Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

It’s All in the Numbers: Acreage Tallies and Environmental Program Evaluation

  • RESEARCH
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasingly, performance measurement is being used to hold federal agencies accountable, represent environmental progress, and evaluate the effectiveness of environmental programs. The need to track measurable outputs has created a tendency to present programmatic progress solely by quantifiable data, despite the inherent complexity of natural resource management. Wetlands and fire management programs are two specific environmental arenas that have come to overemphasize the tracking of acreage numbers to validate existing policy direction. In both of these arenas, we find the definition and categorization of “countable” acres to be inconsistent and unreliable. We explore this systemic flaw for both wetlands and fire programs and describe its implications for environmental policy and natural resource management more broadly. We conclude with recommendations for improved performance measurement in these arenas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Federal Wildland Fire Management: Policy and Program Review (1995); Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000: Managing the Impact of Widlfires on Communities and the Environment (2000); Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001); Collaboration Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Comprehensive Strategy (2001); and 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (2002).

References

  • Allen A. O., J. J. Feddema. 1996. Wetland loss and substitution by the section 404 permit program in Southern California, USA. Envir Manage 20:263–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press. 2004. Bush touts environmental policies, New York Times, April 24, 2004. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Environment.html, accessed April 24, 2004

  • Association of State Wetland Managers. 2006. State Wetland Programs. Available at http://www.aswm.org/swp/index.htm, accessed March 31, 2006

  • Babcock H. 1991. Federal wetlands regulatory policy: up to its ears in alligators. Pace Envir Law Rev 8:307

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck R. E. 1994. The movement in the United States to restoration and creation of wetlands. Natural Resources J 34:781–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn R. 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Admin Rev 63:586–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennear L., C. Coglianese. 2004. Evaluating environmental policies. KSG working paper no. RWP04-049. Available at SSRN: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=619901

  • Blumm M. C., B. D. Zaleha. 1989. Federal wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act: regulatory ambivalence, intergovernmental tension, and a call for reform. University of Colorado Law Review 60:695–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown P. H., C. L. Lant. 1999. The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Envir Manage 23:333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenberg G. J. 2004a. Adaptive policy design for the management of wildfire hazards. Am Behav Scientist 48:314–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenberg G. J. 2004b. Wildfire management in the United States: the evolution of a policy failure. Rev Policy Res 212:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey H., M. Schumann. 2003. Modifying wildfire behavior—the effectiveness of fuel treatments: the status of our knowledge. National Community Forestry Center. Southwest Region Working Paper #2: Santa Fe, New Mexico

  • Clark A. L., G. H. Dalrymple. 2003. $7.8 Billion for Everglades restoration: why do environmentalists look so worried? Population Envir 24:541–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaves D., and others (2005) Influences on prescribed burning activity and costs in the National Forests. National Interagency Fire Center: Prescribed Fire Statistics. http://www.nifc.gov/stats/prescribed_fire_stats.html. Accessed 7/18/05

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole C. A., D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999. Envir Manage 30:508–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constanza R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Nameem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. van der Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. 2005. Conserving America’s wetlands, implementing the President’s goal. Coastal America, April, Washington, DC

  • Dahl T. E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1998–2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl T. E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1986–1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale L. 2005. Following the money: National fire plan funding and implementation. Policy analysis. The Wilderness Society: Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson B. 2005. Opening keynote: A national perspective on ecosystem restoration. Water and the environment: The role of ecosystem restoration, University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center, Tucson, Arizona, April 6, 2005

  • Donovan G. H., T. C. Brown. 2005. Incentives for wildfire management on National Forest land. Forest Science 51(5):387–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton D. 1965. A framework for political analysis. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman M. 1985. The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel-Cox J. A., R. M. Hoff. 2005. Science-policy data compact: use of environmental monitoring data for air quality policy. Envir Sci Policy 8:115–131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Esty D. C. 2001. Toward data-driven environmentalism: The environmental sustainability index. Envir Law Inst 13: 10603–10612

    Google Scholar 

  • Failing L., R. Gregory. 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. J Envir Manage 68:121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J. F., J. K. Agee. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire policy. Issues Sci Technol Fall

  • Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership. 2005. URL: http://www.rockymountainwildlandfire.info. Accessed 10/14/05

