

Oregon State of the Environment Report http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/soer2000index.shtml State

State of Kentucky's Environment http://www.eqc.ky.gov/pubs/soke/ State

Illinois Department of Environmental Quality 

indicators

http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/NRRC/balancedgrowth/indicators.htm State

Environmental Indicators for Delaware Estuary http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/jan02/envindicator.html State

Indicators of Livable Communities http://www.mdf.org/megc/pubs/livable_communities.htm State

Oregon's First Approximation Report http://www.oregonforestry.org/sustainability/first_approximation_report.

htm

State

Sustainable Development Indicators for 

Pennsylvania

http://www.paconsortium.state.pa.us/pointing_pa_sustainable_future.

htm

State

New Jersey Hudson Bay Environmental 

Indicators Initiatives

http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/harborh.htm State

Everglades Comprehensive Annual Report http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/everglades/ Local

The State of the Bay—a Characterization of 

the Galveston Bay Ecosystem

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/topdoc/pd/020/02-

04/galvestonbay.html

Local

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 of 

Selected Estuarine and Coastal Habitats in 

Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program 

Study Area

http://www.sci.tamucc.edu/ccs/ Local

Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable 

Communities

http://www.bayareaalliance.org/ Local

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 

Report

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/LUESA/Water+and+Land+

Resources/State+of+the+Environment+Report.htm

Local

Sustainable Seattle—Indicators of Sustainable 

Community

http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Publications/40indicators.shtml Local

Legacy 2002—Greater Orlando

Indicators Report

http://www.hcbs.org/moreInfo.php/source/62/sby/Author/doc/251/

Legacy_2002_-_Greater_Orlando_Indicator's_Report_-

Local

Sierra Nevada Wealth Index http://www.sbcouncil.org/wealth.htm Local

Sustainable Nantucket—a Compass for The 

Future

http://indicators.sustainablenantucket.org/intro.cfm Local

Community-based Environmental Health 

Assessment Program 

http://www.naccho.org/general955.cfm Local

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Indicator set initiative Web site Scale
Appendix II

Key Environmental Indicator Initiatives 

Identified by Experts

Page 57 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Source: GAO.

Note: Web addresses are current as of August 10, 2004.

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 

Life Indicators

http://www.jcci.org Local

(Continued From Previous Page)

Indicator set initiative Web site Scale
Page 58 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles ApendxiI

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

Page 59 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 60 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 5: The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Report

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 

Source: The Heinz Center.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 61 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 62 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 63 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 6: Draft National Coastal Condition Report II

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 

Sources: EPA, NOAA, and the Department of the Interior.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 64 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 65 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 66 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 7: The State of the Chesapeake Bay Report

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 

Source: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 67 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 68 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 69 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 8: State of the Great Lakes Report

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 

Sources: EPA and Environment Canada.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 70 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 71 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources’ 

Strategic Conservation 

Agenda

Overview: In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

began the development of a Strategic Conservation Agenda (SCA) indicator 

set in response to a directive from the DNR Commissioner’s office to 

strengthen accountability and public confidence by better communicating 

progress toward conservation results. The objective of the SCA was to 

provide internal management direction for defining agency-level 

performance goals, demonstrating accountability to citizens, and fulfilling 

the governor’s expectations for agency accountability to results. The SCA is 

one piece in a larger policy hierarchy as it fits within a DNR mission 

statement and strategic plan, and the department’s budgeting process. 

The SCA indicator set includes about 75 indicators that target natural 

resource conditions, DNR management activities, and results toward which 

DNR will strive through management efforts. The indicator set does not 

represent all of the natural resources in Minnesota but the areas in which 

DNR will commit resources to achieve specific results. The SCA indicators 

measure natural resource trends or resource work performed. The SCA 

indicator set is defined by six key performance areas at DNR: Natural 

Lands, Fisheries and Wildlife, Healthy Waters and Watersheds, Forests, 

Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources Stewardship Education. 

Targets are assigned to each indicator to define expected results and serve 

as specific milestones that help DNR gauge progress toward long-term 

goals. Environmental indicator set information was presented in the first 

SCA report (see fig. 9), which was issued to the public through the DNR 

Web site in March 2004.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 72 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 9: The Strategic Conservation Agenda Report

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.

Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 73 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 74 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 75 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 10: Environmental Protection Indicators for California Report

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. 

Sources: California EPA and California Resources Agency.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 76 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 77 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 78 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 11: Jacksonville’s 2003 Quality of Life Progress Report

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.

Source: Jacksonville Community Council Inc.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 79 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 80 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 81 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Figure 12: West Oakland’s Neighborhood Knowledge for Change Report

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 

Source: Pacific Institute.
Appendix III

Environmental Indicator Set Case Study 

Profiles

Page 82 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 83 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information ApendxiIV

The following tables summarize major congressional attempts to address 

federal environmental data and indicator issues since 1970, as well as 

selected academic reports issued during the same period. None of the 

tables are exhaustive. Rather, the purpose of these lists is to illustrate 

significant legislative and academic milestones in federal environmental 

data and indicator management over the last 35 years. While there have 

been numerous such efforts, both Congress and the academic community 

had already identified and analyzed many of the fundamental issues 

confronting indicator development and data management by the close of 

the 1970s. Perhaps the most significant recent development is the focus 

since 1990 on the creation of an objective, nonpolitical environmental 

statistical agency within the federal government, an idea that has appeared 

in several recent legislative proposals to elevate the Environmental 

Protection Agency to Cabinet level. Two bills to elevate the EPA, one of 

which would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics, were 

introduced in the 108th Congress.

Selected Legislation to 

Address Federal 

Environmental Data and 

Indicator Issues

Table 7 presents selected Congressional bills introduced since 1970 that 

deal with significant challenges involving federal environmental data 

management and indicator development. While Congress has been 

examining how best to address these challenges for some time, legislative 

consensus has yet to emerge on many key topics, including whether a 

Bureau of Environmental Statistics should be established—and if so, 

whether it should be done as part of legislation to elevate EPA to Cabinet 

status.
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 84 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Table 7: Major Pieces of Legislation to Address Federal Environmental Data and Indicator Issues, 1970-2004

Year 

introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action

1970 H.R. 

17436

Would amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to create a 

National Environmental Data System to serve as the central national 

coordinating facility for the storage, analysis, and retrieval of 

environmental information to support environmental decisions in a timely 

manner. Would require each federal agency to make environmental data 

available to the Data System and would require data in the Data System 

to be available to Congress, federal agencies, states, and the public. The 

system would be operated by a director under the guidance of the 

Council on Environmental Quality. It would develop and publish 

environmental quality indicators for all of the regions in the United 

States.

Passed House and referred to 

the Senate Committee on 

Commerce

1970 H.R. 

18141

Similar to H.R. 17436. Would amend the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 to provide for a National Environmental Data Bank for all 

data relating to the environment.

Hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries 

and Wildlife Conservation, 

House Committee on Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries

1971 H.R. 56 Would create a National Environmental Data System that would provide 

for the development and utilization of information needed to support 

management of the environment. The Data System would serve as the 

central national facility for the selection, storage, analysis, retrieval, and 

dissemination of information, knowledge, and data specifically related to 

the environment. Would require data in the Data System to be available 

to Congress, federal agencies, states, and the public. The Data System 

would be operated by a director under the guidance of the Council on 

Environmental Quality and it would develop and publish environmental 

quality indicators for all of the regions in the United States.

Pocket Veto by President 

Richard Nixon

1984 H.R. 5958 Would establish a National Commission on Environmental Monitoring to 

(1) investigate and study the nation's environmental monitoring programs 

and those international monitoring programs in which the United States 

participates; (2) recommend to Congress and the President a plan to 

improve environmental monitoring; and (3) advise and assist in the 

preparation of an environmental monitoring report.

Referred to subcommittees of 

House Committee on Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries and 

House Committee on Science 

and Technology

1990 H.R. 3847 Would redesignate the Environmental Protection Agency as the 

Department of Environmental Protection and establish within it a Bureau 

of Environmental Statistics. Would require the Secretary of the 

department to establish an Advisory Committee on Environmental 

Statistics to (1) advise the director of the bureau and Congress on the 

collection and dissemination of statistical data, and (2) ensure that the 

statistics and analyses reported by the bureau are of high quality, 

publicly accessible, and not subject to political influence.

Passed House and referred to 

Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 85 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

1990 H.R. 3904 Would establish the National Environmental Institute Commission to (1) 

make recommendations to the President and Congress for the 

establishment of a National Environmental Institute, a Bureau of 

Environmental Information and Statistics, and an organization to 

examine public policies that affect the environment; and (2) identify areas 

of research that require long-term efforts to mitigate serious risk to the 

environment.

