STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON

HEINZ CENTER REPORT ON THE

STATE OF THE NATION'S ECOSYSTEMS

BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

September 24, 2002

We at the Interior Department have followed the Heinz Center's efforts to develop a report on the nation's ecosystems with interest. The Department has substantial responsibilities for resources encompassed by the report, and Interior bureaus have supported the project with funds, experts for several panels, and data.

One reason for the Department's interest is the recognition of the importance of valid statistical measures in improving our management of natural and environmental resources. For example, indicators of desired outcomes and performance measures are a key element of strategic planning under the Government Performance and Results Act. Such indicators can be used to establish goals and priorities. As programs are implemented, indicators can provide accountability. For example, they can show managers, cabinet members, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congress, and the public how well our programs are achieving their goals. Indicators are also useful in program evaluation, helping us identify successes and areas where improvement is needed.

Perhaps even more importantly, we have come to recognize that effective management of our natural and environmental resources cannot be achieved primarily through federal programs. In most cases, the benefits that resource systems provide and the trends in their conditions depend upon the actions of private citizens, businesses, and state and local governments as well as federal agencies. Because of these dispersed responsibilities, federal strategic planning, program development and implementation must occur through consultative and collaborative processes. During her tenure, Secretary Norton has emphasized the four Cs: consultation, cooperation, and communication -- all in the service of conservation. Better information about conditions and trends can help to overcome some of the challenges we face as we engage in these processes with stakeholders having conflicting interests.

Because natural and environmental resource information are central to resource management decisions, Department bureaus have a variety of ongoing data collection and research efforts.

The Interior Department is fortunate to have the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which provides the Nation with vital data and assessments on many aspects of our environment and resources. Examples include: "Status and Trends of our Nation's Biological Resources," as well as other resources such as wetlands, water quality and quantity, minerals, oil and gas, land cover and invasive species. Recently, at the request of Congress, we forwarded a new plan for an ongoing assessment of water availability and use (Circular 1223, "Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use"). As the Committee explores future efforts to provide the Nation with improved information on the state of the Nation's natural resources, I hope you will look to the Interior Department and, particularly, the USGS for our ideas and programs.

Our bureaus have also partnered with other agencies in efforts to develop indicators. These efforts include preparation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a report on the environment and a series of multi-stakeholder roundtables that have grown out of efforts by the U.S. Forest Service, in the Department of Agriculture, to implement criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. It is our view that these efforts and the report released today by the Heinz Center provide a strong foundation for continued efforts to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the information routinely available regarding our nation's resources.

I would like to turn now to the questions posed by the Committee in my invitation letter. First, you asked, from the Interior Department's perspective, what are the most significant findings of the Ecosystem Report?

One such finding is the strong assertion that valid and reliable measures of our natural and environmental resource systems need to be developed. The report notes the success of measures used in economic management and health care. The relative weakness of environmental and natural resource statistics and indicator systems hinders our efforts to manage these resources effectively and efficiently. It is reasonable to conclude that greater costs are incurred in our management processes when the lack of information heightens conflicts or leads to costly mistakes.

A second set of key findings arise from the significant trends identified in the data. We see trends in beneficial uses, such as the growth in commodity production and recreation. We also see trends in conditions that suggest potential losses in the capacity of some ecosystems to meet the growing demands from human uses in future decades in the absence of changed management practices. For example, there have been significant increases in nitrogen levels in streams and rivers, chemical contaminants, and imperiled species. In most cases, policies and programs are in place to address such problems. More detailed analysis is needed to assess their performance.

Another major finding is the incompleteness of the data, as the Committee suggested in its second question. The Committed asked whether we agree that the data presented in the report provide only a partial picture of the state of the nation's ecosystems. The answer to this question is surely yes. First, the report states that there is insufficient data for 45 of the 103 indicators selected. Even if we grant that these indicators themselves were sufficient, there would still be important aspects of our environmental systems that we could not fully characterize for lack of data. Additional monitoring efforts are needed, and for 14 of the 103 indicators, research is needed to define an adequate measure.

Of course, the 103 indicators that are included in the report reflect what must have been an heroic effort to cull from much longer lists those that are most relevant to our goals and objectives. As the report notes, such choices reflect, in part at least, the values of the participants. While we at the Department applaud the Heinz Center's efforts to assure that its panels were broadly representative, there can be little doubt that some indicators of important features of our ecosystems and their uses have been left on the cutting room floor. The indicators selected here provide a very good start, but the process must continue for some years if we are to arrive at a stable set of indicators that will provide a comprehensive and consistent basis for assessing ecosystems.

The report is also partial from another perspective. As stewards for hundreds of millions of acres of land, the Interior Department's bureaus know that there are important variations from place to place that cannot be described in a national-level report. While the Department agrees that national reporting on ecosystem conditions and uses is important, we think that we must also be working toward ways of providing regional and local versions of similar information derived from many of the same data sets. With today's information technologies, it is feasible to provide access to similar indicators for sub-national geographic areas.

Lastly, the Committee asked that we identify the most important policy and scientific implications. While I am not prepared to provide a detailed analysis of the scientific questions raised by the report, I would suggest that we need to carefully consider the research targets it identifies as we review our environmental science and monitoring programs.

Even more challenging to the state of our science is the need for tools that can be used for integrated assessment and diagnosis. While valid statistical indicators are important, most people remember images, stories and simple concepts rather than sets of numbers. I believe that the power of indicators is their capacity to ground in valid statistical measures, the stories we come to regard as the proper basis for action.

The Heinz Center strategically chose not to attempt such interpretations. Yet clearly a major advantage of organizing information by ecosystem type is the opportunity to develop and use our scientific knowledge of these resource systems to produce narrative assessments of their conditions and to diagnose the causes of problems identified by such assessments. This should be our long term goal for natural and environmental resource information systems just as it has been for our economic indicators system and for health assessment and diagnosis.

The report demonstrates that the federal government and its non-federal partners, including states and private organizations, should continue to improve the data available for such indicators.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.