  • Gerlak A. K. 1996. United States wetlands policy: Is this policy all wet? In Soden DL (ed) At the nexus: Science policy. Nova Science Publishers, Commack, New York, pp 29–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorte R. 2000. Forest Service performance measures. Testimony before the House Resources Committee Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health: June 29, 2000

  • Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 2005. Performance management for government. Available at: http://www.seagov.org/index.shtml (accessed October 11, 2005)

  • Grunwald M. 2002a. Interior’s silence on Corps plan questioned. Washington Post, January 14, 2002, A05

  • Grunwald M. 2002b. White House relaxes rules on protection of wetlands. Washington Post, January 15, 2002, A02

  • Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 2003. (Public Law 108-148)

  • Heimlich R. E., K. D. Wiebe, R. Claussen, D. Gadsby, R. M. House. 1998. Wetlands and agriculture: Private interests and public benefits. USDA, Economic Research Service, September, Washington, DC

  • Heinz Center. 2005. The state of the nation’s ecosystems. Available at: http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems

  • Hornyak M. M., K. E. Halvorsen. 2003. Wetland mitigation compliance in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Envir Manage 32:535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt R. J. 1996. Do created wetlands replace the wetlands that are destroyed. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin

  • Jehl D. 2003. On environmental rules, Bush sees a balance, critics a threat. New York Times, February 23, 2003

  • Kaiser J. 2001. Recreated wetlands no match for original. Science 6 (July 2001), 233

  • Kalen S. 1994. Commerce to conservation: The call for a national water policy and the evolution of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. North Dakota Law Rev 69:873–914

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley J. 2002. Fire management of California shrubland landscapes. Envir Manage 29:395–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula M. E,. 1996. Wetland restoration and creation. In J. D. Fretwell, J. S. Williams, P. J. Redman (compilers) The national water summary on wetland resources. Water-supply paper 2425. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC, pp 87–92

  • Kettl D. F. 2002. The transformation of governance: Public administration in twenty-first century America. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravchuk R. S., R. W. Schack. 1996. Designing effective performance-measurement and systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Admin Rev 56:348–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long E., F. Aimee. 2004. The paradox of implementing the Government Performance and Results Act: Top-down direction for bottom-up implementation. Public Admin Rev 64:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundmark C. 2001. Keeping track of wetland restoration. Bioscience 52:696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch D. L., K. Mackes. 2003. Costs for reducing fuels in Colorado forest restoration projects. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29:167–175

  • McCarthy L. 2004. State of the National Fire Plan. Forest Trust, Santa Fe, New Mexico

  • Mitsch W. J., W. Xinyuan, R. W. Nairn, P. E. Weihe, N. Wang, R. Deal, C. E. Boucher. 1998. Creating and restoring wetlands: A whole-ecosystem experiment in self-design. Bioscience 48:1019–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer M. J. 1998. Irregular regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Is the Congress of the Army Corps of Engineers to blame? J Envir Law Litigation 13:445–474

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. Managing wildland fire: Enhancing capacity to implement the federal interagency policy. NAPA, Washington, DC

  • National Academy of Public Administration. 1999. Restoring managerial accountability to the United States Forest Service. NAPA, Washington, DC

  • National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Wetlands Newsletter. 2001. The SWANCC decision. Environmental Law Institute (January–February), Washington, DC, p 2

  • Niemeijer D. 2002. Developing indicators for environmental policy: Data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example. Envir Sci Policy 5:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2004. FY04 budget fall review, OMB PART Review, Washington, DC

  • O’Hagan K. 1991. Pumping with the intent to kill: Evading wetlands jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through draining. DePaul Law Rev 40:1059–1106

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley R. 2003. Providing “better” data: Not as simple as it might seem. Environment 45:8–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Omi P., E. Martinson. 2002. Final report: Effect of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

  • Pianin E. 2003a. Administration establishes new wetlands guidelines; 20 million acres could lose protected status, groups say. Washington Post, January 11, 2003, A05

  • Pianin E. 2003b. EPA scraps changes to Clean Water Act. Washington Post, December 17, 2003