Referred to Subcommittee on 

Natural Resources, Agricultural 

Research, and Environment, 

House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology

1990 S. 2006 Would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level 

status and rename the agency as the Department of the Environment. 

Would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics within the 

Department and create an Advisory Council on Environmental Statistics 

to advise the bureau on statistics and analyses, including whether the 

statistics and analyses disseminated by the bureau (1) were of high 

quality, and (2) were based upon the best available objective information. 

It also would authorize the Secretary of the Environment to make grants 

to, and enter into contracts with, state and local governments to assist in 

data collection.

Placed on Senate Calendar

1991 S. 533 Would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level 

status and rename the agency as the Department of the Environment. 

Would establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics within the 

Department and create an Advisory Council on Environmental Statistics 

to advise the bureau on statistics and analyses. It also would authorize 

the Secretary of the Environment to make grants to, and enter into 

contracts with, state and local governments to assist in statistic data 

collection. Would also direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement 

with the National Academy of Sciences for a study and report on the 

adequacy of the department's data collection procedures and 

capabilities.

Passed Senate and referred to 

the House Committee on 

Government Operations

1991 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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year 

introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 86 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

1993 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

1993 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

1993 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 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year 

introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 87 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Source: GAO.

2000 H.R. 4757 Would require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an 

integrated environmental reporting system, including a National 

Environmental Data Model that describes the major data types, 

significant attributes, and interrelationships common to activities carried 

out by the Administrator or state, tribal, and local agencies (including 

permitting, compliance, enforcement, budgeting, performance tracking, 

and collection and analysis of environmental samples and results). 

Would require EPA to use the model as the framework for databases on 

which the data reported to the Administrator through the integrated 

system would be kept.

Referred to Subcommittee on 

Health and Environment, 

House Committee on 

Transportation and 

Infrastructure

2000 H.R. 5422 Similar to H.R. 4757, but with some modifications. For example, H.R. 

5422 contained an authorization of appropriations. 

Referred to Subcommittee on 

Health and Environment, 

House Committee on 

Transportation and 

Infrastructure

2001 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 

2003 H.R. 2138 Similar to H.R. 2694. In addition, would require the bureau to (1) prepare 

and submit to Congress and the department an annual report on 

environmental conditions and public health conditions, using, to the 

maximum extent practicable, reliable statistical sampling techniques; and 

(2) make the annual report available to the public upon request, and 

publish a notice of such availability in the Federal Register. Would also 

require the statistical procedures and methodology of the Bureau of 

Environmental Statistics to periodically undergo peer review.

House Committee on 

Government Reform held 

hearing 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year 

introduced Bill Principal provisions Last action
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 88 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Selected Congressional 

Hearings Addressing 

Federal Environmental Data 

and Indicator Management 

Issues

Table 8 highlights congressional hearings since 1970 that have addressed 

one or more salient aspects of the federal environmental information 

management challenge. As the table indicates, emphasis has shifted over 

time from creating a data bank centralizing all federal environmental 

information to the creation of a federal statistical agency that would be 

responsible for keeping environmental statistical information and 

establishing data quality standards. Hearings have also frequently 

examined the critical topic of environmental monitoring.

Table 8: Selected Congressional Hearings Addressing Federal Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues, 1970-2004

Hearing Committee Related bills Hearing purpose and description

Environmental Data 

Bank, 1970

House Committee on 

Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries, 

Subcommittee on 

Fisheries and Wildlife 

Conservation

H.R. 17436 

H.R. 17779 

H.R. 18141

The purpose of the hearing was to examine a proposed amendment to 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which would provide for 

the establishment of a National Environmental Data Bank. The Data 

Bank would serve as the central national depository of all information, 

knowledge, and data relating to the environment, including 

information, knowledge and data from the head of each department, 

agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch of the United States 

government as a result of its operations.

Environmental 

Monitoring, 1977 

House Committee on 

Science and 

Technology, 

Subcommittee on the 

Environment and the 

Atmosphere

The purpose of the hearing was to (1) examine the existing monitoring 

efforts of the federal agencies chiefly responsible for environmental 

monitoring; and (2) investigate the feasibility and practicality of 

developing and implementing a prototype monitoring system. The 

system could eventually be expanded into a comprehensive national 

or international monitoring program. 

Environmental 

Monitoring 2, 1978

House Committee on 

Science and 

Technology, 

Subcommittee on the 

Environment and the 

Atmosphere

Draft bill The purpose of the hearing was to examine a draft bill developed after 

the 1977 hearings on Environmental Monitoring. The legislation would 

establish a coordinated, integrative, and cooperative prototype 

management system of selected, diverse environmental monitoring 

activities as a possible first step toward a national system to improve 

the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental monitoring activities. 

The President would establish and appoint a panel of 10 people, 

chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

to develop a prototype monitoring system to demonstrate on a small 

scale how a national monitoring management system might work.

National 

Environmental 

Monitoring, 1983 

House Committee on 

Science and 

Technology, 

Subcommittee on 

Natural Resources, 

Agricultural 

Research and 

Environment

The purpose of the hearing was to explore the condition of the nation's 

environmental monitoring programs and (1) identify problems in 

monitoring efforts, and (2) provide recommendations that would lead 

to improvements in environmental monitoring.
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 89 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Source: GAO.

Environmental 

Monitoring 

Improvement Act, 

1984

House Committee on 

Science and 

Technology, 

Subcommittee on 

Natural Resources, 

Agricultural 

Research and 

Environment

Draft bill The purpose of the hearing was to examine a draft bill that would 

create a commission to act as the prime coordinating body for the 

nation's environmental monitoring efforts. The charge of the 

commission would be to clearly define the operational changes and 

the administrative coordination necessary to assure that cost-effective 

and statistically sound and reliable data are available to support U.S. 

environmental policy making.

Establish a 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection, 1989-

1990

House Committee on 

Government 

Operations, 

Subcommittee on 

Legislation and 

National Security

H.R. 3847 The purpose of the hearing was to examine two bills that would 

elevate EPA to Cabinet status. One of the bills (H.R. 3847) would 

establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics, which would make 

accessible a standardized set of environmental quality data to improve 

the effectiveness and objectivity of central environmental data 

collection and analyses so that the President, Congress, and the 

public can be adequately informed about conditions and trends in 

environmental quality and so that the department can better evaluate 

its programs.

EPA Elevation, 

2001-2002

House Committee on 

Government Reform, 

Subcommittee on 

Energy Policy, 

Natural Resources 

and Regulatory 

Affairs

H.R. 2694 The purpose of the hearing was to examine two bills that would 

elevate EPA to Cabinet status. One of the bills (H.R. 2694) would 

establish a Bureau of Environmental Statistics to provide 

environmental quality and related public health and economic 

information and analyses to meet the needs of the department and 

Congress.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Hearing Committee Related bills Hearing purpose and description
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 90 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Selected Academic Reports 

Addressing Federal 

Environmental Data and 

Indicator Management 

Issues

Table 9 highlights a few of the most significant academic reports analyzing 

federal environmental information management since 1970. Collectively, 

these reports clearly indicate that most of the significant information 

challenges have long been recognized. Our report makes recommendations 

that, if implemented, would begin to address these long-standing 

challenges.

Table 9: Selected Academic Reports Addressing Federal Environmental Data and Indicator Management Issues

Year Name of organization Description Citation

1970 National Academy of 

Sciences 

Reported that the United States cannot 

effectively manage the environment without 

knowing what it is, what it was, and what it can 

be. Recommended giving the highest priority to 

developing a centralized comprehensive federal 

program for monitoring the environment, 

incorporating environmental quality indices.

National Academy of Sciences, Institutions 

for Effective Management of the 

Environment, report (part 1) of the 

Environmental Study Group to the 

Environmental Studies Board of the National 

Academy of Sciences, National Academy of 

Engineering, (Washington, D.C.; January 

1970).

1982 The Conservation 

Foundation 

Reported that the nation had made progress in 

its attack on some conventional environmental 

problems; however, the information base on 

which sound environmental policy depends is 

inadequate and deteriorating. The nation has 

no monitoring data sufficient to describe 

accurately the extent or developing seriousness 

of any environmental problem.

The Conservation Foundation, State of the 

Environment 1982 (Washington, D.C.; 1982).

1988 Paul Portney, Resources for 

the Future

Recommended the creation of a Bureau of 

Environmental Statistics because the U.S. does 

not adequately collect, analyze, and 

disseminate information about environmental 

conditions and trends. Environmental data are 

also not collected in a systematic way to make it 

useful to interested parties.

Paul Portney, “Reforming Environmental 

Regulation: Three Modest Proposals,” 

Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 

13 (1988).

1997 National Science and 

Technology Council

Proposed a conceptual framework for 

integrating the nation's environmental research 

and monitoring networks to deliver scientific 

data and information needed to produce 

integrated environmental assessments and 

enhance understanding, evaluation, and 

forecasting of natural resources.

National Science and Technology Council, 

Integrating the Nation’s Environmental 

Monitoring and Research Networks and 

Programs: A Proposed Framework, a report 

by the Committee on Environment and 

Natural Resources (Washington, D.C.; March 

1997).
Appendix IV

Selected Activities Identifying Need for More 

Comprehensive Environmental Information

Page 91 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Source: GAO.

1998 National Advisory Council 

for Environmental Policy 

and Technology

Reported that EPA information systems do not 

provide sufficient, appropriate, or accurate 

information to (1) inform decision making, (2) 

ensure accountability, or (3) document results 

and achievements. However, the systems have 

for the most part satisfied regulatory 

requirements for collecting environmental 

information.

National Advisory Council for Environmental 

Policy and Technology, EPA—Managing 

Information as a Strategic Resource: Final 

Report and Recommendations of the 

Information Impacts Committee, EPA 100-R98-002 (Washington, D.C.; January 1998).

1999 National Research Council Addresses the question of whether the U.S. 

National Income and Product Accounts should 

be broadened to include activities involving 

natural resources and the environment. 

Concludes that the development of 

environmental and natural resource accounts is 

an essential investment for the nation.

National Research Council, Nature’s 

Numbers: Expanding the National Economic 

Accounts to Include the Environment

(Washington, D.C.; National Academy Press, 

1999)

2000 National Council for Science 

and the Environment

Reported that the fragmented administrative 

jurisdictions among federal agencies charged 

with environmental stewardship compound 

difficulties in coordinating environmental 

research and in communicating scientific 

results to decision makers and the public. 

Changes in governmental institutions could 

significantly improve efficiency and 

communication among scientists and between 

scientists and decision makers.

National Council for Science and the 

Environment, Recommendations for 

Improving the Scientific Basis for 

Environmental Decisionmaking, report from 

the first National Conference on Science, 

Policy and the Environment (Washington, 

D.C.; December 2000).

2002 EPA Science Advisory 

Board

Reported that many scientists, most decision 

makers, and nearly all members of the public 

still have little understanding of the “health” or 

integrity of the nation's ecological systems. 

Recommended EPA would benefit from the 

development of a systematic framework for 

assessing and reporting on ecological condition 

by helping assure that required information is 

measured systematically and provide a 

template for assembling information across EPA 

and other agencies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Science Advisory Board, A Framework for 

Assessing and Reporting on Ecological 

Condition: An SAB Report (Washington, 

D.C.; June 2002). 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year Name of organization Description Citation
Page 92 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix V

Environmental Reporting by Private and 

Public Organizations ApendxiV

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

1

United Nations, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21

(1992).

2

KPMG, KPMG Global Sustainability Services, KPMG International Survey of Corporate 

Sustainability Reporting 2002 (De Meern, The Netherlands; June 2002).

3

Corporate Social Responsibility Network, The State of Global Environmental and Social 

Reporting, (Shrewsbury, United Kingdom; 2001).
Appendix V

Environmental Reporting by Private and 

Public Organizations

Page 93 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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 

4

World Bank, International Finance Corporation, Race to the Top: Attracting and Enabling 

Global Sustainable Business, Business Survey Report, by J. Berman and T. Webb 

(Washington, D.C.; October 2003).
Appendix V

Environmental Reporting by Private and 

Public Organizations

Page 94 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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 

5

KPMG, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002.
Appendix V

Environmental Reporting by Private and 

Public Organizations

Page 95 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 96 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix VI

Accounting for the Environment ApendxiVI

Environmental accounts can be used to develop indicators that examine 

the nexus between the environment and the economy. As a result, the 

development of environmental accounts is widely recognized as important. 

However, the United States currently has no federal effort to develop 

comprehensive environmental accounts.

Accounts Yield Indicators 

with Beneficial Uses

Environmental accounts provide a framework that is used to link 

environmental information to the information that is contained in the 

national economic accounts. Combining this information allows 

environmental and economic issues to be examined jointly. For example, 

by linking information on the amount of pollution released during a 

manufacturing process with knowledge of the amount of economic output 

derived through that manufacturing, policymakers could better understand 

how a change in regulations, such as on pollution limits, might affect the 

ensuing economic performance of an industry.

Several federal agencies are responsible for managing and protecting the 

nation’s environment and have developed strategic plans that highlight the 

importance of the interaction between the environment and the economy. 

For example, the strategic plan of the Environmental Protection Agency 

identifies procedures to ensure sound analysis of the economic effects of 

its environmental regulations, policies, and programs. The Department of 

the Interior’s plan sets an objective of managing natural resources in a way 

that promotes responsible use while sustaining a dynamic economy. The 

Department of Agriculture’s plan identifies the need to manage forests and 

rangelands that are resilient to natural and human disturbance while also 

managing for economic uses such as oil, natural gas, and timber. Finally, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s plan seeks to 

achieve a balance between the protection and use of the ocean’s resources 

to ensure sustainability while also achieving an optimal contribution to the 

nation’s economy.

Environmental accounts provide information that is useful in creating 

indicators to examine the interaction of the environment and the economy. 

The following are examples of these potential indicators.

• Policymakers could use efficiency indicators to determine the volume of 

waste created in production processes and allow for comparison with 

the resources used in production and the total economic output. 

Policymakers could use these indicators to measure and track the use of 

resources and to determine how best to improve the efficiency of 
Appendix VI

Accounting for the Environment

Page 97 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

resource use and minimize waste generation while considering the 

potential economic effects of such policies.

• Policymakers could use resource management indicators to determine 

the amounts of unharvested natural resources still available for future 

consumption. This information could provide policymakers with a 

better understanding of the rate of current resource use, allow for more 

effective long-term management of natural resources and help 

policymakers understand the potential economic effects resulting from 

changes in resources use. 

• Policymakers could use environmental expenditure indicators to 

manage and track the amount of economic resources being devoted to 

abating pollution. Such indicators would allow policymakers to identify 

where resources are being spent to reduce pollution, evaluate the 

effectiveness of the nation’s efforts, and determine the economic 

impacts on the economy resulting from the costs of abating pollution.

Importance of 

Environmental Accounts 

Recognized around the 

World

There are several efforts under way to develop environmental accounts by 

governments and nongovernmental organizations. A recent report 

identifies 19 countries that are developing some type of environmental 

accounts in their statistical offices or other government ministries.1

 Also, 

the United Nations, along with other international organizations, has 

developed guidelines to be used by both national and international 

agencies for compiling environmental accounts.2

1

G. Lange, Policy Applications of Environmental Accounting, Paper 88, World Bank 

Environmental Economic Series (Washington, D.C.; January 2003).

2

United Nations, Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003: Handbook of 

National Accounting (1992). 
Appendix VI

Accounting for the Environment

Page 98 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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, 

3

CSERA was first published in 1997, then again in 2000, and updates are planned for 2004.
Appendix VI

Accounting for the Environment

Page 99 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.

4

National Research Council, Nature’s Numbers: Expanding the National Economic 

Accounts to Include the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999). 
Page 100 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix VII

The Uncertain Cost of Environmental 

Information ApendxiVI

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 

1

National Science and Technology Council, Integrating the Nation’s Environmental 

Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework, a report by 

the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (Washington, D.C.; March 1997).

2

OMB reports on programs that receive direct funding of at least $500,000 on statistical 

activities, which include: (1) the planning of surveys and other techniques of data collection; 

(2) personnel; (3) collection, processing, or tabulation of statistical data for publication, 

dissemination, research, analysis, or program management and evaluation; (4) publication 

of data and studies; (5) methodological research; (6) data analysis; (7) forecasts or 

projections made available for governmentwide or public use; (8) publication of data 

collected by others; (9) secondary data series or models that are an integral part of 

generating statistical series or forecasts; (10) management or coordination of statistical 

operations; and (11) statistical consulting or training.

3

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. §3504(e)(2).
Appendix VII

The Uncertain Cost of Environmental 

Information

Page 101 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 102 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Table 10: Direct Funding for Major Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources 

Statistical Programs

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 

Millions of dollars

Fiscal years

Agency 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Forest Service 19 14 23 29 29

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 107 107 108 113 111

NOAA 49 53 54 87 87

Office of Environment, 

Safety, and Health 24 24 24 33 34

Energy Information 

Administration 66 70 72 78 78

National Institute on 

Environmental Health 

Sciences 26 30 39 56 65

Fish and Wildlife Service 6 3 4 9 9

Minerals Management 

Service 2 2 3 3 4

National Park Service 2 2 2 2 1

Bureau of Reclamation 2 3 3 3 4

U.S. Geological Survey 64 60 73 83 84

Environmental Protection 

Agency 144 192 202 174 148

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 17 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
Appendix VII

The Uncertain Cost of Environmental 

Information

Page 103 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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.
Page 104 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix VIII

Selected Options ApendxiVI

Experts who participated in the environmental indicator set meeting jointly 

convened by GAO and the National Academy of Sciences identified a 

number of short-term alternatives to assist environmental indicator set 

developers and users. These options were not independently evaluated by 

GAO and are presented in no specific order. Appearance in this appendix 

does not constitute an endorsement of the ideas. 

• Congress should reinstate Section 201 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), requiring the Council for Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) to submit an annual report to the Congress on the environment. 

• The Office of Management and Budget should hold a hearing to receive 

feedback from agencies on the Program Assessment Rating Tool.

• Congress should charge GAO or the Congressional Research Service 

with an annual review of environmental indicators, their adequacy, and 

utility.

• Federal agencies should pursue an executive order that would establish 

an interagency work group to deal with environmental information and 

data, specifically regarding the development of environmental 

indicators. One expert suggested using Executive Order 13112 (National 

Invasive Species Council) as a model. 

• Congress should commission a study by an independent expert 

organization, such as the National Academy for Public Administration or 

the National Academy of Sciences, to review appropriate institutional 

structures for housing an entity to coordinate the production of 

environmental information.

• Congress should charge an entity with starting the process of 

coordinating environmental information and developing and compiling 

existing and past environmental indicator efforts.

• Congress should consider acting upon the recommendations presented 

by the National Science and Technology Council’s 1997 report 

Integrating the Nation’s Environmental Monitoring and Research 

Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework.

• Congress should task an agency with creating a fully searchable Internet 

clearinghouse to distribute information about developing and using 

environmental indicator sets, including links to related environmental 
Appendix VIII

Selected Options 

Page 105 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

data. Portal developers should ensure linked data are compliant with 

current Federal Geographic Data Committee standards.

• Congress should continue to support ongoing federal partnerships 

promoting integration of environmental data and interagency work on 

developing standards to ensure data interoperability.
Page 106 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix IX

Comments from the Council on 

Environmental Quality ApendxiIX
Appendix IX

Comments from the Council on 

Environmental Quality

Page 107 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators
Appendix IX

Comments from the Council on 

Environmental Quality

Page 108 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators
Page 109 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix X

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiX
Page 110 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Appendix XI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiXI

GAO Contact Ed Kratzer, (202) 512-6553

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Key contributions to this report were made by Nancy Bowser, Chase 

Huntley, Richard Johnson, Kerry Lipsitz, Jonathan McMurray, Mark 

Metcalfe, and Nathan Morris. Also contributing to this report were 

Jonathan Dent, Evan Gilman, Scott Heacock, R. Denton Herring, Kim 

Raheb, and Greg Wilmoth.
Page 111 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 112 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 113 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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

Page 114 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research. Knoxville, 

Tennessee; May 1999.

Train, Russell. “The Quest for Environmental Indices.” Science 178, no. 

4057 (October 1972): 1.

United Nations, Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 

2003: Handbook of National Accounting. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/61/Rev.1. 

(1992).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Framework for Assessing and 

Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB Report. EPA SAB-EPEC-02-

009. Science Advisory Board. June 2002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Statistics and 

Information Division, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. A 

Conceptual Framework to Support Development and Use of 

Environmental Information in Decision-Making. EPA 239-R-95-012, 

Washington, D.C.; April 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology. Managing Information as a 

Strategic Resource: Final Report and Recommendations of the 

Information Impacts Committee. EPA 100-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.; 

January 1998.

World Bank. Policy Applications of Environmental Accounting, by G. 

Lange. Environmental Economic Series, Paper No. 88. New York, January 

2003.

World Conservation Union. Lessons Learned from Environmental 

Accounting: Findings from Nine Case Studies, by Joy Hecht. Washington, 

D.C.; October 2000.

World Resources Institute. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic 

Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy 

Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development, by Allen 

Hammond, Albert Adriaanse, Eric Rodenburg, Dirk Bryant, and Richard 

Woodward. Washington, D.C.; May 1995. 
Page 115 GAO-05-52 Environmental Indicators

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/TRCED-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. 

(360343)
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 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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 posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

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, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548