  • Pyne S. J. 1997. America’s fires: Management on wildlands and forests. Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanger D. E., D. M. Halbfinger. 2004. For Earth Day, Bush and Kerry vie on environment. New York Times, April 23, 2004

  • Schuster E. G., D. A. Cleaves, E. F. Bell. 1997. Analysis of USDA Forest Service fire-related expenditures 1970–1995. Res. Paper PSW-RP-230. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, California

  • Stephens S. L., J. J. Moghaddas. 2005. Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential fire behavior and forest conservation: Twenty-five years of experience from Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Biol Conserv 125:369–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudol M. F., R. F. Ambrose. 2002. The US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: Evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County, California, USA. Envir Manage 30:727–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. 1992. Intergovernmental decisionmaking for environmental protection and public works. U.S. Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, DC

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Regulatory guidance letter/national wetlands mitigation action plan. U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers (24 December 2002), Washington, DC

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Summary report: 1997 national resources inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004a. FY05 budget justification. Forest Service, Washington, DC

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture Council on Environmental Quality, Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2004b. Bush administration officials: Federal land managers set record-level accomplishments of President’s healthy forests initiative. Press Release #0435.04, Washington, DC

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004c. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. April: Washington, DC

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006b. News release #FS-0615. President’s FY 2007 budget advances goals of healthy forests initiative and meets targets of the Northwest Forest Plan. Washington, DC

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006a. News release #0037-06. Johanns outlines President Bush’s FY 2007 agriculture budget. Washington, DC. Online at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome? contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/ 02/0037.xml

  • U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. National wetlands inventory: A strategy for the 21st century. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Environmental indicators: Better coordination is needed to develop environmental indicator sets that inform decisions. GAO-05-52. Washington, DC

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2004a. OMB’s program assessment rating tool presents opportunities and challenges for evaluating program performance. GAO-04-550T. Washington, DC

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2004c. Waters and wetlands: Corps of engineers needs to evaluate its district office practices in determining jurisdiction. Government Accountability Office. GAO-04-297, Washington, DC

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2003a. Forest Service: Little progress on performance accountability likely unless management addresses key challenges. GAO-03-503. Washington, DC

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2003b. Department of Agriculture: Status of efforts to address major financial management challenges. Statement of McCoy Williams, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. GAO-03-871T. Washington, DC

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2003c. Wildland fire management: Additional actions required to better identify and prioritize lands needing fuels reduction. GAO-03-805. Washington, DC

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. Results-oriented management: Agency crosscutting actions and plans in border control, flood mitigation and insurance, wetlands, and wildland fire management. GAO-03-321. Washington, DC

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Assessments needed to determine the effectiveness of in-lieu mitigation. General Accounting Office. GAO-01-325, Washington, DC

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. 1998. Wetlands overview: Problems with acreage data persist. General Accounting Office. GAO/RCED-98-150. Washington, DC

  • U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development. The wetlands permitting process: Is it working fairly? (H. Rept. 107-50). October

  • Vileisis A. 1997. Discovering the unknown landscape: A history of America’s wetlands. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Western Governors’ Association. 2002. A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment: 10-year comprehensive strategy implementation plan. Washington, DC

  • Western Governors’ Association. 2001. A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment: 10-year comprehensive strategy. Washington, DC

  • Wilen B. O. 1995. The folly of the numbers game. National Wetlands Newslett May–June:8–10

  • Wise C., A. J. Yoder. 2004. Policy and institutional arrangements in federal wildland fire mitigation. Presented at the International Social Science and Resource Management Conference, Keystone, Colorado

  • Zedler J. B. 2003. Wetlands at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Front Ecol Environ 1:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinn J. A., C. Copeland. 2004. Wetlands issues in national wetlands: Issues and developments, ST Prescott (ed) New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp 1–21

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jeanne N. Clarke, The Wilderness Society, and the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition for research support. This project would not have been possible without them.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Denver, Sturm Hall 457, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA

    Lisa Dale

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Arizona, International Studies Association, 324 Social Sciences Building, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA

    Andrea K. Gerlak

Authors
  1. Lisa Dale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea K. Gerlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Dale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dale, L., Gerlak, A.K. It’s All in the Numbers: Acreage Tallies and Environmental Program Evaluation. Environmental Management 39, 246–260 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0332-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0332-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation