!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

¬41 !

« !

! ! !

! Sequoia !

!

! 229 !

!

«¬ ! ! !

! !

! Proposed Wilderness Areas and !

! ! !

! ! !

! «¬33 ! ! Black ! !

Los ! Mtn 58

! ! ! «¬

Padres ! ")! 21

! !

! ! ") ! ! ! Wild & Scenic BakersfieldRivers of !

! Santa !

! ! 58

Margarita 58 «¬ ! ! Lake San Luis «¬ Machesna ! ! ! Mtn Obispo ! ! ! ! ! Machesna Machesna Mtn County ! Mtn ! ! 1 ! ! «¬ 0 ! «¬ ! ! ! Machesna ! ! California's! Central99 Coast Mountain «¬ ") ! San Luis ! Santa ! ! Obispo ! Lucia

Garcia ! !

Santa !

! Machesna Mtn 5

Garcia ! ¨¦§ Kern

! Lucia Carrizo !

Los Padres Santa ! Plain ! County ! Lopez Lucia Carrizo ! Lake

! Garcia Plain !

! Carrizo Plain ¬119 « ! ! National 227 ! Los Monument «¬ Garcia ! Padres ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

! Carrizo Plain !! !

National !!

Pismo Monument !

Beach !

!

") !

!

! !

! Carrizo ! 23 Plain

! !

Los Padres Carrizo Plain

! !

National ! !

!

Monument ! !

!

! ! ! ! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

1 ! ! ! «¬ !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

166 !

! !

«¬ ! !

!

Carrizo !!

24 !

!

!

! Plain

!

! ! San !

Rafael !

! ! ! !!!

! !

! ! ! !!! Santa ! ¨¦§5 ! !

166 Maria ! ¬ ! « ") ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!! !

San !

! Rafael ! !

! ! Los !

Padres ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! !

1 !

«¬ ! ! !

! !

! ! ! San ! !

Rafael ! !!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!!! Chumash ! !!!!

San Dick ! !

!

Smith ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! Rafael ! ! ! ! ! !!

M ! ! a Hungry !

k nzanaC ! ! ! !

C k Valley ! ! M ! Los ! n u ! !

n !

w k ! 135 c Padres ! ! ro h SVRA

c ! C !

¬ C « Santa ! B ! o a h

y n Chumash

is u y

e o F Chumash

q ! v n

Barbara !

is !

a D S ! ! k Sis ! ! Vandenberg 101 County r qu Dick ! ¤£ o o F c R Smith ! Air Force S iv e Base r !

!

! Los

! !!!

«¬33 ! Angeles

! ! Dick ! Smith County

! Sespe 246 «¬ Sespe !!! 25 ! Angeles ! !

") !

Lompoc Dick Sespe ! Matilija Smith ! Ck Dick o M n ! Lake Smith o Sespe Cachuma P ! iru C ! k ! Solvang ") ! !! Matilija Ma Matilija tilija In ck d Matilija

154 ia «¬ n !

Ck

!

k

! !

e !

k !

C Los er

! a

Padres C

j

i l Sespe

Condor Rg i e p ! t s a e

Fo k M S r ! Los N Matilija Padres !

Condor Rg ! Ventura !

! County !

!

!

!

!

Matilija ! Lake Piru ! Ojai ! ") ! !

!

192 ! Santa ! ") «¬ ¬126 Goleta Barbara « ! ") Lake Casitas «¬225 ") Carpinteria

¤£101

26 «¬126

«¬118 ") Ventura

«¬23

¤£101 30 Oxnard ") Thousand Oaks ")

33

")

Channel Islands Santa Rosa Island National Park Anacapa Santa Island San Miguel Barbara Island County

Channel Islands Santa National Park Barbara County Santa Cruz Island Legend

Proposed Wild & Scenic Rivers State Parks Designated Wild & Scenic Rivers Designated Wilderness Areas Proposed Condor Trail Proposed Wilderness Areas Pacific Crest Trail Potential Wilderness Areas Other Trails Proposed Scenic Areas Lakes National Forests

!

! ! ! Aqueduct BLM Lands Rivers National Park Service Lands Congressional Districts Department of Defense Lands Counties National Monuments National Parks

Santa Barbara Island 0 2.5 5 10 Miles

47 Cartography: Kurt Menke, GISP Bird's Eye View www.BirdsEyeViewGIS.com ² Data Sources: USFS, BLM, ESRI & CalWild Date: February 17, 2014 3/18/2014 Central Coast Wilderness Proposal | Congresswoman Lois Capps

ABOUT ME CONTACT ME SERVING Y OU NEWSROOM LEGISLATIVE WORK OUR DISTRICT RESOURCES

Home » Central Coast Wilderness Proposal Legislative Work Central Coast Wilderness Issues Proposal Legislation

Legislative Process The Central Coast includes some of the most diverse habitats and Issues ecosystems found anywhere in North America. Los Padres National Recent Votes Economy and Jobs Forest, California’s second largest national forest, rises from the

Education Pacific Ocean to over 8,800 feet in elevation and provides habitat for 468 species of wildlife, including the endangered California condor Sign Up Energy & Environment and the southern steelhead. And the Carrizo Plain National Monument Sign up to receive email updates is home to an incredible diversity of plant and animal life, containing Housing & [email protected] Foreclosures several threatened and endangered species, as well as the majestic

Healthcare Tule elk, Pronghorn antelope, and invaluable Native American cultural sites. Immigration

LBGT These public lands have been set aside for watershed protection, Small Business wildlife, cultural resource protection, recreation, open space, and other uses. These lands are vital sources of water for local communities and Social Security for agriculture, help support our economy by providing world-class Veterans recreation opportunities, and contribute to the character and quality of Wall Street Reform life on the Central Coast. I want to ensure these resources are

Central Coast available for generations to come. Wilderness Proposal That is why for the last several months, I have worked closely with hundreds of local stakeholders and public lands experts to draft a legislative proposal to permanently protect certain areas and waters within the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument. The draft legislation would also designate the Condor Trail as a new National Recreation Trail, which, once complete, will provide a through-hiking or -horseback riding experience that rivals the Pacific Crest Trail in its recreational opportunities and astounding natural beauty.

Already, nearly 300 local landowners, businesses, elected officials, farmers, ranchers, civic leaders, wineries, recreation leaders, and outfitters are supportive of additional wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and scenic areas in our region. A full list of supporters can be found here: http://centralcoastwild.org/supporters.

But in such a large geographic region, it is often difficult to reach everyone who cares about and recreates in these areas. That is why I am seeking public comments on this proposal from my constituents in the 24th Congressional District and other stakeholders in the region.

If you would like to submit a comment, please take the time to review the legislation and maps of the proposal below, and then email your comments http://capps.house.gov/issue/central-coast-wilderness-draft-legislation 1/2 3/18/2014 Central Coast Wilderness Proposal | Congresswoman Lois Capps to [email protected].

The deadline for submissions is Friday, April 4, 2014.

My staff and I will review these comments and take them into consideration as we finalize the text of the legislation. Thank you for your interest. I hope you will join me in working towards the protection of these majestic places.

Sincerely,

LOIS CAPPS Member of Congress

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Text of Draft Legislation Map of Proposed Wilderness Areas (20.4 MB)

Contact Congresswoman Washington, D.C. Office Washington, D.C. Office Capps 2231 Rayburn House Office Building San Luis Obispo Office Washington, D.C. 20515 Welcome to the online office for Phone: (202) 225-3601 Santa Barbara Office Congresswoman Lois Capps. Please visit the Fax: (202) 225-5632 Contact Me page to contact Lois electronically Santa Maria Office Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM or click on the office location nearest you for details.

ABOUT ME CONTACT ME SERVING YOU NEWSROOM LEGISLATIVE WORK OUR DISTRICT RESOURCES Full Biography Email Me Help w ith Federal Press Releases Issues Colleges and Small Business Committee and Caucus Sign Up for My Agency Social Media Legislation Universities Grants Memberships eNew sletter Military Academy Press Kit Legislative Process Local Agencies Military Personnel Nominations Request a Meeting E-new sletters Recent Votes Military Installations Parents San Luis Obispo Office FAQs: Help With a National Parks, Forests, Federal Agency Opinion Editorials Senior Citizens Santa Maria Office Public Lands & Marine Internships Photo Gallery Areas Students Santa Barbara Office Flags Video Gallery Traveling to the Central Veterans Washington, D.C. Office Frequently Asked New s Feeds Coast Additional Resources Questions Foreclosure Resources Visiting Washington, Local Employment D.C. Resources Congressional Arts Register to Vote Competition Veterans Facilities Presidential Greetings Serving the 24th and Congressional Congressional District Commendations Deferred Action Resources

Accessibility Tools News Feeds Privacy

http://capps.house.gov/issue/central-coast-wilderness-draft-legislation 2/2 F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML

...... (Original Signature of Member)

113TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. ll

To designate certain Federal lands in California as wilderness, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mrs. CAPPS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on llllllllllllll

A BILL To designate certain Federal lands in California as wilderness, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 5 ‘‘Central Coast Heritage Act’’.

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Definitions. Sec. 3. Designation of wilderness. Sec. 4. Administration of wilderness.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6211 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 2 Sec. 5. Designation of wild and scenic rivers. Sec. 6. Designation of the Fox Mountain potential wilderness. Sec. 7. Designation of scenic areas. Sec. 8. Condor National Recreation Trail.

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 2 In this Act:

3 (1) SCENIC AREAS.—The term ‘‘scenic areas’’ 4 means the Condor Ridge Scenic Area and Black 5 Mountain Scenic Area scenic areaa designated as 6 such by section 7.

7 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 8 means— 9 (A) with respect to lands managed by the 10 Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary of 11 the Interior; and 12 (B) with respect to lands managed by the 13 Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture.

14 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 15 of California.

16 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Wilderness 18 Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the 19 State are designated as wilderness areas and as compo- 20 nents of the National Wilderness Preservation System: 21 (1) Certain land in the Bakersfield Field Office 22 of the Bureau of Land Management comprising ap- 23 proximately lll acres, as generally depicted on

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 3 1 the map entitled ‘‘Caliente Mountain Wilderness 2 Area—Proposed’’ and dated lll, which shall be 3 known as the ‘‘Caliente Mountain Wilderness’’. 4 (2) Certain land in the Bakersfield Field Office 5 of the Bureau of Land Management comprising ap- 6 proximately lll acres, as generally depicted on 7 the map entitled ‘‘Soda Lake Wilderness Area—Pro- 8 posed’’ and dated lll, which shall be known as 9 the ‘‘Soda Lake Wilderness’’. 10 (3) Certain land in the Bakersfield Field Office 11 of the Bureau of Land Management comprising ap- 12 proximately lll acres, as generally depicted on 13 the map entitled ‘‘Temblor Range Wilderness 14 Area—Proposed’’ and dated lll, which shall be 15 known as the ‘‘Temblor Range Wilderness’’. 16 (4) Certain land in the Los Padres National 17 Forest comprising approximately 23,524 acres, as 18 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Chumash 19 Wilderness Area Additions—Proposed’’ and dated 20 lll, which shall be incorporated into and man- 21 aged as part of the Chumash Wilderness as des- 22 ignated by the Los Padres Condor Range and River 23 Protection Act (Public Law 102–301; 106 Stat. 24 242).

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 4 1 (5) Certain land in the Los Padres National 2 Forest comprising approximately 54,609 acres, as 3 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Dick Smith 4 Wilderness Area Additions—Proposed’’ and dated 5 lll, which shall be incorporated into and man- 6 aged as part of the Dick Smith Wilderness as des- 7 ignated by the California Wilderness Act of 1984 8 (Public Law 98–425; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note). 9 (6) Certain land in the Los Padres National 10 Forest and the Bakersfield Field Office of the Bu- 11 reau of Land Management comprising approximately 12 7,315 acres, as generally depicted on the map enti- 13 tled ‘‘Garcia Wilderness Area Additions—Proposed’’ 14 and dated lll, which shall be incorporated into 15 and managed as part of the Garcia Wilderness as 16 designated by the Los Padres Condor Range and 17 River Protection Act (Public Law 102–301; 106 18 Stat. 242). 19 (7) Certain land in the Los Padres National 20 Forest and the Bakersfield Field Office of the Bu- 21 reau of Land Management comprising approximately 22 10,255 acres, as generally depicted on the map enti- 23 tled ‘‘Machesna Mountain Wilderness Area Addi- 24 tions—Proposed’’ and dated lll, which shall be 25 incorporated into and managed as part of the

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 5 1 Machesna Mountain Wilderness as designated by the 2 California Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98– 3 425; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note). 4 (8) Certain land in the Los Padres National 5 Forest comprising approximately 47,853 acres, as 6 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Matilija Wil- 7 derness Area Additions—Proposed’’ and dated 8 lll, which shall be incorporated into and man- 9 aged as part of the Matilija Wilderness as des- 10 ignated by the Los Padres Condor Range and River 11 Protection Act (Public Law 102–301; 106 Stat. 12 242). 13 (9) Certain land in the Los Padres National 14 Forest comprising approximately 24,131 acres, as 15 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘San Rafael 16 Wilderness Area Additions—Proposed’’ and dated 17 lll, which shall be incorporated into and man- 18 aged as part of the San Rafael Wilderness as des- 19 ignated by Public Law 90–271 (82 Stat. 51), the 20 California Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98– 21 425; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note), and the Los Padres 22 Condor Range and River Protection Act (Public Law 23 102–301; 106 Stat. 242). 24 (10) Certain land in the Los Padres National 25 Forest comprising approximately 3,153 acres, as

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 6 1 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Santa Lucia 2 Wilderness Area Additions—Proposed’’ and dated 3 lll, which shall be incorporated into and man- 4 aged as part of the Santa Lucia Wilderness as des- 5 ignated by the Endangered American Wilderness Act 6 of 1978 (Public Law 95–237; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note). 7 (11) Certain land in the Los Padres National 8 Forest comprising approximately 14,795 acres, as 9 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Sespe Wil- 10 derness Area Additions—Proposed’’ and dated 11 lll, which shall be incorporated into and man- 12 aged as part of the Sespe Wilderness as designated 13 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protec- 14 tion Act (Public Law 102–301; 106 Stat. 242).

15 (b) MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after 17 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 18 shall file maps and legal descriptions of the wilder- 19 ness areas and wilderness additions designated by 20 subsection (a) with— 21 (A) the Committee on Natural Resources 22 of the House of Representatives; and 23 (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural 24 Resources of the Senate.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 7

1 (2) FORCE OF LAW.—The maps and legal de- 2 scriptions filed under paragraph (1) shall have the 3 same force and effect as if included in this Act, ex- 4 cept that the Secretary may correct any clerical and 5 typographical errors in the map and legal descrip- 6 tion.

7 (3) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The maps and 8 legal descriptions filed under paragraph (1) shall be 9 on file and available for public inspection in the ap- 10 propriate offices of the Forest Service and Bureau 11 of Land Management.

12 SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 14 the wilderness areas and wilderness additions designated 15 by section 3 shall be administered by the Secretary in ac- 16 cordance with this Act and the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 17 1131 et seq.), except that— 18 (1) any reference in the Wilderness Act to the 19 effective date of that Act shall be considered to be 20 a reference to the date of the enactment of this Act; 21 and 22 (2) any reference in the Wilderness Act to the 23 Secretary of Agriculture shall be considered a ref- 24 erence to the Secretary that has jurisdiction over the 25 land.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 8

1 (b) FIRE MANAGEMENT AND RELATED ACTIVI-

2 TIES.—

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may take 4 such measures in a wilderness area or wilderness ad- 5 dition designated by section 3 as are necessary for 6 the control of fire, insects, and diseases in accord- 7 ance with section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 8 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)) and House Report 98–40 of the 9 98th Congress.

10 (2) FUNDING PRIORITIES.—Nothing in this Act 11 limits funding for fire and fuels management in the 12 wilderness areas or wilderness additions designated 13 by this Act.

14 (3) REVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL

15 FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANS.—As soon as practicable 16 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec- 17 retary shall amend the local fire management plans 18 that apply to the land designated as a wilderness 19 area or wilderness addition by section 3.

20 (4) ADMINISTRATION.—Consistent with para- 21 graph (1) and other applicable Federal law, to en- 22 sure a timely and efficient response to fire emer- 23 gencies in the wilderness areas or wilderness addi- 24 tions designated by section 3, the Secretary shall—

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 9 1 (A) not later than 1 year after the date of 2 the enactment of this Act, establish agency ap- 3 proval procedures (including appropriate delega- 4 tions of authority to the Forest Supervisor, Dis- 5 trict Manager, or other agency officials) for re- 6 sponding to fire emergencies; and 7 (B) enter into agreements with appropriate 8 State or local firefighting agencies.

9 (c) GRAZING.—The grazing of livestock in the wilder- 10 ness areas and wilderness additions designated by section 11 3, if established before the date of the enactment of this 12 Act, shall be permitted to continue, subject to such reason- 13 able regulations as the Secretary considers necessary in 14 accordance with— 15 (1) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)); 17 (2) the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of 18 House Report 101–405, accompanying H.R. 2570 of 19 the 101st Congress for lands under the jurisdiction 20 of the Secretary of the Interior; 21 (3) the guidelines set forth in House Report 22 96–617, accompanying H.R. 5487 of the 96th Con- 23 gress for lands under the jurisdiction of the Sec- 24 retary of Agriculture; and

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 10 1 (4) all other laws governing livestock grazing on 2 Federal øpublic¿ lands.

3 (d) FISH AND WILDLIFE.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section 5 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 6 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this Act affects the jurisdic- 7 tion or responsibilities of the State with respect to 8 fish and wildlife on public land in the State.

9 (2) MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.—In furtherance 10 of the purposes and principles of the Wilderness Act 11 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Secretary may conduct 12 any management activities that are necessary to 13 maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations and 14 habitats in the wilderness areas and wilderness addi- 15 tions designated by section 3, if the management ac- 16 tivities are— 17 (A) consistent with relevant wilderness 18 management plans; and 19 (B) conducted in accordance with appro- 20 priate policies, such as the policies established 21 in Appendix B of House Report 101–405.

22 (e) BUFFER ZONES.—

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—Congress does not intend for 24 designation of wilderness by this Act to lead to the

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 11 1 creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones 2 around each wilderness area or wilderness addition.

3 (2) ACTIVITIES OR USES UP TO BOUNDARIES.— 4 The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be 5 seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall 6 not, of itself, preclude the activities or uses up to the 7 boundary of the wilderness area.

8 (f) MILITARY ACTIVITIES.—Nothing in this Act pre- 9 cludes— 10 (1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over 11 the wilderness areas or wilderness additions des- 12 ignated by section 3; 13 (2) the designation of new units of special air- 14 space over the wilderness areas or wilderness addi- 15 tions designated by section 3; or 16 (3) the use or establishment of military flight 17 training routes over wilderness areas or wilderness 18 additions designated by section 3.

19 (g) HORSES.—Nothing in this Act precludes horse- 20 back riding in, or the entry of recreational or commercial 21 saddle or pack stock into, a wilderness area or wilderness 22 addition designated by section 3— 23 (1) in accordance with section 4(d)(5) of the 24 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(5)); and

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 12 1 (2) subject to any terms and conditions deter- 2 mined to be necessary by the Secretary.

3 (h) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 4 the wilderness areas and wilderness additions designated 5 by section 3 are withdrawn from— 6 (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and dis- 7 posal under the public land laws; 8 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 9 laws; and 10 (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to min- 11 eral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

12 (i) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED LAND AND INTER-

13 ESTS.—Any land within the boundary of a wilderness area 14 or wilderness addition designated by section 3 that is ac- 15 quired by the United States shall— 16 (1) become part of the wilderness area in which 17 the land is located; and 18 (2) be managed in accordance with this section, 19 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and 20 any other applicable law.

21 (j) CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION.—In ac- 22 cordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) 23 and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 24 may prescribe, the Secretary may authorize the installa- 25 tion and maintenance of hydrologic, meteorologic, or cli-

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 13 1 matological collection devices in the wilderness areas and 2 wilderness additions designated by section 3 if the Sec- 3 retary determines that the facilities and access to the fa- 4 cilities are essential to flood warning, flood control, or 5 water reservoir operation activities.

6 SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS.

7 (a) INDIAN CREEK, MONO CREEK, AND MATILIJA

8 CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Section 3(a) of the Wild and Sce- 9 nic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding 10 at the end the following:

11 ‘‘(2ll) INDIAN CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The 12 following segments of Indian Creek in the State of 13 California, to be administered by the Secretary of 14 Agriculture: 15 ‘‘(A) The 9.5-mile segment of Indian Creek 16 from its source in section 19, T7N, R26W to 17 the Dick Smith Wilderness boundary, as a wild 18 river. 19 ‘‘(B) The 1-mile segment of Indian Creek 20 from the Dick Smith Wilderness boundary to 21 0.25 miles downstream of Road 6N24, as a sce- 22 nic river. 23 ‘‘(C) The 3.9-mile segment of Indian Creek 24 from 0.25 miles downstream of Road 6N24 to

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 14 1 the southern boundary of section 32, T6N, 2 R26W, as a wild river.

3 ‘‘(2ll) MONO CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The fol- 4 lowing segments of Mono Creek in the State of Cali- 5 fornia, to be administered by the Secretary of Agri- 6 culture: 7 ‘‘(A) The 4.2-mile segment of Mono Creek 8 from its source in section 1, T7N, R26W, to 9 0.25 miles upstream of Don Victor Fire Road 10 in section 28, T7N, R25W, as a wild river. 11 ‘‘(B) The 2.1-mile segment of Mono Creek 12 from 0.25 miles upstream of the Don Victor 13 Fire Road in section 28, T27N, R25W to 0.25 14 miles downstream of Don Victor Fire Road in 15 section 34, T7N, R25W, as a recreational river. 16 ‘‘(C) The 14.7-mile segment of Mono 17 Creek from 0.25 miles downstream of Don Vic- 18 tor Fire Road in section 34, T7N, R25W to the 19 Ogilvy Ranch private property boundary in sec- 20 tion 22, R26W, T6N, as a wild river. 21 ‘‘(D) The 3.5-mile segment of Mono Creek 22 from the Ogilvy Ranch private property bound- 23 ary to the southern boundary of section 33, 24 T6N, R26N, as a recreational river.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 15

1 ‘‘(2ll) MATILIJA CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The 2 following segments of Matilija Creek in the State of 3 California, to be administered by the Secretary of 4 Agriculture: 5 ‘‘(A) The 7.2-mile segment of the Matilija 6 Creek from its source in section 25, T6N, 7 R25W to the private property boundary in sec- 8 tion 9, T5N, R24W, as a wild river. 9 ‘‘(B) The 7.25-mile segment of the Upper 10 North Fork Matilija Creek from its source in 11 section 36, T6N, R24W to the Matilija Wilder- 12 ness boundary, as a wild river.’’.

13 (b) SESPE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Section 3(a)(142) 14 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 15 1274(a)(142) is amended to read as follows:

16 ‘‘(142) SESPE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The fol- 17 lowing segments of Sespe Creek in the State of Cali- 18 fornia, to be administered by the Secretary of Agri- 19 culture: 20 ‘‘(A) The 2.7-mile segment of Sespe Creek 21 from the private property boundary in section 22 10, T6N, R24W, to the Hartman Ranch private 23 property boundary in section 14, T6N, R24W, 24 as a wild river.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 16 1 ‘‘(B) The 15-mile segment of Sespe Creek 2 from the Hartman Ranch private property 3 boundary in section 14, T6N, R24W, to the 4 western boundary of section 6, T5N, R22W, as 5 a recreational river. 6 ‘‘(C) The 6.1-miles segment of Sespe 7 Creek from the western boundary of section 6, 8 T5N, R22W, to the confluence with Trout 9 Creek, as a scenic river. 10 ‘‘(D) The 28.6-mile segment of Sespe 11 Creek from the confluence with Trout Creek to 12 the southern boundary of section 35, T5N, 13 R20W, as a wild river.’’.

14 (b) SISQUOC RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Section 15 3(a)(143) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 16 1274(a)(143) is amended to read as follows:

17 ‘‘(143) SISQUOC RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—The fol- 18 lowing segments of the Sisquoc River and its tribu- 19 taries in the State of California, to be administered 20 by the Secretary of Agriculture: 21 ‘‘(A) The 33-mile segment of the main 22 stem of the Sisquoc River extending from its 23 origin downstream to the Los Padres Forest 24 boundary, as a wild river.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 17 1 ‘‘(B) The 4.2-mile segment of the South 2 Fork Sisquoc River from its source northeast of 3 San Rafael Mountain in section 2, T7N, R28W 4 to its confluence with the Sisquoc River, as a 5 wild river. 6 ‘‘(C) The 10.4-mile segment of Manzana 7 Creek from its source west of San Rafael Peak 8 in section 4, T&N, R28W to the San Rafael 9 Wilderness boundary upstream of Nira Camp- 10 ground, as a wild river. 11 ‘‘(D) The 0.6-mile segment of Manzana 12 Creek from the San Rafael Wilderness bound- 13 ary upstream of the Nira Campground to the 14 San Rafael Wilderness boundary downstream of 15 the confluence of Davy Brown Creek, as a rec- 16 reational river. 17 ‘‘(E) The 5.8-mile segment of Manzana 18 Creek from the San Rafael Wilderness bound- 19 ary downstream of the confluence of Davy 20 Brown Creek to the private property boundary 21 in section 1, T8N, R30W, as a wild river. 22 ‘‘(F) The 3.8-mile segment of Manzana 23 Creek from the private property boundary in 24 section 1, T8N, R30W, to the confluence of the 25 Sisquoc River, as a recreational river.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 18 1 ‘‘(G) The 3.4-mile segment of Davy Brown 2 Creek from its source west of Ranger Peak in 3 section 32, T8N, R29W to 300 feet upstream 4 of its confluence with Munch Canyon, as a wild 5 river. 6 ‘‘(H) The 1.4-mile segment of Davy Brown 7 Creek from 300 feet upstream of its confluence 8 with Munch Canyon to its confluence with 9 Manzana Creek, as a recreational river. 10 ‘‘(I) The 2-mile segment of Munch Canyon 11 from its source north of Ranger Peak in section 12 33, T8N, R29W to 300 feet upstream of its 13 confluence with Sunset Valley Creek, as a wild 14 river. 15 ‘‘(J) The 0.5-mile segment of Munch Can- 16 yon from 300 feet upstream of its confluence 17 with Sunset Valley Creek to its confluence with 18 Davy Brown Creek, as a recreational river. 19 ‘‘(K) The 2.6-mile segment of Fish Creek 20 from 500 feet downstream of Sunset Valley 21 Road to its confluence with Manzana Creek, as 22 a wild river. 23 ‘‘(L) The 1.5-mile segment of East Fork 24 Fish Creek from its source in section 26, T8N,

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 19 1 R29W to its confluence with Fish Creek, as a 2 wild river.’’.

3 (c) PIRU CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Section 3(a)(199) of 4 the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(199) 5 is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(199) PIRU CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The fol- 7 lowing segments of Piru Creek in the State of Cali- 8 fornia, to be administered by the Secretary of Agri- 9 culture: 10 ‘‘(A) The 9.1-mile segment of Piru Creek 11 from its source in section 3, T6N, R22W, to 12 the private property boundary in section 4, 13 T6N, R21W, as a wild river. 14 ‘‘(B) The 17.2-mile segment of Piru Creek 15 from the private property boundary in section 16 4, T6N, R21W, to 0.25 miles downstream of 17 the Gold Hill Road, as a scenic river. 18 ‘‘(C) The 4.1-mile segment of Piru Creek 19 from 0.25 miles downstream of Gold Hill Road 20 to the confluence with Trail Canyon, as a wild 21 river. 22 ‘‘(D) The 7.25-mile segment of Piru Creek 23 from the confluence with Trail Canyon to the 24 confluence with Buck Creek, as a scenic river.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 20 1 ‘‘(E) The 3-mile segment of Piru Creek 2 from 0.5 miles downstream of Pyramid Dam at 3 the first bridge crossing to the boundary of the 4 Sespe Wilderness, as a recreational river. 5 ‘‘(F) The 13-mile segment of Piru Creek 6 from the boundary of the Sespe Wilderness to 7 the boundary of the Sespe Wilderness, as a wild 8 river. 9 ‘‘(G) The 2.2-mile segment of Piru Creek 10 from the boundary of the Sespe Wilderness to 11 the upper limit of Piru Reservoir, as a rec- 12 reational river.’’.

13 (b) EFFECT.—The designation of Piru Creek under 14 subsection (a) shall not affect valid rights in existence on 15 the date of the enactment of this Act.

16 SEC. 6. DESIGNATION OF THE FOX MOUNTAIN POTENTIAL

17 WILDERNESS.

18 (a) DESIGNATION.—In furtherance of the purposes of 19 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), certain land 20 in the Los Padres National Forest comprising approxi- 21 mately 41,617 acres, as generally depicted on the map en- 22 titled ‘‘Fox Mountain Potential Wilderness Area’’ and 23 dated ll, is designated as the Fox Mountain Potential 24 Wilderness Area.

25 (b) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 21

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after 2 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 3 of Agriculture shall file a map and a legal descrip- 4 tion of the Fox Mountain Potential Wilderness Area 5 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘potential wilder- 6 ness area’’) with— 7 (A) the Committee on Natural Resources 8 of the House of Representatives; and 9 (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural 10 Resources of the Senate.

11 (2) FORCE OF LAW.—The map and legal de- 12 scription filed under paragraph (1) shall have the 13 same force and effect as if included in this Act, ex- 14 cept that the Secretary of Agriculture may correct 15 any clerical and typographical errors in the map and 16 legal description.

17 (3) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The map and legal 18 description filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file 19 and available for public inspection in the appropriate 20 offices of the Forest Service.

21 (c) MANAGEMENT.—Except as provided in subsection 22 (d) and subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary shall 23 manage the potential wilderness area in accordance with 24 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 22

1 (d) TRAIL USE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION,

2 AND REALIGNMENT.—

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with para- 4 graph (2), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 5 to— 6 (A) construct a new trail for use by hikers, 7 equestrians, and mechanized vehicles that con- 8 nects the Aliso Park Campground to the Bull 9 Ridge Trail; and 10 (B) reconstruct or realign the— 11 (i) Bull Ridge Trail; and 12 (ii) Rocky Ridge Trail.

13 (2) REQUIREMENT.—In carrying out the con- 14 struction, reconstruction, or alignment under para- 15 graph (1), the Secretary shall— 16 (A) comply with all existing laws (including 17 regulations); and 18 (B) to the maximum extent practicable, 19 use the minimum tool or administrative practice 20 necessary to accomplish the construction, recon- 21 struction, or alignment with the least amount of 22 adverse impact on wilderness character and re- 23 sources.

24 (3) MOTORIZED VEHICLES AND MACHINERY.— 25 In accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 23 1 may use motorized vehicles and machinery to carry 2 out the trail construction, reconstruction, or realign- 3 ment authorized by this section.

4 (4) MECHANIZED VEHICLES.—The Secretary 5 may permit the use of mechanized vehicles on the 6 existing Bull Ridge Trail and Rocky Ridge Trail in 7 accordance with existing law (including regulations) 8 and this section until such date as the potential wil- 9 derness area is designated wilderness in accordance 10 with subsection (h).

11 (e) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 12 the Federal land in the potential wilderness area is with- 13 drawn from all forms of— 14 (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 15 public land laws; 16 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 17 laws; and 18 (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to min- 19 eral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

20 (f) GRANTS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In car- 21 rying out this section, the Secretary may make grants to, 22 or enter into cooperative agreements with, State, tribal, 23 and local governmental entities and private entities to 24 complete the trail construction, reconstruction, and re- 25 alignment authorized by subsection (d).

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 24

1 (g) BOUNDARIES.—The Secretary shall modify the 2 boundary of the potential wilderness area to exclude any 3 area within 50 feet of the centerline of the new location 4 of any trail that has been constructed, reconstructed, or 5 realigned under subsection (d).

6 (h) WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.—

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The potential wilderness 8 area, as modified under subsection (g), shall be des- 9 ignated as wilderness and as a component of the Na- 10 tional Wilderness Preservation System on the date 11 on which the Secretary publishes in the Federal 12 Register notice that the trail construction, recon- 13 struction, or alignment authorized by subsection (d) 14 has been completed or 15 years after the date of the 15 enactment of this Act, whichever comes sooner.

16 (2) ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS.—Upon 17 designation as wilderness under this section, the po- 18 tential wilderness area shall be— 19 (A) incorporated into the San Rafael Wil- 20 derness, as designated by Public Law 90–271 21 (82 Stat. 51), the California Wilderness Act of 22 1984 (Public Law 98–425; 16 U.S.C. 1132 23 note), and the Los Padres Condor Range and 24 River Protection Act (Public Law 102–301; 106 25 Stat. 242).; and

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 25 1 (B) administered in accordance with sec- 2 tion 4 and the Wilderness Act.

3 SEC. 7. DESIGNATION OF SCENIC AREAS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 5 there are established the following scenic areas:

6 (1) CONDOR RIDGE SCENIC AREA.—Certain 7 land in the Los Padres National Forest comprising 8 approximately 18,666 acres, as generally depicted on 9 the map entitled ‘‘Condor Ridge Scenic Area—Pro- 10 posed’’ and dated lll, which shall be managed 11 as the Condor Ridge Scenic Area.

12 (2) BLACK MOUNTAIN SCENIC AREA.—Certain 13 land in the Los Padres National Forest and the Ba- 14 kersfield Field Office of the Bureau of Land Man- 15 agement comprising approximately 15,846 acres, as 16 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Black Moun- 17 tain Scenic Area—Proposed’’ and dated lll, 18 which shall be managed as the Black Mountain Sce- 19 nic Area.

20 (b) MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after 22 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 23 of Agriculture shall file a map and a legal descrip- 24 tion of the Condor Ridge Scenic Area and Black 25 Mountain Scenic Area with—

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 26 1 (A) the Committee on Natural Resources 2 of the House of Representatives; and 3 (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural 4 Resources of the Senate.

5 (2) FORCE OF LAW.—The maps and legal de- 6 scriptions filed under paragraph (1) shall have the 7 same force and effect as if included in this Act, ex- 8 cept that the Secretary of Agriculture may correct 9 any clerical and typographical errors in the map and 10 legal description.

11 (3) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The maps and 12 legal descriptions filed under paragraph (1) shall be 13 on file and available for public inspection in the ap- 14 propriate offices of the Forest Service.

15 (c) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary of Agriculture 16 shall administer the special management areas in accord- 17 ance with this section and any laws (including regulations) 18 relating to the National Forest System.

19 (d) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 20 the Federal land in the special management areas is with- 21 drawn from all forms of— 22 (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 23 public land laws; 24 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 25 laws; and

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 27 1 (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to min- 2 eral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

3 (e) PROHIBITED USES.—The following shall be pro- 4 hibited on the Federal land within the scenic areas: 5 (1) Permanent roads. 6 (2) Permanent structures. 7 (3) Timber harvesting. 8 (4) Transmission lines. 9 (5) Except as necessary to meet the minimum 10 requirements for the administration of the scenic 11 areas and to protect public health and safety— 12 (A) the use of motorized vehicles; or 13 (B) the establishment of temporary roads. 14 (6) Commercial enterprises, except as necessary 15 for realizing the recreational or other wilderness 16 purposes of the scenic areas.

17 (f) WILDFIRE, INSECT, AND DISEASE MANAGE-

18 MENT.—Consistent with this section, the Secretary of Ag- 19 riculture may take any measures in the scenic areas that 20 the Secretary determines to be necessary to control fire, 21 insects, and diseases, including, as the Secretary deter- 22 mines appropriate, the coordination of those activities with 23 the State or a local agency.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 28 1 SEC. 8. CONDOR NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL. 2 Section 5(a) the National Trails System Act (16 3 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended by adding the following:

4 ‘‘(31) CONDOR NATIONAL RECREATION

5 TRAIL.—

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Condor National 7 Recreation Trail, extending approximately 8 lll miles from Lake Piru to the highway 9 101 corridor, as generally depicted on the map 10 entitled ‘Condor National Recreation Trail— 11 Proposed’ and dated llll.

12 ‘‘(B) ADMINISTRATION.—The Condor Na- 13 tional Recreation Trail (referred to in this sec- 14 tion as the ‘trail’) shall be administered by the 15 Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with— 16 ‘‘(i) other Federal, State, tribal, re- 17 gional, and local agencies; 18 ‘‘(ii) private landowners; and 19 ‘‘(iii) other interested organizations.

20 ‘‘(C) PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.—

21 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—No portions of the 22 trail may be located on non-Federal land 23 without the written consent of the land- 24 owner.

25 ‘‘(ii) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary 26 shall not acquire for the trail any land or

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 29 1 interest in land outside the exterior bound- 2 ary of any federally-managed area without 3 the consent of the owner of land or interest 4 in land.

5 ‘‘(iii) EFFECT.—Nothing in this sec- 6 tion— 7 ‘‘(I) requires any private prop- 8 erty owner to allow public access (in- 9 cluding Federal, State, or local gov- 10 ernment access) to private property; 11 or 12 ‘‘(II) modifies any provision of 13 Federal, State, or local law with re- 14 spect to public access to or use of pri- 15 vate land.

16 ‘‘(D) MAP.—The map referred to in para- 17 graph (A) shall be on file and available for pub- 18 lic inspection in the appropriate offices of the 19 Forest Service.

20 ‘‘(E) STUDY.—

21 ‘‘(i) STUDY REQUIRED.—Not later 22 than 3 years after the date of the enact- 23 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Agri- 24 culture shall submit to the Committee on 25 Natural Resources of the House of Rep-

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO F:\M13\CAPPS\CAPPS_043.XML 30 1 resentatives and Committee on Energy and 2 Natural Resources of the Senate a study 3 that describes the feasibility of, and alter- 4 natives for, connecting the northern and 5 southern portions of the trail.

6 ‘‘(ii) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—In 7 completing the study required by para- 8 graph (i), the Secretary of Agriculture 9 shall consult with— 10 ‘‘(I) appropriate Federal, State, 11 tribal, regional, and local agencies; 12 ‘‘(II) private landowners; 13 ‘‘(III) nongovernmental organiza- 14 tions; and 15 ‘‘(IV) members of the public.’’.

f:\VHLC\030414\030414.130.xml (567727|8) March 4, 2014 (3:51 p.m.) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:51 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\LMDALY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\CAPPS_~1.XML HO

May 16, 2013

U.S. Forest Service Attn: LMP Amendment 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92127-2107 [email protected].

RE: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment

Dear U.S. Forest Service:

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed amendments to the Land Management Plan (LMP) for the Los Padres National Forest and the associated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

Los Padres ForestWatch is a local, community-based nonprofit organization working to protect and restore the Los Padres National Forest. We are supported by more than seven hundred members who value our local backcountry for its wildlife habitat, clean water supplies, scenic landscapes, outdoor recreation opportunities, and other benefits that these public lands provide to surrounding communities. ForestWatch has participated in the land management planning process for the Los Padres National Forest since 2004, when we submitted comments on the draft revision to the LMP. In 2006, ForestWatch was part of a coalition of conservation organizations that filed an appeal of the final LMP revision. ForestWatch was also a party to the legal challenge and resulting Settlement Agreement that prompted this LMP amendment. ForestWatch and our members have a strong interest in ensuring that the LMP for the Los Padres National Forest provides strong, effective protections so that the public can continue to enjoy these lands for generations to come.

This Forest Plan Amendment seeks to modify existing land use zones in 16 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) in the Los Padres National Forest, including the Antimony, Black Mountain, Cuyama, Diablo, Dry Lakes, Fox Mountain, Garcia Mountain, Juncal, Machesna Mountain, Madulce-Buckhorn, Quatal, Sawmill-Badlands, Sespe-Frazier, Spoor Canyon, Tequepis, and White Ledge IRAs. These IRAs encompass more than 420,000 acres of the Los Padres National Forest and represent some of the last remaining unprotected lands in our region. They face unique challenges including unauthorized road construction, off-highway vehicle trespass, oil exploration and development, unmitigated livestock grazing, vegetation clearing projects, alterations to historic fire regimes, large-scale marijuana cultivation, and other pressures from encroaching urban development.

Despite these challenges, these IRAs continue to provide sources of clean water, wildlife habitat, scenic landscapes, and outdoor recreation opportunities. They therefore warrant special additional protections and enhanced land use designations to reverse environmental damage that has already occurred, to prevent further degradation of resources, and to promote an overall vision of responsible land stewardship and conservation. With this backdrop in mind, we support the Forest Service’s efforts to increase Back Country Non-Motorized (“BCNM”) land use zone allocations within these IRAs. Specifically, the Proposed Action seeks to apply a more protective BCNM allocation across more than 300,000 acres of IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest.

However, the Forest Service has missed an opportunity to apply a Recommended Wilderness (RW) zoning designation – the most protective land use zone – to certain IRAs. Many IRAs evaluated in the Proposed Action meet the formal definition of wilderness under Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which states:

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Unfortunately, the draft SEIS identifies a preferred alternative – Alternative 2 – for the Los Padres National Forest that does not include any new acreage with a RW zoning designation. Such a “no new wilderness” policy does not provide adequate protection for several IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest that remain vulnerable to a variety of threats in the absence of a RW designation. It is also inconsistent with pending citizen proposals to designate more wilderness areas in the Los Padres National Forest, and with our community’s desire to expand the network of wilderness areas in our region. In 2010, several local, statewide, and national conservation organizations – including ForestWatch – identified approximately 200,000 acres of IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest that are suitable for wilderness designation. During the formal scoping period for this LMP amendment, thousands of commenters urged the Forest Service to increase the amount of acreage receiving the RW designation. Given the community’s strong desire for more wilderness protection, we hope that the Forest Service

2 seriously considers adopting an alternative closer to Alternative 3 (Recommended Wilderness Emphasis).

Thank you for considering our previous comments on this matter, including revising some of the IRA Analysis. Our remaining comments are divided into three parts. Part One provides general comments on the Forest Service’s proposed action. Part Two provides specific comments on the Inventoried Roadless Area Analysis (“IRRA”) that accompanies the draft SEIS. And Part Three provides specific comments on the alternative monitoring protocol.

• PART ONE • GENERAL COMMENTS

Wilderness preservation plays a role in the Forest Service’s multiple-use mandate, and indeed, is legally recognized as fully consistent with this mandate. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act explicitly addresses wilderness in these words: “The establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.”1 The Forest Service has long been at the forefront of effective wilderness stewardship. Consistent with other national forests across the country, we hope that the Los Padres National Forest will take this opportunity to fully embrace the ideals set forth by the framers of the Wilderness Act of 1964 “to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.”2

While we appreciate the efforts the Los Padres National Forest has taken to preserve the forest’s wilderness resource, we also hope that the Forest Service will take this opportunity to seize opportunities to improve and enhance wilderness management on the Los Padres. For example, preparing individual management plans for each of the ten wilderness areas on the Los Padres National Forest would help the Forest Service to evaluate its current management of wilderness areas, and to prioritize the measures necessary to reach successful stewardship levels consistent with the Forest Service Chief’s 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge. The addition of a forest-wide Wilderness Program Manager would bring the Los Padres National Forest in line with other forests, and would more effectively and consistently manage wilderness across the Los Padres landscape, and could coordinate partnerships with non-profit wilderness stewardship organizations and the general public.

Opportunities remain to improve wilderness management on the Los Padres National Forest and to enhance the community’s understanding of, and appreciation for, protected wilderness areas. Our hope is that the Forest Service will use this LMP amendment process to fully embrace these opportunities.

1 16 U.S.C. § 529 2 Wilderness Act Section 2(a).

3 1.1 Allocating Lands to the Recommended Wilderness Land Use Maximizes Protections for Endangered California Condors

The conservation of large, undeveloped contiguous landscapes plays an important role in the survival and recovery of the endangered California condor. Most of the IRAs contain important nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for condors. Applying a Recommended Wilderness land use designation to these areas is an effective way to protect condor habitat from development and disturbance.

1. The SEIS Must Contain an Adequate Evaluation of Beneficial and Adverse Impacts to Condors to Best Facilitate a Reasoned Comparison Among Alternatives

In our scoping comments, we recommended that the SEIS evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and alternative land use designations, and should also evaluate monitoring protocol specifically tailored to condors. The draft SEIS includes a one-page evaluation of the benefits to condors afforded under the various alternatives, but does not evaluate any of the potential adverse impacts to condors from the various development activities allowed under a BCNM land use designation. Activities like oil drilling, mining, temporary road construction, construction of communication towers and facilities, wind and geothermal energy development, sale/disposal of forest lands, harvest of forest products, and type conversion – all of which are allowed in the BCNM land use zone, and prohibited in the RW land use zone – may have significant individual and cumulative impacts to condors. These impacts must be disclosed and evaluated in the SEIS.

Table 11 (Summary of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species within IRAs) states that condors occur in only 6 of the 16 IRAs being evaluated in the Los Padres National Forest. See DSEIS at 45. This table should be corrected to include additional IRAs where condors are known to occur. The table omits the following IRAs from the list of roadless areas with occurrences of California condors:  White Ledge (the IRA Evaluation states that condors “frequent” this area)  Spoor Canyon (the IRA Evaluation states that condors may soar along the Sierra Madre Ridge in this unit)  Juncal (the IRA Evaluation states that condor foraging habitat is found in this area)  Quatal (the IRA Evaluation states that condors have been reintroduced “in and adjacent to” this area)  Black Mountain (the IRA Evaluation states that condors fly over this area)  Garcia Mountain (the IRA Evaluation states that condors are “present” in this unit).

4

The draft SEIS also contains a table that shows the acreage of formally-designated California condor critical habitat in each of the land use zones, for each alternative. See Table 66 (Critical Habitat acres by Alternative, Species, and Land Use Zone), DSEIS at 144. According to the figures in this table, there is a total of 13,675.9 acres of condor critical habitat in the 16 IRAs. There is little difference between Alternatives 1 (No Action) and Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) with respect to condor critical habitat. Only 875.2 acres of condor critical habitat (6.4% of the total condor critical habitat in the IRAs) are shifted to more protective land use zones in Alternative 2. The amount of condor critical habitat in the RW land use zone in Alternatives 1 and 2 is exactly the same – 1,663.3 acres or 12.2% of the total acreage of condor critical habitat in the IRAs.

On the other hand, Alternative 3 provides a striking difference in the amount of protection afforded condor critical habitat. It places 11,765 acres of condor critical habitat into the RW land use zone, representing 86.0% of the condor critical habitat in these IRAs. Given this marked difference, it should be clear that Alternative 3 is the environmentally preferable alternative with the most benefits – and the least amount of potentially adverse impacts – to California condors.

The DSEIS figures are limited to formally-designated critical habitat, and no figures are provided that compare the amount of other suitable and/or occupied condor habitat acres protected under various land use zones. Critical habitat for condors was designated in 1976 and 1977, and does not necessarily reflect all of the areas currently being used by condors. Moreover, the Forest Service’s species account emphasizes protecting high-use condor flyways throughout the forest:

Because ‘flyways’ are an important habitat component for California condors and are where the risk of death is high due to collisions with man-made objects, recent conservation work has focused on gathering information regarding the location and use of these flyways. These ‘high use flyways’ are being determined based on historic observations of frequent use (ocular, radio and aircraft tracking from the wild population of the 1980s), recent observations of release birds, and through radio and satellite telemetry. Satellite tracking allows for both real time and elapsed time movement monitoring that can be used to locate birds, and to identify areas being used by the birds for nesting, roosting, and foraging.

At a minimum, the SEIS should include a map showing the location of these high-use condor flyways in and near the IRAs. The SEIS must evaluate the impacts to condors and condor habitat outside of the formally-designated critical habitat boundaries. Only then can the SEIS accurately compare the effects of various alternatives.

The lack of any figures or analysis of impacts to suitable and/or occupied habitat outside of the designated critical habitat boundaries is significant, as the DSEIS bases its “not likely to adversely affect” conclusion on the rationale that either of the two action alternatives should

5 result in more occupied and critical habitat acres being managed with more restrictive land use zones. DSEIS at 158-59. That conclusion for occupied habitat cannot be made without evaluating the actual acreages of occupied habitat in each IRA, and in each land use zone.

It bears noting that the DSEIS seems to identify Alternative 3 as the most environmentally preferable alternative with respect to protecting condors:

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there should be beneficial effects from the reduction of BC, BCMUR, BCNM and DAI. Effects include less interaction and disturbance from people, and reduction in trash and contaminated carcasses as a result of a reduction in road access/use. There should also be a reduction in habitat fragmentation from roads improving overall habitat conditions. Under alternative 3, there should be the least amount of motorized and mechanized disturbance. Although the recovery plan for the California condor does not recommend the designation of additional wilderness areas as a means of promoting recovery, wilderness recommendation could preclude wind energy development and their potential impacts, which would be beneficial to the birds.

DSEIS at 152. In addition to wind energy development, this discussion should also mention other types of development that would be precluded by a RW land use designation and thus benefit condors (i.e. oil drilling, mining, temporary road construction, sale/disposal of forest lands, geothermal energy development, communication facilities, type conversion, harvesting of forest products, etc.). The benefits of Alternative 3 in precluding these types of activities should be disclosed and evaluated in the SEIS. The adverse impacts of these types of activities to condors should also be evaluated, should the Forest Service select Alternative 2 instead of Alternative 3.

The DSEIS is silent on the primary impact to California condors – lead poisoning from the ingestion of spent ammunition. The SEIS should evaluate how each alternative would reduce or heighten this threat. For example, the Forest Service’s species account states:

With potentially much greater motorized vehicle use, it will be much more difficult to manage human disturbance and shooting. The chances of lead in carcasses fed on by condors will be much more widespread.

Clearly, an alternative that allows for significant levels of motorized access and development in condor habitat – such as Alternative 2 – would increase the incidence of lead poisoning in condors, further inhibiting the recovery of the species. We suggest Alternative 3 to reduce the incidence of lead being deposited into key condor habitat areas.

While we agree that more protective land use designations offered under both Alternatives 2 and 3 will benefit condors, that benefit must also be weighed against the potentially significant impacts from zoning condor critical habitat in the least-protective categories, Developed Area Interface (DAI) and Back Country (BC). All alternatives have 68.3 acres of condor critical habitat

6 in the DAI land use zone. For purposes of analysis and impact avoidance, it would be helpful to know where these areas are located. Likewise, which areas of condor critical habitat are receiving the second-least protective land use zoning designation (BC)? The three alternatives contain 546.4 acres (Alt. 1), 525.8 acres (Alt. 2), and 478.8 acres (Alt. 3) of condor critical habitat that is being assigned the BC land use designation. Which areas are these and what individual and cumulative impacts may arise from this designation?

Unless the issues above are adequately addressed in the SEIS, the Forest Service does not have a sufficient basis to conclude that the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) is “not likely to adversely affect” endangered California condors and/or their designated critical habitat. See DSEIS at 158-59. Also, please note that the “adversely affect” standard only applies to critical habitat; the correct standard under the Endangered Species Act for evaluating impacts to species is whether the activity will “jeopardize the continued existence” of the species.

2. The IRA Analyses Should Accurately and Consistently Evaluate the Benefits to Condors From a RW Zoning Designation, and the Impacts of Failing to Assign this Designation

The IRA Analysis for each IRA should assess the benefits of RW zone allocation on the integrity of historic or current roosting sites, nesting sites, and foraging grounds, and should also consider the impacts of allowing certain types of development and land use activities – such as mining, oil drilling, land disposal, target shooting, authorized motorized use, renewable energy, communication sites, harvesting of wood and other forest products, and fuelbreak construction.

In our scoping comments, we suggested that the IRA analyses be modified so that they offer consistent summaries of the benefits of wilderness designation, as well as the threats posed by development activities and land uses. The language used in these evaluations with respect to condors remains substantially unchanged, so we will repeat many of our scoping comments here.

Wilderness designation provides a suite of additional wildlife habitat and ecosystem protections beyond any other land use zone. The benefits of wilderness designation were even highlighted in the LMP EIS, which acknowledged that “the level of protection for some species and habitats was increased by additional wilderness designations” during the previous planning period, and that wilderness “provides relatively large, undisturbed habitat for wildlife, including a number of threatened, endangered or sensitive species.” The draft LMP EIS went into even further detail:

For a long time, wilderness was viewed primarily as an area to meet primitive recreation needs. However, it is now also being recognized as critical refuge for biodiversity, ecosystems, threatened plants and wildlife and airshed and watershed values in a rapidly growing part of the country. Environmental education and scientific research values are important as well.

7

…

National Forest wilderness in southern California provides an important open- space reservoir of biodiversity for many species of wildlife and plants. Wilderness management focuses on allowing natural conditions to prevail, usually by eliminating or limiting human intervention. Therefore, the overall effect of wilderness designation is to provide additional protection and maintenance of natural biological diversity. Populations of federally listed threatened and endangered species located within any designated wilderness would be protected from potential disturbance or development.”

U.S. Forest Service, 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Revised Land Management Plans: Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, and San Bernardino National Forest. Pages 3-173, 3-175. The reasons for deleting this language from the Final EIS are unknown, but these considerations should be evaluated in the SEIS and the IRA Analysis. We recommend that this language be restored in the SEIS.

Several IRA analyses seem to discount the benefits that a wilderness designation would provide to condor survival and recovery. For example, the following language occurs in several IRA analyses:

Current and projected human uses and developments on National Forest System lands in the Sawmill-Badlands roadless area are not substantially affecting the habitat of this species. Condors require large tracts of land in order to maintain viable populations. Currently, this endangered species occupies areas that are part roadless and part roaded. Current monitoring data does not indicate that the presence of roaded areas is precluding the use of these areas by these birds nor does the data show that California condors use designated wilderness areas more frequently than non-wilderness areas. The recovery plan for the condor does not recommend the designation of additional wilderness areas as a means of promoting the recovery of the species.

IRA Analysis at 139 (Antimony), 155 (Cuyama), 181 (Fox Mountain), 211 (Madulce-Buckhorn), 227 (Sawmill-Badlands), and 240-41 (Sespe-Frazier). The analysis for the Diablo IRA states, “Condors have shown an ability to inhabit areas with much human development. But they, like most other wildlife, are more adapted to unaltered habitats.” IRA Analysis at 164.

It is important for the IRA Analysis to be based on a full and accurate review of current information, and this language falls short of that imperative and is based on incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information. While these areas do include “historic roost sites,” they are also currently used by condors. The statement that “monitoring data does not indicate that the presence of roaded areas is precluding or reducing the use of these areas by these animals” contains no citation or incorporation by reference (as required by NEPA), and is not based on

8 the volume of scientific literature and on-the-ground data showing a variety of impacts to condors from human activity along roads. In fact, the Forest Service has known for forty years that “Vehicular travel has been shown…to be a major cause of disturbance to condors. No nests have been found closer than 1.2 miles of a moderately used dirt road.”3 More recently, the Forest Service stated

Potential threats to California condors from resource management activities on National Forest System lands include modification or loss of habitat or habitat components (primarily large trees) and behavioral disturbance to nesting condors caused by vegetation treatment activities. Also, facilities maintenance (including roads), recreation, or other associated activities within occupied habitat could prevent or inhibit nesting or lead to nest failure (USDA Forest Service 2001)…. Designated wilderness areas encompass large areas of the Los Padres National Forest, providing broad protection of habitat for the California condor (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).4

Furthermore, FWS states that “[r]oosting sites must be isolated from human disturbance or intrusion.”5

The implication that a RW zone allocation is unnecessary because the California Condor Recovery Plan “does not recommend the designation of additional wilderness areas as a means of promoting the recovery of the species” is equally as troublesome. Granted, the Recovery Plan does not specifically refer to wilderness designation, but one of the five actions it calls for is to “[m]aintain habitat for condor recovery.” And under the section titled Conservation Measures, the recovery plan highlights land acquisitions to preserve condor habitat, and public entry in these areas has been prohibited since acquisition (and even stricter mandate than what is required by a RW designation). The plan also notes that in March 1995, the FWS recommended that a captive release program be initiated in the Ventana Wilderness of the Los Padres National Forest, evidencing a preference for large, intact areas with limited development. The plan recognizes that “[r]oosting sites and nesting sites are susceptible to similar disturbance threats, and their preservation requires isolation from human intrusion.” It also states that “[p]rotection should be provided by management plans on public lands,” meaning that the LMP Amendment is an excellent opportunity to secure strong protections for

3 U.S. Forest Service, 1971. Habitat Management Plan for the California Condor, page 31. 4 According to FWS, “Designated wilderness areas encompass large areas of the LPNF, providing broad protection to habitat of the California condor.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological and conference opinions on the continued implementation of land and resource management plans for the four southern California National Forests, as modified by new interim management direction and conservation measures (1-6-00-F-773.2). Page 88.

5 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2005. Biological and Conference Opinions on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for the Four Southern California National Forests (1-6-05-F- 773.9). Page 104.

9 IRAs that provide important condor habitat, such as Antimony. The plan also calls to “[p]reserve key foraging areas near nests and roosts,” including the San Emigdio Mountains and portions of the Antimony IRA. Wilderness is our nation’s most powerful tool to preserve habitats and landscapes. It is also a tool that can be used to fulfill the Forest Service’s duties under Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, which requires all agencies to “utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species.” One of these authorities is the recommendation of certain habitats for designation as wilderness.

If the IRA Analysis retains the reference to monitoring data, then the SEIS should summarize the data gathered and the monitoring protocol used, consistent with the incorporation-by- reference requirements of NEPA. The data should be made available to the public for review.

The IRA Analysis should also include a consistent evaluation of the benefits that a RW zone allocation will provide to condors. For example, the analysis for the Antimony IRA states:

Wilderness designation could preclude wind energy development and potential impacts to condors.

IRA Analysis at 141. And the analysis for the Fox Mountain IRA states:

The landforms in this unit provide uplifting winds which attract condors to fly along it, particularly in their north to south migrations. There are also historic roost/nest sites in Lion Canyon. The same winds that attract the condors make the ridgeline suitable for wind energy development, which can cause fatal collisions between soaring condors and the wind generators. To the extent that wilderness recommendation would minimize wind energy development in this unit beyond existing measures, such a recommendation could benefit the condor.

IRA Analysis at 184. This protection against potential wind energy development is not mentioned in any of the other IRAs where condors occur, nor is this evaluated as a potential impact in the DSEIS. Wind energy development is allowed in all other zone allocations except for RW, again demonstrating how wilderness is the best tool to protect condor habitat.

In the Machesna Mountain IRA Analysis, the Forest Service states that a RW land use zone would “not substantially enhance condor recovery efforts as the unit is not used by condors, there is no indication of a future threat to the condors that could emanate from this unit and there is already a half mile to one mile of wilderness around the historic nesting and roosting areas.” IRA Analysis at 206. However, the same IRA analysis also discloses that condors “still occasionally soar over this unit and may once again nest at the nearby historic Beartrap or Castle Crags cliff sites” and “Condors still occasionally soar over this area.” Id. at 201-02. As described above, if a RW zoning designation is not selected for this IRA, then it will be open to a variety of development activities, including mining. The IRA acknowledges “evidence of historic

10 mining activities within the unit” suggesting that the area may be vulnerable to resumption of mining activities at some time in the future. IRA Analysis at 201, 05.

Several IRAs erroneously state that condors are adapted to development and human activity. For example, the Sawmill-Badlands IRA analysis claims that condors “have the ability to survive in less than primitive surroundings.” IRA Analysis at 232. The White Ledge IRA analysis claims that condors are “adaptable to most human development.” Id. at 280. These statements are inconsistent with a long line of studies showing that condors require areas free of human disturbance for nesting and roosting,6 and as such, should be removed from the IRA Analysis.

Finally, the IRA Analysis suggests that a RW zoning allocation is inconsistent with wildlife management, particularly California condors. For example, the analyses for several IRAs state that wilderness designation could impede condor management efforts because of restrictions on the use of motorized vehicles. See IRA Analysis at 181 (Fox Mountain), 220 (Quatal), 231 (Sawmill-Badlands), and Sespe-Frazier (242). Please recall that the Wilderness Act – as well as the Forest Service’s own Wilderness Management Handbook – allows wildlife management activities to continue if necessary to preserve an area’s wilderness character. See U.S. Forest Service, 2007. Wilderness Management Manual, Chapter 2323.33 - Wildlife Management, and Chapter 2324.4 - Research in Wilderness. See also Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness.

If wildlife management is used to disqualify an area from consideration as RW, then the IRA Analysis should discuss use of specific roads for these purposes in each IRA (including whether those roads are system roads or non-system roads) and should describe the use of motorized vehicles for wildlife management. We encourage the Forest Service to consult with the U.S. Fish

6 The Forest Service’s species account for condors states: “Viability is a definite concern due to the extremely small population and vulnerability to many factors on National Forest System lands and other lands. Greatest among these are shooting, lead contamination, collision with overhead transmission lines and towers, trash, and general human disturbance.” Moreover, in 2005, the U.S. General Accounting Office (the research arm of Congress) concluded that “the endangered California condor is particularly susceptible to disturbances from human activities. Condors have been observed landing on oil pads on the refuge, which poses a safety risk to the birds and reduces their fear of humans.” GAO 2005, p. 22. As condors become more accustomed to human presence, they are more likely to interact with oil drilling activities. This, in turn, results in an increased likelihood that condors will ingest trash and experience other impacts from other activities on or near the national forest. More recently, the risks of condors becoming habituated to human presence was summarized as follows: “Early releases of captive-bred condors identified unanticipated problems related to the acclimatization of condors to human activities. Condors were observed raiding picnic coolers, perching on houses and aerials, and, in one instance, breaking into a summer cabin and ransacking the interior (Grantham, pers. comm. 2008). Acclimatization potentially draws condors to areas in which human activities could inadvertently harm individual birds and can modify the species behavior in the wild. California condors demonstrating habituation behavior must be chased away from dwellings and are at further risk of injury at that time…. USFWS has determined that California condors that become attracted to human activity and that are not deterred from previous aversion training received while in captivity, and that are not discouraged by deterrence efforts after becoming habituated to human structures or activities, must be captured and relocated, undergo additional aversion training, and be re-released, or be permanently removed from the wild.” Dudek 2012. Draft Tehachapi Upland Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, page 4-53.

11 & Wildlife Service’s Condor Recovery Program to identify any key access routes that would be affected by a RW designation. We are unaware of any recent efforts to transport and release condors in the IRAs.

1.2 The Recommended Wilderness Land Use Allocation Benefits Other Wildlife

According to the DSEIS, endangered southern steelhead are found in the Dry Lakes and Sespe- Frazier IRAs, and steelhead critical habitat is found in these IRAs as well as the White Ledge and Tequepis IRAs. The DSEIS acknowledges that Alternative 3 – which places these IRAs in the RW land use classification – is the only alternative that provides substantial benefits to steelhead. Specifically, the DSEIS states:

Approximately 22 miles of linear critical habitat occurs on the Los Padres National Forest in the Dry Lakes, Sespe-Frasier and White Ledge IRAs (table 66). There is no change to the existing conditions under Alternative 1. Trout continue to be impacted in the same manner as they currently are now. Alternative 2 would not result in significant beneficial effects to trout when compared to Alternative 1, as there is only a 1.5 mile stream habitat decrease in BC and a 1.5 mile stream habitat increase in BCNM. The miles of BCMUR, DAI and EW do not change under any alternatives. Alternative 3 should result in the least amount of individual disturbance and the greatest amount of habitat improvement. Under this alternative, there is a significant increase in RW with a decrease in BCNM, which should minimize mechanized access and use. Decreased access to spawning sites should improve habitat conditions, as well as allow more individuals to reproduce successfully. Alternative 3 should also result in decreased soil compaction, soil erosion along stream banks and improved water quality. Although people may still be able to access streams/rivers where trout occur, only the least invasive activities are permitted, thus minimizing disturbance to individuals and spawning habitats.

DSEIS at 157.

The DSEIS discloses that Alternative 3, the Recommended Wilderness Emphasis Alternative, will result in the most benefits – and least amount of impacts – to several wildlife species protected under the Endangered Species Act. On this basis, the Forest Service should apply the RW land use zone across any IRA (or portion of IRA) that contains suitable or occupied habitat for these species:  Arroyo toad – “Alternative 2 should result in beneficial effects to toads. Effects include fewer impacts to individuals within the occupied IRAs than Alternative 1 due to more limited motorized access and mechanized use, but more impacts than Alternative 3. There should be less soil compaction and erosion and an improved watershed condition. There should also be less upland habitat fragmentation from decreased road use.

12 Alternative 3 should result in the least amount of impacts to ARTO occurrences within the analysis IRAs of all alternatives due to the significant reduction in motorized access and mechanized use. There should be the least amount of soil compaction and erosion, as well as the greatest potential for watershed improvement. There should also be the least amount of habitat fragmentation from little to no road use/access.” DSEIS at 151.  Conservancy fairy shrimp – “Effects from Alternative 3 include greater protection of critical habitat and occurrence areas due to the significant increase in RW. There should be less motorized and mechanized use/access in Alternative 3. Alternative 3 should result in most critical habitat acres being protected for primary constituent elements.” DSEIS at 154.  Least Bell’s vireo – “Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of impacts of all alternatives due to the significantly limited motorized access and mechanized use. Critical habitat acres would be the least disturbed. There would also be the least amount of habitat fragmentation from little to no road use/access.” DSEIS at 154-55.  Vernal pool fairy shrimp – “Alternative 3 results in the least amount of disturbance and individual mortalities when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the significant reduction in motorized access and the increase in RW. This alternative also results in the least potential for habitat fragmentation.” DSEIS at 157.  Sensitive Amphibian Species – “Alternative 3 would further improve water quality by restricting access/use allowing frogs to potentially expand along creeks. Alternative 3 would provide the greatest protection to suitable habitat for this species by limiting the type of permitted activities that can occur in the IRAs. This alternative would also minimize the opportunities for non-native species to be accidentally introduced on motorized/mechanized vehicles/equipment.DSEIS at 162.  Sensitive Bird Species – “Alternative 3 would decrease BCNM, while increasing RW. Alternative 2 provides increased habitat protection than in alternative 1. However, alternative 3 provides the greatest amount of habitat protection by significantly reducing the types of activities that are permitted in the IRAs. Effects of reduced road use/access would be beneficial to all individuals and habitat types. There would be less physical disturbance and noise disturbance to birds, especially during the nesting season.” DSEIS at 163.  Sensitive Fish Species – “Alternative 3 would further improve water quality by restricting access/use, allowing habitat to potentially recover along creeks. Alternative 3 would provide the greatest protection to suitable habitat for fish by limiting the type of permitted activities that can occur in the IRAs. This alternative would also minimize the opportunities for non-native species to be introduced onto the forest.” DSEIS at 164.

13  Sensitive Mammal Species – “Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in greater protection to rodents and their habitat with Alternative 3 providing the greatest protection when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. The reduction in motorized access and use would be beneficial to individuals by physical disturbance to rodent burrows and travel corridors. The decrease in existing road use would also improve habitat fragmentation and minimize the introduction of non-native species. The increase in RW with Alternative 3 would provide the greatest amount of protection to rodents and their habitats as only the most primitive types of activities will be allowed. This alternative may also slow down future developments and the introduction of predators into their environment.” DSEIS at 165.  Sensitive Reptile Species – “The effects are the same as the existing condition. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in greater protection to reptiles, with Alternative 3 providing the greatest protection when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. The reduction in motorized access and use would be beneficial to habitat and individuals as it will reduce accessibility to sites and reduce individual mortality and collection. This would also reduce habitat fragmentation. The increase in RW with alternative 3 would provide the greatest amount of protection as it further restricts the types of activities that would be allowed.” DSEIS at 166.  Sensitive Plant Species – The DSEIS summarizes numerous benefits provided by a RW zoning designation that would best protect sensitive plant habitat from development. DSEIS at 185-186.

To fully realize these benefits and reduce adverse impacts as much as possible, we recommend that the Forest Service adopt a RW zoning allocation for most IRAs under consideration, particularly those that include habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.

1.3 The Recommended Wilderness Land Use Zone Benefits Rare Plants

Table 18 (Acreages of Mapped Sensitive Plant Occurrences Known Within IRAs) and Table 19 (Acreages of Mapped Sensitive Plants in IRAs by Species) display the acreage of known sensitive plant occurrences by IRA. DSEIS at 55-60. However, both tables only include the acreages and land use zones breakdown for Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. These tables should also contain similar data for Alternatives 2 and 3 to assist the Forest Service and the public in comparing each alternative.

The DSEIS contains an incomplete inventory of sensitive plant species that occur in the IRAs. For example, only 4 of the 16 IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest (and 6 of the 88 sensitive plant species) are listed in Table 18, which displays the acreage of known sensitive plant occurrences

14 by IRA. DSEIS at 55-58. While we do not expect the Forest Service to conduct floristic surveys across all 400,000+ acres within IRAs, the DSEIS could at a minimum contain acreage breakdowns for suitable habitat, or even a breakdown of sensitive plant species that may occur in an IRA because they are known to occur in similar habitats nearby.

1.4 The SEIS and IRA Evaluations Should Rely on a Complete Inventory of All Rare Plants & Wildlife That Have Potential to Occur in the IRAs

The DSEIS contains an incomplete inventory of all federally-protected species in the IRAs. For example, the DSEIS states that the project will have “No Effect” on the federally-endangered Kern mallow because there are no known occurrences in any of the 16 IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest. See Table 74 (Summary of Determinations of Effects for Threatened and Endangered Species), DSEIS at 192. The DSEIS omits any mention of two other species, the federally-endangered Kern primrose sphinx moth and the federally-threatened southern mountain buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum). All three species are known to occur in the project area:

 Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi subsp. kernensis) – Known populations of Kern mallow occur in the Ballinger Canyon area, which is immediately adjacent to several IRAs, including Quatal and Sawmill-Badlands, and in close proximity to Cuyama, Antimony, and Fox Mountain as well. All contain suitable habitat for Kern mallow, and the plant should be assumed to occur there. An Environmental Assessment prepared by the U.S. Forest Service in 1995 states that Kern mallow is known to occur in the Sawmill- Badlands IRA.

 Kern primrose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus euterpe) – The federally-endangered Kern primrose sphinx moth was recently discovered in the Cuyama Valley, near the Cuyama and Fox Mountain IRAs. It could also occur in other suitable habitat in the area, including the Spoor Canyon, Quatal and Sawmill-Badlands IRAs. The IRA Analysis for the Cuyama IRA states that “there may be some isolated pockets of suitable habitat within the unit.” IRA Analysis at 154.

 Southern mountain buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum) – The federally-threatened southern mountain buckwheat is known to occur throughout the Mt. Pinos Ranger District. Suitable habitat may occur in Antimony, Quatal, Sespe-Frazier, and Sawmill-Badlands IRAs.

15 These omissions occurred primarily because the DSEIS is not based on complete data. The DSEIS explains how the Forest Service determined whether a particular species is located in an IRA, as follows:

Animal occurrences were considered overlapping with an IRA if there was Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data that showed an individual completely within GIS generated IRA boundary. If animals had occurrences adjacent to an IRA boundary, they were not considered as overlapping with the IRA. It is possible that an animal is more widespread than is indicated from the limited GIS data available and may actually occur on other IRAs. However, for analysis consistency, only regional and national databases such as FWS GIS data, CNDDB and NRIS databases were used.

DSEIS at 43. Based on this data, the Forest Service concludes that “[s]pecies whose occurrences do not overlap with any of the 37 IRAs are not affected by the proposed action.… These species will not be discussed any further in this document.” Id. These rationale are carried over to the final impact determinations in the DSEIS. Id. at 158.

The Forest Service cannot rely solely on the Califorina Natural Diversity Database to determine the presence or absence of species in the IRAs. Several other sources, including the California Native Plant Society and the California Consortium of Herbaria, should be consulted to determine whether these species occur in these IRAs. Most of the IRAs have not been adequately surveyed for rare plants and wildlife, by virtue of these areas being roadless, undeveloped, and inaccessible. The Forest Service should also disclose whether suitable habitat may occur in the IRA. If suitable habitat does occur, then the species should be assumed present.

The Forest Service is required to consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NOAA Fisheries”) to insure that the Forest Plan Amendment does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The DSEIS briefly discusses this requirement, stating that “Informal Consultation will be conducted with USFWS due to the ‘may affect, not likely to adversely affect’ determinations. Based on the proposed action and analysis of effects, Section 7 Formal Consultation is not required.” DSEIS at 191. This conclusion is premature, as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has not yet concurred with the Forest Service’s determination. Formal consultation is required if FWS determines that adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat will occur.

Based on the determinations in the DSEIS, formal consultation is less likely to be necessary if the Forest Service selects Alternative 3. This alternative provides the highest level of benefit to listed species and critical habitat, and the least amount of adverse impacts.

The DSEIS references a “draft Biological Assessment (BA)” and states that the “draft BA is available online as part of the project record.” While a draft BA for plants was available online, we could not locate a copy of the draft BA for wildlife.

16

1.5 Recognize and Evaluate the Important Role that Wilderness Areas Play in the Conservation of Bird Species

Allocating RW land use zones through the LMP amendment process can serve as an important tool to promote the conservation of global bird species. As such, the IRA Analysis should evaluate the importance of each IRA on the Los Padres National Forest for bird conservation, and identify any special-status bird species that may occur in each area. Special-status bird species are those listed as California Bird Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish & Game, as Birds of Conservation Concern by FWS, as Birds of Management Concern by FWS, and those species that appear on the United States WatchList, a joint project between American Bird Conservancy and the National Audubon Society.

Including bird conservation in this analysis will help the Forest Service prepare a complete and fully-informed SEIS, and will also help the agency achieve compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. That MOU requires the Forest Service, in part, to:

Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands, consistent with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. When developing the list of species to be considered in the planning process, consult the current FWS Birds of Conservation Concern (updated 2002 and available at www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2002.pdf), State lists, and comprehensive planning efforts for migratory birds (see Definitions for a list of comprehensive plans). Evaluate and consider management objectives and recommendations from conservation planning efforts for migratory birds. Acknowledge special designations that may apply to all or part of the planning area, such as Globally Important Bird Areas in the United States, and acknowledge such designations in the appropriate plan documents.

MOU at 6.

1.6 Use Accurate Data to Evaluate the Presence of Special-Status Species in IRAs

The DSEIS and IRA Analysis identify certain endangered, threatened, sensitive, and other special-status plant and animal species that are known to occur in that particular area. The presence of these species weighs in favor of an area’s suitability for wilderness designation. Therefore, it is important for the IRA Analysis and the SEIS to contain a full and complete listing of all special-status species for each IRA. However, many (if not most) of the IRA evaluations contain incomplete special-status species listings. Species that are known or likely to occur in a

17 particular IRA are not listed in the area’s wilderness evaluation, meaning that the evaluation is not taking all of the potential wilderness values of a particular area into account.

Special-status species may be overlooked in IRA evaluations because the areas have not been thoroughly surveyed. However, the IRA Analysis should not assume that a species is absent just because it was not detected in whatever limited surveys have been done in a particular area. Rather, the IRA Analysis should evaluate whether suitable habitat is or may be present in a particular IRA, and should assume occupancy in suitable habitat until surveys are conducted to protocol. The IRA Analysis and SEIS should also examine sources like the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Consortium of California Herbaria, and the species lists from neighboring land reserves. Specifically, the Wind Wolves Preserve and the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge both have fairly extensive lists of special-status plant and animal species that occur within their respective boundaries. Certain species that occur in these areas may also be presumed to occur in similar habitats in neighboring IRAs.

1.7 Acknowledge That Wilderness Can Enhance Recreation Opportunities & Experience

The IRA Analysis downplays any need to designate more wilderness areas to accommodate future anticipated increases in visitation to these areas. For example, the analysis for many IRAs contains the following statement:

Present visitor use on all wildernesses on the District and Forest is relatively low. There are a few popular spots that receive extra visitor pressure but no restrictions on use have been necessary to maintain wilderness characteristics or preserve the sustainability of the wilderness setting. The designation of this area as wilderness would not have any influence on visitor use of other wilderness areas.

However, in other areas – and often in the same breath – the analyses also admit that “[p]opulation growth and urbanization are increasing rapidly on the Interstate 5 corridor and wilderness use is expected to increase.” IRA Analysis at 140.

In addition, the IRA Analysis frequently rejects the need for more wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest by referring to other proposed and existing wilderness areas within a 20-mile radius. For example, for Madulce-Buckhorn, the IRA Analysis states:

Within a 20 mile radius of Madulce Buckhorn are the San Rafael Wilderness (197,380 acres), Dick Smith Wilderness (67,800 acres), Chumash Wilderness (38,150 acres), Matilija Wilderness (29,243 acres) and Sespe Wilderness (219,700 acres). This unit is also near the Diablo roadless area (19,608 acres) and the Madulce Buckhorn recommended wilderness addition (5,360 acres) to the Dick Smith Wilderness. This unit is within 10 miles of the Mono recommended wilderness addition (27,012 acres) to the Dick Smith Wilderness (71,350 acres)

18 and the Matilija recommended wilderness addition (2,700 acres) to the Matilija Wilderness (29,243 acres). All of these existing wilderness areas and recommended additions are of similar landscape character and contain strong wilderness characteristics.

This analysis begs a few questions. Why was a 20-mile radius selected instead of 50 or 100 or even 200 miles? By selecting a relatively narrow radius of 10 or 20 miles, the Forest Service is giving the impression that there is an abundance of wilderness in our area, resulting in low “need” ranking for particular IRAs. The selection of 10 or 20 miles ignores the fact that the next- closest wilderness areas are hundreds of miles away, and that even wilderness areas that are 10 or 20 miles away from each other may sometimes require several hours on remote roads to travel from one to another by vehicle.

The Forest Service admits that visitation to national forest wilderness areas will increase, and that corresponding impacts to wilderness character will occur in existing wilderness areas. Specifically, in the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2005 LMP, the Forest Service states:

Visitation in most existing wilderness is expected to increase regardless of alternative, mostly in the form of day USDA Forest Service hiking, backpacking and equestrian use. Corresponding increases in recreation-associated impacts on sensitive wilderness resources at trail and camping hotspots can be expected, especially in the more popular wildernesses near urban areas. Most of the wilderness backcountry will remain unvisited because of steep terrain and dense vegetation. Additional areas recommended as wilderness, if designated, could redistribute some of this use.

LMP EIS at 76.

1.8 Fully Evaluate the Potential of An Area to Provide Wilderness Opportunities for Cross- Country Adventure

The narrative for several IRAs overlooks opportunities for cross-country adventure, claiming that areas are too steep, or vegetation is too dense. However, nearly every IRA contains a variety of steep and gentle slopes, and a wide variety of vegetation that includes not only dense chaparral but also open grasslands and sagebrush, as well as oak woodlands and savannahs that are easily traversed. In lieu of blanket statements, the SEIS should take a hard look at each area’s potential to offer cross-country recreation opportunities.

1.9 Recognize that Noxious Weed Infestations Can Be Treated in Wilderness Areas

The analyses for several IRAs frown upon wilderness designation because it “could limit the ability to treat noxious weed infestations that are an ever increasing threat, particularly from

19 fire suppression and recreational vehicles, but also from other vectors such as wildlife and wind movement.” IRA Analysis at 140. The Forest Service should clarify whether these infestations are in disturbed areas along roads and near developed areas, which would generally not be included in any reasonable RW zone allocation. Typically, the areas most suitable for RW zone allocations – remote areas far from roads and development – have low risk of noxious weed infestations. If there are particular areas of concern for noxious weeds, the SEIS should identify these locations and consider boundary adjustments as appropriate. However, also note that the Wilderness Act and the Forest Service’s Wilderness Management Handbook allow for (and even promote) efforts to eradicate noxious weeds from wilderness areas.

1.10 Acknowledge that Wilderness Can Protect Water Quality, Particularly in Degraded Watersheds

The IRA Analysis recognizes the high-quality streams and washes found in roadless areas, but then implies that it is useless to offer these areas any sort of additional protection because water quality downstream – outside of the IRA, and in some cases, even outside of the forest – is diminished by neighboring land uses. For example, the Fox Mountain analysis states:

The headwaters of the watersheds within this unit are in good functioning condition and water quality is subsequently good from Forest Service lands. The lower parts of the watersheds are private lands that are heavily grazed with subsequent impacts to water quality. Streams from a series of canyons are intermittent and flow to the Cuyama River which eventually confluences with the Santa Maria River and provides municipal water to several communities. There would be little likelihood of improving water quality by restricting access to this unit and would only serve to limit management options in event of fire.

IRA Analysis at 179. Even if water quality is degraded in downstream segments located outside of the IRA, there are still overall benefits to the watershed by preserving the upper headwaters as wilderness – namely, the reduction in cumulative impacts.

The SEIS should consider a recent study by The Wilderness Society showing a relationship between healthy watersheds and protected lands in the National Forest System. The authors of this report used GIS technology to study the overlap between three categories of watershed conditions (properly functioning, at risk, and impaired) and three types of national forest land designations (Wilderness, Roadless, and all other national forest lands). The results at a national scale show a striking association between watershed health and land protection (i.e. “water loves wilderness”).7

The Forest Service also attempts to claim that wilderness designation would preclude vehicular access into IRAs to manage water quality:

7 The full report is available at http://wilderness.org/files/Watershed-Health-in-Wilderness.pdf

20

As a whole, these watersheds show poor flow characteristics due to channel disturbance. The overall rating for Cuyama is Class 2, functioning at risk. The potential for water quality improvement through channel improvements is good in this unit although access into the area to manage water quality would be influenced by the ultimate zoning designation.

IRA Analysis at 152. Please explain why motorized access is necessary to manage water quality. Also, the cause of the “channel disturbance” is unclear and should be clarified as well.

1.11 Avoid Overreliance on External “Sights and Sounds” in IRA Analysis

In evaluating an area’s wilderness capability and availability, the IRA Analysis largely relies upon external “sights and sounds” criteria, rather than an IRA’s internal undeveloped character, to decide whether or not IRAs should be recommended for wilderness designation. This is contrary to long-standing direction from Congress to avoid using sights, sounds and other external influences to judge an area’s wilderness quality.

During Subcommittee Hearings for the 1978 Endangered American Wilderness Act, Congress found that:

many areas…received lower wilderness quality ratings because the Forest Service implemented a “sights and sounds” doctrine which subtracted points in areas where the sights and sounds of nearby cities (often many miles away) could be perceived from anywhere within the area. This eliminated many areas near population centers and has denied a potential nearby high quality wilderness experience to many metropolitan residents, and is inconsistent with Congress’ goal of creating parks and locating wilderness areas in close proximity to population centers. The committee is therefore in emphatic support of the Administration’s decision to immediately discontinue this “sights and sounds” doctrine.8

During Senate hearings on the Endangered American Wilderness Act, Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, assured Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) that “…there is no reference in the Wilderness Act to criteria for wilderness that includes such things as the sights, sounds, and smells of civilization which is a set of criteria which has been misapplied to wilderness areas.”9

If Congress adopted what seems to be the Forest Service’s criterion, nearly all of the designated wilderness areas in southern California would never have been formally protected as

8 House Report 95-540, 95th Congress, July 27, 1977, page 5. 9 Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate on S. 1180, September 19 & 20, 1977, Publication No. 95-88, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, page 41.

21 wilderness in the first place. Indeed, some of the jewels of the National Wilderness Preservation System in the southern Sierra and elsewhere have “sights and sounds” issues yet still contain strong wilderness characteristics.

1.12 Evaluate the Intangible Benefits of Wilderness

The IRA Analysis focuses primarily on tangible wilderness values, such as views, a sense of solitude, recreation opportunities, and natural resource protection. In revising the analysis and preparing the SEIS, the Forest Service should also consider that wilderness carries “significant intangible values that are difficult to quantify, including values for an appreciation of open spaces and natural beauty; for nature’s healing to the human imagination and spirit; for solitude, serenity, and spiritual renewal; and simply for the knowledge that wild places are wild and will remain that way forever.” U.S. Forest Service, 2005 at 510.

1.13 Acknowledge that Water Developments and Motorized Access Thereto May Be Allowed in Wilderness Areas

Many of the IRAs contain water developments such as springs, pipelines and accompanying access roads. The IRA Analysis should acknowledge that these are acceptable uses in wilderness in accordance with the Forest Service’s Wilderness Management Handbook § 2323.43(d).

1.14 Avoid Overstating an Area’s Potential for Producing Timber Products

For each IRA, the IRA Analysis determines the availability of the area for timber production and forest products. This information is then used to help determine whether an area is available for wilderness designation. Unfortunately, the IRA Analysis is inconsistent (and at times even nonsensical) in how it evaluates an area’s availability for timber production.

For example, the analysis for Fox Mountain states that “[n]o timber products are available within this unit.” IRA Analysis at 182. However, for the Juncal IRA, the IRA Analysis contains an elaborate discussion on the area’s potential for producing timber and other forest products, even though the area in fact has little potential to produce such products. Specifically, the evaluation for the Juncal IRA states:

Timber products, such as firewood or mulch, may be created by thinning activities designed to improve the health of the vegetation. Downed logs and snags provide diversity of wildlife habitat. These products and services are needed to enhance the forested environment and move it towards the condition where it has the capacity for renewal and recovery from a wide range of disturbances.

22

IRA Analysis at 197. Similar language is used in the IRA Analysis for Black Mountain (148), Cuyama (156), Diablo (165), Dry Lakes (173), Garcia (190), Madulce-Buckhorn (214), Quatal (221), Sespe-Frazier (255), Tequepis (271), White Ledge (279) – but for no other IRAs outside of the Los Padres National Forest. The only timber in this area is inaccessible and has little or no commercial value. If this statement is retained in the IRA Analysis, the Forest Service should explain whether specific thinning activities are proposed in this area (or whether these thinning activities purely speculative, in which case they should not be included in this evaluation). Furthermore, the Forest Service should share any data it has showing that the “forested environment” in this area needs to be enhanced, and why it does not currently have the capacity for “renewal and recovery from a wide range of disturbances.” Id. More accurately, these IRA evaluations should contain the same language as the Fox Mountain IRA described above: “No timber products are available in this unit.”

• PART TWO • INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA ANALYSIS

This section includes specific comments and recommendations for several key IRAs on the Los Padres National Forest. On a general note, it is difficult for the public to determine why certain land use zones were selected for certain areas of IRAs in each alternative. Why, for example, is there a second corridor zoned BCNM near the crest of Cuyama Peak in the Cuyama IRA? Why are certain areas on the perimeter of the Fox Mountain IRA zoned BC? The IRA Analysis should contain brief explanations for any portions of IRAs that receive different land use zone allocations than the predominant land use zone, so that the public can gain a better understanding of the Forest Service’s justification for selecting certain land use zones.

Moreover, we recommend that the IRA Analysis contain a scoring system so that the public can gain a better understanding of how the wilderness capability, suitability, and need criteria are weighed to guide the agency’s decision on whether to recommend an area for wilderness protection. While the IRA Analysis contains a fairly comprehensive evaluation of each IRA’s wilderness criteria, it is difficult to determine how the Forest Service weighs all of the various items mentioned in a given IRA’s evaluation. Perhaps some sort of scoring system would enable the agency, decision-makers, and the public to better understand how the IRA Analysis is applied in the decision-making process.

2.1 Antimony Inventoried Roadless Area (Kern & Ventura Counties)

The Antimony IRA extends across nearly 40,513-acres of the San Emigdio Mountains, adjacent to the communities of Frazier Park, Lake of the Woods, Piñon Pines Estates, and Pine Mountain Club in Kern County. Elevations range from 3,250 in the San Joaquin Valley foothills to 7,495 feet atop San Emigdio Peak. Several other peaks – including Brush Mountain, Antimony Peak, Escapula Peak, and Tecuya Mountain – dominate the landscape. San Emigdio Creek bisects the

23 area, and other drainages include Pleito Creek, Santiago Creek, Cloudburst Canyon, Tecuya Creek, Bradley Canyon, and Deadman Canyon. Most of the area is forested with pinyon pine and other conifers. The IRA borders the Wind Wolves Preserve – the largest privately-owned nature reserve on the West Coast – and is adjacent to the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge, where endangered California condors are reintroduced into the wild.

Antimony IRA (center) and the adjacent Wind Wolves Preserve (far left). Photo © J Brew

24 Antimony IRA, Wind Wolves Preserve, and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Antimony IRA (green), Wind Wolves Preserve (orange), and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge (red) form a network of undeveloped landscapes across more than 150,000 acres of the San Emigdio Mountains.

Antimony contains “significant cultural and heritage resources” listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including Native American pictographs and petroglyphs. Two of the nine cultural sites here are “highly significant.” IRA Analysis at 138.

Part of the San Emigdio Mountains Globally Important Bird Area, the Antimony IRA harbors several bird species of conservation concern. Perhaps most noteworthy among them is the endangered California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), which “uses Antimony extensively for travel and roosting as they soar on uplifted winds along the southern boundary of the San Joaquin Valley.” IRA Analysis at 138. The importance of this area for condor recovery is paramount, particularly given the historic role that this area played in the condor range and its proximity to a modern-day condor release facility at the adjacent Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge. Condors often roost in snags on several peaks in the area, providing important stop- over areas during long-distance flights across the landscape.

The area contains numerous endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant and wildlife species, but the IRA Analysis continues to only acknowledge the presence of one such species – Layia

25 heterotricha (pale-yellow layia). Please refer to our scoping comments, which summarize dozens of other rare plants and animals that likely occur in this area.

Also in our scoping comments, we suggested that the IRA Analysis evaluate the presence of the San Emigdio Mountains Globally Important Bird Area (204,344 acres), which encompasses a portion of the Antimony IRA. The revised IRA Evaluation does not acknowledge the Globally Important Bird Area, even though it possesses the following features that could be protected and enhanced through a RW land use designation:

Within San Emigdio Canyon on Wind Wolves Preserve, one of the largest colonies of Tricolored Blackbirds in southern California breeds in its marshes, and the surrounding riparian growth supports breeding Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow Warbler and Yellow-breasted Chat, along with strong numbers of other riparian obligates. Least Bells Vireo have been heard singing in recent years (J. Grantham, 2008). Yellow-billed Cuckoo is expected to colonize at least San Emigdio Canyon, particularly with recent riparian restoration efforts (D. Clendenen, pers. comm.). The canyon also supports large numbers of spring migrants, especially during "fall outs" and includes warblers, grosbeaks, vireos, and orioles.

The upper portions of these canyons support a rich foothill breeding bird community, which includes California Spotted Owl. The grasslands on the lower slopes, some of the most extensive in southern California, support colonies of Grasshopper Sparrow and a large and diverse raptor population, including Burrowing Owl, Northern Harrier, Prairie Falcon and Golden Eagle, the latter also breeding in the surrounding hills. Owls on the property include Pygmy, Screech, Great Horned, Barn, and possibly Short-eared Owl (J. Grantham, pers. comm. 2008)10

The IRA Evaluation for Antimony IRA states that “A strip of private land along San Emigdio Canyon bisects the area.” DSEIS Appendix 2 at 134. This private land is part of the Windwolves Preserve – at more than 95,000 acres, the west coast’s largest non-profit land preserve. This extension of private conservation land into this IRA should not detract from its wilderness character – indeed, it complements it. The Wildlands Conservancy – the nonprofit conservancy that owns the Windwolves Preserve – manages these lands as if they were wilderness. Therefore, a RW designation of the lands adjacent to, and surrounding, the Windwolves Preserve would complement both public and private land conservation initiatives.

10 See National Audubon Society 2012. Important Bird Areas in the US. Available at http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba. Visited June 6, 2012.

26 Wind Wolves Preserve Boundary Adjacent to Antimony IRA

In addition to the Windwolves Preserve, a few small parcels of land along the northern boundary of the Antimony IRA (and surrounded by Wind Wolves Preserve) are administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. These parcels are undeveloped, and are generally managed to retain their wilderness characteristics.

While recognizing many of these values, the IRA Analysis oddly concludes that “[t]here are no distinctive landforms, water or vegetation.” IRA Analysis at 138. On the contrary, Antimony rises steeply from the San Joaquin Valley floor where it converges with the Transverse Ranges, Coast Range, Tehachapi Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and western Mojave Desert. Adding to the area’s uniqueness is the convergence of three major faults – the San Andres, Garlock, and Big Pine faults – lending to the dramatic geologic uplift of the area.

The San Emigdio Mountains Globally Important Bird Area (204,344 acres) encompasses a portion of the Antimony IRA, and possesses the following features:

Within San Emigdio Canyon on Wind Wolves Preserve, one of the largest colonies of Tricolored Blackbirds in southern California breeds in its marshes, and the surrounding riparian growth supports breeding Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow Warbler and Yellow-breasted Chat, along with strong numbers

27 of other riparian obligates. Least Bells Vireo have been heard singing in recent years (J. Grantham, 2008). Yellow-billed Cuckoo is expected to colonize at least San Emigdio Canyon, particularly with recent riparian restoration efforts (D. Clendenen, pers. comm.). The canyon also supports large numbers of spring migrants, especially during "fall outs" and includes warblers, grosbeaks, vireos, and orioles.

The upper portions of these canyons support a rich foothill breeding bird community, which includes California Spotted Owl. The grasslands on the lower slopes, some of the most extensive in southern California, support colonies of Grasshopper Sparrow and a large and diverse raptor population, including Burrowing Owl, Northern Harrier, Prairie Falcon and Golden Eagle, the latter also breeding in the surrounding hills. Owls on the property include Pygmy, Screech, Great Horned, Barn, and possibly Short-eared Owl (J. Grantham, pers. comm. 2008)11. Given this overlap with a formally-designated Globally Important Bird Area, the IRA Analysis should consider the important role that the Antimony IRA plays in the conservation of special-status bird populations worldwide.

San Emigdio Mountains Globally Important Bird Area & Antimony IRA

The San Emigdio Mountains Globally Important Bird Area (shown in blue) covers nearly the entire Antimony and Quatal IRAs (shown in pink along with other IRAs included in the Forest Plan Amendment).

11 See National Audubon Society 2012. Important Bird Areas in the US. Available at http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba. Visited June 6, 2012.

28

While the IRA Analysis states that “the natural integrity of the area and opportunities for solitude have both been compromised by numerous roads, OHV trails and mining developments,” IRA Analysis at 137, it also acknowledges that “these scars are small and not significant within the scope of this evaluation and they would not jeopardize the character of the entire roadless area.” IRA Analysis at 136. We agree that the historic roads and mining developments do not conflict with the area’s wilderness character, particularly given that these scars will be restored to the natural landscape over time.

To further reduce the impacts of existing roads and motorized trails on the wilderness landscape, we suggest that Alternative 3 be modified with mechanisms to control unauthorized trespass into the neighboring Wind Wolves Preserve. For example, the segment of Road 9N53 north of Salt Creek Campground could be included in the RW zoning classification to reduce fragmentation. Currently, this road is gated at the boundary with Wind Wolves Preserve, inviting trespass. A non-motorized buffer would appropriately protect the preserve from future incursions, and would enhance the wilderness characteristics of the Antimony IRA. The same modification could be made for Road 9N19A – zoning for a non-motorized buffer north of Pleito Creek Campground that would allow for continued motorized access to the campground, with a non-motorized buffer north of the campground that would prevent trespass and benefit wilderness values. Finally, the zoning allocation applied to the final segment of Road 9N52 between Marian Campground and Brush Mountain could also be modified to provide a non- motorized buffer around the known condor roosting sites on Brush Mountain. This would eliminate a third road intrusion into the Antimony IRA. These three roads are all in the existing IRA, and detract from the area’s wilderness character while providing limited access and recreation opportunities.

Citing the area’s “linear shape,” its proximity to roads and development, external sights and sounds, and developed roads and trails, the IRA Analysis concludes that opportunities for wilderness challenge are limited and that “management as a wilderness would be difficult.” IRA Analysis at 137-138. However, the Wilderness Act does not specify any particular shape that an area must be before it qualifies for wilderness designation; rather, the law only requires that an area be 5,000 acres or larger. Several existing wilderness areas on the Los Padres National Forest – particularly those in San Luis Obispo County – are equally as narrow, or even narrower in some cases, than is Antimony. With respect to external sights and sounds, that is not an adequate basis to evaluate an area’s wilderness suitability or capability for the reasons outlined in Part One above.

The IRA Analysis recommends consideration of boundary changes if the area is recommended for wilderness protection, including excluding more than half of the IRA (the portion east of San Emigdio Canyon). IRA Analysis at 138. The Forest Service does not provide any explanation for this unnecessary westward expansion of the potential wilderness boundary other than “eliminating considerable conflict with existing developed uses and private land intrusions.” Id. As explained previously, the “private land intrusions” are owned by a nonprofit land conservancy and managed as wilderness.

29

The IRA Analysis claims that the area’s soil is contaminated “due to the proximity to the Interstate 5 corridor.” IRA Analysis at 139. Does the Forest Service have any soil samples or other data to suggest that this area suffers from widespread soil contamination from a freeway that is located up to 24 miles from the area? This argument – if applied uniformly across the National Forest System – would eliminate countless potential wilderness areas from further consideration simply because they are located downwind from urban centers or freeway corridors.

The IRA Analysis for Antimony contains three factual errors. First, it states that the streams originating in Antimony “eventually reach[] the Santa Maria River” by way of the Cuyama River. IRA Analysis at 139. Please note that these streams empty into the San Joaquin Valley, not the Cuyama River watershed. Second, it states that the Johnson Canyon allotment is active, when in fact it is vacant and has not been grazed in several years. And third, the analysis references habitat connectivity with Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. The correct reference is to the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge that is located immediately adjacent to Antimony, not Hopper Mountain, which is located many miles to the south.

The IRA Analysis states that there are “40 acres of reforestation within the area that requires maintenance” and that there is “considerable concern for potential dwarf mistletoe and bark beetle infestation in the coniferous species.” IRA at 140-41. Where is this reforestation area located? What type of maintenance does it require? Does it involve motorized access or mechanized equipment, and can it be accomplished without either? Is the concern over infestations limited to the area of reforestation, or does it apply to all forested areas in Antimony? What is the basis of the agency’s concern over the potential infestations, and how likely is the potential? It is unclear how this information was applied to the evaluation of the area’s availability for wilderness designation.

The IRA Analysis discloses that “a high potential for saleable products such as gravel and building stone exists and there is also a high potential for non-strategic and strategic minerals.” IRA at 140. This high potential is evidenced in several historic mining activities in the area, and suggests why a RW zoning allocation is warranted to adequately protect this area. According to the suitable uses table in the 2005 LMP, the exploration for and development of mineral resources are allowed “by exception” in BCMUR and BCNM zone allocations, but are prohibited without exception in wilderness areas. See 2005 LMP, Part 2: Los Padres National Forest Strategy, Table 2.3.3 (Suitable Uses Commodity and Commercial Uses, LPNF), at 4. Clearly, a RW zone allocation for Antimony would provide a much greater level of protection than the BCNM zone allocation applied to this area, and would more effectively protect this area’s unique ecological and recreational resources.

The management considerations identified for this IRA are easily remedied by modifying the RW zone boundaries. For example, the IRA Analysis identifies a specific area in the IRA that requires “a concerted effort to manage vegetation within these acres to protect property adjacent to the unit.” IRA Analysis at 140. We support the exclusion of this area from the RW

30 zone allocation to avoid such conflicts. The IRA Analysis also identifies a “shaded fuelbreak across Tecuya Ridge [that] is in the conceptual design phase.” Id. The Forest Service cannot use speculative future development proposals to reduce an area’s suitability or availability for wilderness designation. It is important to note that the Forest Plan does allow for community protection activities and fuelbreak construction in RW zones “by exception.” If the IRA Analysis is going to rely on this speculative future development proposal, then it should describe the location and nature of the project, its intended completion date, and whether or not it is compatible with a RW zone allocation, given the exception for fuelbreak construction.

Finally, the IRA Analysis evaluates the area’s ability to preserve ecosystems. The Frazier Mountain region of Ventura County – including portions of the San Emigdio Mountains – is a genetic hotspot for wildlife in southern California, based on a recently published study in the journal Biological Conservation.12 Vandergast et al. (2008) found that the Frazier Mountain area had a relatively high variance for genetic divergence based on a genetic study of 21 different species of wildlife, with representatives from invertebrates, amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles. This is in part due to the fact that the region is located at the crux of the San Andreas, Garlock, and Big Pine Faults, and the Tehachi Mountains/Sierra Nevada, Inner North Coast Ranges/San Rafael Mountains, Mojave Desert, and the eastern Transverse and Peninsular Ranges. This is a major factor explaining why the Antimony IRA is so biologically rich.

2.2 Fox Mountain IRA (Santa Barbara County)

The 52,109-acre Fox Mountain IRA encompasses the northern face of the Sierra Madre Mountains between Santa Barbara Canyon and Bates Canyon, spanning the ridgeline to the remote Cuyama Valley below. The area’s diverse vegetation ranges from sagebrush and scrub to chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and scattered conifers and hardwoods in the canyons. Grassy meadows including Horse Potrero, Round Potrero, Santa Barbara Potrero, and Montgomery Potrero, characterize the upper elevations, and a large number of natural springs provide sources of clean water, feeding a variety of streams that empty into the Cuyama River further downstream. Ranging in elevation from 3,000 feet in the foothills to 5,843 feet at Peak Mountain, the Fox Mountain IRA stands in striking contrast to the flat Cuyama Valley floor below. Visitors to this area enjoy remarkable views in all directions, featuring landscapes of the Carrizo Plain National Monument, the Los Padres National Forest, and the southern Sierra Nevada range. Portions of the area are visible from remote Highway 166 and Highway 33, a California Scenic Highway and a National Forest Scenic Byway. The area is a primary flyway for the endangered California condor, and is home to a host of other special-status plant and animal species.

12 Vandergast, Amy G., Andrew J. Bohonak, Stacie A. Hathaway, Joshua Boys, and Robert N. Fisher. 2008. Are Hotspots of Evolutionary Potential Adequately Protected in Southern California? Biological Conservation 141(6):1648‐ 1664, June 2008.

31 Perhaps most significantly, the Fox Mountain IRA contains one of the country’s largest assemblages of Native American rock art, and includes the 5,592-acre Sierra Madre Special Interest Area and the Eastern Sierra Madre Ridge Archeological District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of its unique cultural resources. The IRA Analysis underscores the cultural importance of this area, stating:

More than any other area on the Los Padres National Forest, the Sierra Madre area (within the Fox Mountain roadless area) is known for its rich cultural history and resources. It has the most extensive (pictograph) rock art sites and is considered an ‘Archaeological District’ as criteria for National Register listing. Numerous documentation and reports have been written regarding the rock art sites within the Sierra Madres area. There are over 54 documented archaeological sites within the Fox Mountain roadless area, the majority consisting of rock art with associated milling features and possible ceremonial features.

IRA Analysis at 182. We agree with the IRA Analysis that this area is the “most sensitive” IRA for the protection of cultural resources, and that “[w]ilderness designation would benefit these resources through restriction of specific activities that may cause ground disturbance or alter the existing environment.” IRA Analysis at 182.

The area provides several exciting and challenging recreation opportunities, including the Bull Ridge, Salisbury Canyon, McPherson, Aliso, and Rocky Ridge trails, plus numerous outstanding opportunities for cross-country travel, particularly in the grassy potreros, lower foothills, and other open areas scattered throughout the IRA.

While the IRA Analysis for Fox Mountain acknowledges most of these remarkable values, it also seems to attempt to minimize them by arguing that several roads and other developments along the periphery of this area give it a low suitability and capability for wilderness designation, and on this basis, does not allocate any RW zones to the Fox Mountain IRA. For the reasons outlined in this section, we would like the Forest Service to consider allocating a RW land use zone across a significant portion of this IRA after making slight boundary adjustments for communication facilities, developed campgrounds, regularly-maintained fuelbreaks and associated buffers from roads. This would increase the area’s capability and suitability for wilderness designation, and in many cases are already suggested in the IRA Analysis.

We dispute the argument in this IRA Analysis that the designation of wilderness adjacent to private property “will probably create future conflicts as the private property continues to be developed along the Forest boundary.” See IRA Analysis at 180. Given the remoteness of this area, and the current land uses on private parcels adjacent to this area, there is a low likelihood that private property would be developed much beyond what it is today. If the Forest Service is going to use this as a reason to disqualify an area from RW zone allocation, then please provide specific examples of development proposals that may affect the area’s wilderness

32 characteristics. In addition, we again note that activities outside of an IRA should not be used to disqualify an area from a RW zone allocation.

We do support the key attractions of this area that are highlighted in the IRA Analysis, including views to the Dick Smith and San Rafael wilderness areas, Lion Canyon, and the potreros along Sierra Madre Ridge. See IRA Analysis at 177. Please include additional scenic landmarks in this analysis, including views of the Caliente Mountains, the Carrizo Plain National Monument, and the southern Sierra Nevada range. And given the dominant rock outcrops in Lion Canyon, we believe that the IRA Analysis should provide further detail about this particularly unique and striking landform, as well as the red rock formations that are found in Santa Barbara Canyon.

Unique rock formations in the upper portion of Lion Canyon give way to grassy potreros atop Sierra Madre Ridge. Photo courtesy of Lighthawk.

33

Striking red formations on Fox Mountain. Photo courtesy of Lighthawk.

We agree with the statement in the IRA Analysis that this area “provides a high sense of solitude, adventure and self-reliance due to the steep landform, vegetative cover and lack of major development as well as the overall size of the unit.” IRA Analysis at 179. We disagree that the “opportunity for solitude and isolation is conditioned as the north facing scenic views look directly into the rural and agricultural area of Cuyama Valley floor.” IRA Analysis at 181. Given the undeveloped nature of the surrounding national forest lands, along with the distance from the Cuyama Valley floor where a small amount of development is visible, these activities present a very minimal imprint on the wilderness experience in this IRA. Moreover, as described above in Part One of this letter, external sights and sounds are not permissible in considering an area’s wilderness suitability.

34

Looking north from the Sierra Madre Ridge to the Cuyama Valley and the Caliente Range.

Looking south from the Sierra Madre Ridge into the existing San Rafael Wilderness.

We also disagree with the Forest Service’s attempts to paint this area as being inaccessible to the public and thus less worthy of an RW land use allocation. The IRA Analysis is replete with statements about how “travel off maintained trails in most areas is difficult because of the heavy vegetation,” that the area contains “minimal opportunity for cross-country hiking as most of the area is difficult because of the steep terrain and heavy vegetation,” and that “[s]teep brush covered terrain provide [sic] a difficult physical and mental challenge to any travel off the roads and trails.” IRA Analysis at 179, 181. The area is characterized by nearly 20 miles of system trails, plus abundant opportunities for cross-country travel through grassy potreros, relatively open sagebrush, and dry washes, particularly in the lower foothills and canyons. A use trail leads from the Cox Flat area of Santa Barbara Canyon Road to the private parcel in Cox Canyon that was recently purchased for transfer to the Forest Service. Other similar use trails exist throughout this area. We also disagree with the statement that “Experiential benefits to the visitor to this area are low to moderate because of limited access and steep terrain.” IRA Analysis at 181. Given the relative abundance of trails in the IRA, and

35 publicly accessible roads around the edges of the IRA and the abundant opportunities for cross- country travel, along with the remarkable landforms, rare species, outstanding vistas, and world-class sites of cultural significance, this statement is simply inaccurate.

We disagree that “water sources are very scarce in the area.” IRA Analysis at 179. While many of the streams in the area are ephemeral, the area does contain dozens of natural springs that provide reliable, continuous water sources for wildlife, livestock, pack stock, and visitors to the area.

The IRA Analysis identifies the Sierra Madre Special Interest Area (“SIA”) and the Eastern Sierra Madre Ridge Archaeological District as the only “special features and values” of this area. IRA Analysis at 180. While these areas certainly are some of the top features and values of this area, there are plenty of others to complement them. The IRA Analysis should evaluate these additional special features and values:  Presence of many other Native American sacred sites located outside of the SIA, but in the IRA;

 Unique red rock formations in and around Santa Barbara Canyon;

 The remnants of petrified forests and other paleontological resources in the lower elevations; and

 Unique grassy potreros and scattered rock formations, including substantial rock outcrops in Lion Canyon.

These landforms are not considered in the section of the analysis that addresses the area’s “identifiable landform types,” which concludes that the area has no “unique features.” IRA Analysis at 182. We disagree, for all of the reasons outlined previously – unique potreros, rock outcrops, red rock formations, and the dramatic rock assemblages in Lion Canyon all contribute to the unique features of the Fox Mountain IRA.

The following sensitive plant species are identified in the IRA Analysis as occurring in this IRA: Blakeley's spineflower (Chorizanthe blakleyi), umbrella larkspur (Delphinium umbraculorum), Fort Tejon woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii),pale-yellow layia (Layia heterotricha), and Parish's checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii). IRA Analysis at 180. According to the California Natural Diversity Database, the following additional special-status plant species may also occur in this IRA, and should be referenced in the IRA Analysis:  Fort Tejon woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii) (CNPS List 1B.1)

 Lemmon's jewel-flower (Caulanthus lemmonii) (CNPS List 1B.2)

 Round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla) (CNPS List 1B.1)

36  San Luis Obispo mariposa lily (Calochortus simulans) (CNPS List 1B.3)

Moreover, Kern mallow (Eremalche kernensis), San Joaquin wooly-threads (Monolopia congdonii), and California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) are all known to occur in areas within close proximity of this IRA, and are therefore likely to occur within this IRA. These species should be referenced in the IRA Analysis as well, along with any special-status animals that may occur in the area.

The IRA Analysis downplays the importance of this area as a “minor” wildlife corridor. IRA Analysis at 181. The area provides habitat connectivity between several ecosystem types ranging from the Cuyama Valley floor to the ridgeline, and connects several nearby areas that provide a regional network of wildlife habitat, including the Carrizo Plain National Monument, the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge, and Wind Wolves Preserve.

The section on water availability and use, while mentioning that the headwaters within this unit may generally be in good functioning condition, should also note that some springs and riparian areas suffer from adverse impacts caused by concentrated livestock use associated with the three grazing allotments in this area. The IRA Analysis also identifies several special use authorizations for water developments and associated access roads. IRA Analysis at 177. Please note that the Forest Service’s Wilderness Management Handbook addresses access roads for water development, and as such, they need not be “cherry-stemmed” from an RW zoning designation.

The private inholding in Cox Canyon has been acquired by the Forest Service, though it is still shown as private land on the DSEIS maps. Please update the maps and apply the appropriate zoning designation to the parcel.

2.3 Sawmill-Badlands Inventoried Roadless Area

This 51,376-acre IRA consists of five remnant roadless areas left behind after the Chumash Wilderness was established in 1992. The three largest pieces are referred to as Section 2, Section 3, and Section 4 in the IRA Analysis, and we urge that they all be placed in the RW zoning designation, given that all three areas are currently threatened by a proposal to construct a new 20+ mile off-road vehicle trail through this pristine landscape.

We appreciate that the Forest Service is proposing to rezone all three areas from Back Country (current) to Back Country Non-Motorized (Preferred Alternative 2). We agree that this more protective zoning allocation will benefit this IRA and reduce environmental impacts in this area. However, we are concerned that Alternative 2 includes a narrow corridor in Long Canyon (Section 3) that is zoned Back Country Motorized Use Restricted. This is concerning, given the types of development activities that are allowed in this less-protective zoning allocation. The DSEIS should evaluate the environmental impacts from this development potential, and the IRA

37 Analysis should disclose the justification for excluding this area from the surrounding BCNM zoning allocation.

The IRA Analysis states, “The badlands are a locally unique landform; however, most of the best examples of badlands are already included in the Chumash Wilderness.” IRA Analysis at 225. While the Chumash Wilderness does contain several good examples of badlands, there are several outstanding examples in this IRA that would complement and enhance the current representation of badlands in the Chumash Wilderness. For example, Section 3 contains unique eroded terrain with multi-colored exposed soils that serve as a stark contrast to the landscape.

The IRA Analysis states that this area “provides a low to moderate opportunity to experience adventure, excitement, challenge, initiative, or self-reliance due to the proximity of rural development in the western portion and urban interface in the eastern portion” and that it “provides a low to moderate sense of solitude, adventure, and self-reliance due to the proximity of state, county, and forest development roads or private property. The natural integrity of the area is largely intact; however, there are a number of temporary and unclassified roads, primarily associated with grazing allotments, located on the western portions of the area.” IRA Analysis at 227. Sections 2 and 3 have minimal rural development along the western edge of the IRA, and these scattered homes and agricultural facilities are not visible from most of the IRA. By their very nature, badlands exhibit a sense of solitude and adventure, particularly given the remoteness of this IRA. With respect to the roads in the westernmost portion of the IRA, Alternative 2 only identifies one cherry-stemmed road in Section 3, and several short cherry-stemmed roads in Section 2. Such few roads should not preclude the areas from being recommended for wilderness protection.

38 These areas are particularly attractive for cross-country travel, given the relatively open pinyon- juniper woodland vegetation and gently sloping canyons and washes. While the IRA Analysis acknowledges that cross-country hiking occurs here, it states that it is “generally limited to the boundaries of these units as they are extremely rugged and dry” and that “cross country travel is limited because of the extremely steep and broken terrain.” IRA Analysis at 228. Based on our substantial experience in the field in this IRA, we respectfully disagree. Sections 2 and 3 in particular are quite accessible, with the interiors accessible by traversing washes or ridgelines. Several informal trails are found in this area, evidencing significant cross-country hiking.

The IRA Analysis seems to reject a RW land use allocation for this area based on the presence of “numerous private parcels along the western boundary” that “limit[] the possibilities for vegetation management activities and the establishment and management of fuel breaks adjacent to this growing urban interface.” IRA Analysis at 228. The private rural lands along the western boundary do not constitute a “growing urban interface” and should have no bearing on the area’s suitability for wilderness designation. Moreover, speculative “vegetation management activities” are not a permissible consideration, and should be stricken from the IRA Analysis.

We urge a RW zoning allocation for Sections 2, 3, and 4 to protect them from development threats. Specifically, the IRA Analysis states, “Gypsum is mined in the area. There is a moderate potential for saleable products such as gravel and building stone. And there is a moderate potential for strategic and non-strategic minerals, and there is low potential for phosphates and geothermal resources. There is high potential for oil and gas development in the western portions of the area.” These activities are all allowed in the Preferred Alternative 2 zoning allocation, but would be prohibited if zoned recommended wilderness. The impacts of such activities should be evaluated in the SEIS, should the area not be zoned for Recommended Wilderness.

2.4 White Ledge Inventoried Roadless Area (Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties)

The 18,640-acre White Ledge IRA presents a unique opportunity to permanently preserve a unique marine-influenced chaparral ecosystem In the Santa Ynez Mountains within close proximity to the Ojai and Carpinteria valleys. The area provides views of the Pacific Ocean, Channel Islands, Lake Casitas, the Ojai Valley, and the rugged backcountry of the Matilija Wilderness, to which it is adjacent. The namesake White Ledge Peak contains unique rock outcrops that serve as a prominent scenic landmark in the region. The existing Matilija Wilderness is located directly to the north of this IRA, and the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy’s Ventura River Preserve shares a boundary with this IRA to the southeast. The area can be accessed through Matilija Canyon, via the Ventura River Preserve’s Kennedy Ridge Trail, and via the old Camino Cielo road, the latter of which provided traditional historic access to the area but is blocked by current landowners. It contains several rare plant species, and a “high probability” that it includes Native American cultural sites.

39 The Preferred Alternative retains the area’s current Back Country Non-Motorized zoning allocation, including a cone-shaped corridor at the end of the Divide Peak OHV route that is zoned Back Country (shown in yellow). In Alternative 3, this corridor is zoned RW consistent with the rest of the IRA.

The IRA Analysis explains that this corridor “provides for the opportunity for a proposed motorized trail on the disturbed ridgeline used as a dozer line in past fire suppression efforts.” IRA Analysis at 276. The impacts of this motorized trail extension on the wilderness character of the area must be evaluated in the DSEIS if this corridor does not receive a BCNM or RW designation. There are no proposals pending for adding such a route to the forest’s transportation system; if such a proposal materializes in the future, and if the area is zoned BCNM, then the proposed action can include a Forest Plan Amendment to re-zone the area to Back Country.

The IRA Analysis states, “Public access along the southern flank is not possible because private lands preclude access.” IRA Analysis at 274. The Ojai Valley Land Conservancy recently acquired the Ventura River Preserve along the southern boundary of this IRA, and the Kennedy Ridge Trail provides public access into the IRA through this preserve. This trail connects with the historic Ocean View Trail, providing public access through the middle of this IRA.

A portion of this IRA was threatened by uranium mining in the 1970s. The IRA and SEIS should disclose that this area may be vulnerable to future mining claims. The DSEIS incorrectly states that this IRA has “no evidence of historic mining activities.” DSEIS at 254. A Recommended Wilderness designation would prohibit, without exception, any mining in this area. The DSEIS does disclose that this area has a “high potential” for oil and gas. DSEIS at 254. This threat should be evaluated in the IRA Analysis. While the area is not currently open for oil and gas development under the 2005 leasing plan, that plan could be revised in the future. Protecting the IRA through a wilderness recommendation and eventual designation would preclude future oil and gas exploration and development in this area.

40

2.5 Cuyama Inventoried Roadless Area (Santa Barbara County)

We support a RW zoning allocation for this IRA. Please describe the nature of the cherry-stem in the IRA boundary on the southern flank of Cuyama Peak, as show below:

2.6 Diablo & Juncal Inventoried Roadless Areas (Santa Barbara County)

The Diablo and Juncal IRAs are the only two IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest that have no non-recreation special use authorizations, such as apiaries, weather stations, seismic monitoring, communication sites, oil and gas pipelines, water delivery systems utility lines, and roads. DSEIS at 110. This is significant, as the Los Padres National Forest “has the most special use authorizations within IRAs, and the greatest acreage of permitted area” of the four southern California national forests. Id. As a result, the mileage of special use authorizations for roads within IRAs on the Los Padres National Forest is greater than the other three forests combined. Id.

These IRAs, then, represent a unique opportunity to protect pristine, undeveloped IRAs without any development or land uses and any potential conflicts that may accompany them when considering a RW designation. As such, we strongly recommend that these areas be given a RW zoning allocation.

The Juncal and Diablo IRAs are also included in the Upper Santa Ynez Important Bird Area – one of only two such areas within the bounds of the 16 IRAs in the Los Padres National Forest. As the DSEIS has disclosed that bird species will receive the most protection and least amount of impacts through a RW zoning allocation, we base our RW recommendation on this as well.

41

Upper Santa Ynez Important Bird Area & IRAs

• PART THREE • MONITORING

We support the adoption of Alternative C for monitoring protocol in the Los Padres National Forest. In addition, we would like to see the following items included in any monitoring program:  Monitoring for compliance with terms and conditions of Biological Opinions

 Regular monitoring of oil development activities in the Sespe Oil Field

 Monitoring of populations of Management Indicator Species, especially mountain lion, mule deer, and blue oaks, given the lack of any current monitoring data.

In addition, the monitoring program should specify a date by which the annual reports will be prepared each year. The annual reports should contain citations to references in the report, and make those references along with all supporting documentation available to the public without requiring submittal of a formal public records request.

Moreover, any monitoring program should be consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality’s recent memorandum on mitigation and monitoring.

42

CONCLUSION

Thank you for considering and responding to these initial scoping comments. Please continue to notify us about future opportunities to participate in this LMP process, and provide us with copies of all future public notices, environmental documents, and decision documents. We appreciate your ongoing efforts to protect the Los Padres National Forest.

Sincerely,

Jeff Kuyper Executive Director

43 Jeff Kuyper

From: Jeff Kuyper Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:59 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: [email protected] Subject: Comments Attachments: 20130516_LPFW_DEISCommentLetterLH.pdf

Hello, please find attached our comments on the LMP Amendment. Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Jeff Kuyper, Executive Director | Los Padres ForestWatch Post Office Box 831 | Santa Barbara, CA 93102 805.617.4610 ext. 1 [email protected]

ForestWatch is a local nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization working to protect and restore wild places and wildlife in the Los Padres National Forest, the Carrizo Plain National Monument, and other public lands along California's Central Coast. Join us today at www.LPFW.org

1 CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE ∙ CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, CHANNEL ISLANDS CHAPTER ∙ CARPINTERIA VALLEY ASSOCIATION ∙ CHANNEL ISLANDS RESTORATION ∙ COMMUNITY HIKING CLUB ∙ CONEJO VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY ∙ CUYAMA VALLEY CONSERVANCY ∙ ECOLOGISTICS ∙ THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ∙ ENVIRONMENT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ∙ ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER ∙ FRIENDS OF THE SANTA CLARA RIVER ∙ GAVIOTA COAST CONSERVANCY ∙ GET OIL OUT! ∙ KEEP SESPE WILD COMMITTEE ∙ LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH ∙ LOS PADRES SIERRA CLUB, ARGUELLO GROUP ∙ LOS PADRES SIERRA CLUB, CONEJO GROUP ∙ LOS PADRES SIERRA CLUB, SANTA BARBARA GROUP ∙ MARGARITA PROUD ∙ MORRO COAST AUDUBON SOCIETY ∙ NATURALIST FOR YOU ∙ NORTH COUNTY WATCH ∙ OJAI RAPTOR CENTER ∙ OJAI VALLEY GREEN COALITION ∙ OJAI VALLEY LAND CONSERVANCY ∙ QUAIL SPRINGS PERMACULTURE ∙ SAN LUIS OBISPO COASTKEEPER ∙ SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS WILD HERITAGE PROJECT ∙ SANTA BARBARA AUDUBON SOCIETY ∙ SANTA BARBARA BOTANIC GARDEN ∙ SANTA BARBARA CHANNELKEEPER ∙ SANTA BARBARA COUNTY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ∙ SANTA BARBARA URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL ∙ SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED CONSERVANCY ∙ SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB ∙ SANTA YNEZ VALLEY ALLIANCE ∙ SANTA YNEZ VALLEY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY ∙ SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER ∙ SIERRA CLUB, CONDOR GROUP ∙ SIERRA CLUB, KERN‐KAWEAH CHAPTER ∙ VENTANA WILDERNESS ALLIANCE ∙ VENTURA AUDUBON SOCIETY ∙ VENTURA CITIZENS FOR HILLSIDE PRESERVATION ∙ VENTURA COASTKEEPER ∙ VENTURA HILLSIDES CONSERVANCY ∙ VENTURA SIERRA CLUB ∙ THE WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY ∙ WISHTOYO FOUNDATION ∙ WOMEN’S ENVIRONMENTAL WATCH

May 16, 2013

U.S. Forest Service ATTN: LMP Amendment 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92127

RE: Comments on the Land Management Plan Amendment, Los Padres National Forest

Dear Forest Supervisor Peggy Hernandez:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed amendment to the Land Management Plan (“LMP”) for the Los Padres National Forest. The proposed amendment will evaluate 16 Inventoried Roadless Areas (“IRAs”) covering a combined 421,058 acres of the national forest to determine what level of protection these areas should receive.

As representatives of the major environmental and land and water conservation organizations in Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Kern counties, we urge you to select the highest level of protection for many of these areas by zoning them as Recommended Wilderness (“RW”). We share a common concern that the Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) does not recommend any new areas as RW, leaving these lands, watersheds, and rare plant and wildlife habitats vulnerable to development.

While the Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) does increase protections in these areas by zoning them as Back Country Non‐Motorized (“BCNM”), the BCNM zoning designation still allows for a significant level of development and resource extraction. According to Tables 60‐63 in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“DSEIS”), the following activities are allowed in areas zoned as BCNM:

 Oil and gas development and exploration  Disposal/sale of National Forest System lands  Construction and maintenance of “temporary” roads  Construction of communication towers and facilities  Mining exploration and development  Wind & geothermal energy development  Commercial harvesting of wood & other forest products  Fuelbreak construction using type‐conversion with invasive species

These development activities are allowed “by exception” in areas zoned as BCNM, but they are expressly prohibited in areas zoned as RW. The DSEIS loosely defines this exception as “Conditions which are not generally compatible with the land use zone but may be appropriate under certain circumstances.” This open‐ended definition provides unlimited discretion to approve a host of environmentally harmful activities in these IRAs. These exceptions do not apply to areas zoned RW, and because of this, we believe that the best way to fully protect many of these areas is through a RW zoning designation.

More than twenty years have passed since Congress has protected any wilderness lands in the southern Los Padres National Forest. Today, the Forest Service has an opportunity to significantly expand and connect the network of wilderness lands in the forest. A wilderness recommendation is the best tool to preserve wildlife habitat and safeguard watersheds that provide sources of clean water for our farms and communities. Permanently protected open spaces enhance our quality of life, and promote outdoor recreation opportunities that boost local businesses and tourism revenues.

Our organizations – along with our more than 10,000 members from throughout the Central Coast – are committed to protecting our region’s watersheds, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, clean air and water, coastline, and open spaces. To this end, we urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the highest level of protection for many of the 16 IRAs in the southern Los Padres National Forest by zoning them as Recommended Wilderness (“RW”).

Thank you for your efforts to preserve our region’s rich wild heritage for future generations to enjoy.

Sincerely,

[signature page to follow]

2

California Chaparral Institute Environmental Defense Center Richard W. Halsey, Director Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analyst Escondido, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Calif. Native Plant Society, Channel Islands Chapter Environment in the Public Interest David Magney, President Gordon Hensley, Executive Director Ojai, CA San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Carpinteria Valley Association Friends of the Santa Clara River Vera Bensen, President Ron Bottorff, Chairman Carpinteria, CA Newbury Park, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Channel Islands Restoration Gaviota Coast Conservancy Ken Owen, Executive Director Mike Lunsford, President Carpinteria, CA Goleta, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Community Hiking Club Get Oil Out! Dianne Erskine‐Hellrigel, Executive Director Michael Lyons, President Santa Clarita, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Conejo Valley Audubon Society Keep Sespe Wild Committee Chrystal Klabunde, Programs Chair Alasdair Coyne, Conservation Director Thousand Oaks, CA Ojai, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Cuyama Valley Conservancy Los Padres ForestWatch Gene Zannon, President Jeff Kuyper, Executive Director Maricopa, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Ecologistics Los Padres Sierra Club, Arguello Group Stacey Hunt, CEO Jerry Connor, Chair San Luis Obispo, CA Santa Maria, CA [email protected] [email protected]

ECOSLO – Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo Los Padres Sierra Club, Conejo Group Kylee Singh, Program Coordinator John Holroyd, Chair San Luis Obispo, CA Thousand Oaks, CA [email protected] [email protected]

3

Los Padres Sierra Club, Santa Barbara Group San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper Jim Childress, Chair Gordon Hensley, Executive Director Santa Barbara, CA San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Margarita Proud Santa Ana Mountains Wild Heritage Project Roy Reeves, President Joel Robinson, Outreach Coordinator Santa Margarita, CA Silverado, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Morro Coast Audubon Society Santa Barbara Audubon Society Mike Stiles, President Darlene Chirman, President Morro Bay, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Naturalist for You Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Joel Robinson, Director/Head Naturalist Dieter Wilken, Director of Conservation Silverado, CA Santa Barbara, CA jrobinson@naturalist‐for‐you.org [email protected]

North County Watch Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Sue Harvey, President Kira Redmond, Executive Director Templeton, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Ojai Raptor Center Santa Barbara Co. League of Conservation Voters Kimberly Stroud, Executive Director Greg Helms, President Ojai, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Ojai Valley Green Coalition Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council Deborah Pendrey, Executive Director Eddie Harris, President Ojai, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Ojai Valley Land Conservancy Santa Clara River Watershed Conservancy Greg Gamble, Executive Director Dianne Erskine‐Hellrigel, President Ojai, CA Newhall, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Quail Springs Permaculture Santa Lucia Chapter Sierra Club Brenton Kelly, Farm Manager Greg McMillan, Chair Maricopa, CA San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected] [email protected]

4

Santa Ynez Valley Alliance Ventura Hillsides Conservancy Mark Oliver, President Derek Poultney, Conservation Manager Santa Ynez, CA Ventura, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Santa Ynez Valley Natural History Society Ventura Sierra Club Ken Doud, President Jon Ziv, Leadership Team Chair Los Olivos, CA Ventura, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Sequoia ForestKeeper The Wildlands Conservancy Ara Marderosian, Executive Director Dan York, Associate Director Kernville, CA Oak Glen, CA [email protected] Dan.Y@TWC‐CA.org

Sierra Club, Condor Group Wishtoyo Foundation Mary Ann Lockhart, Chair Mati Waiya, Exec. Dir. & Chumash Ceremonial Elder Pine Mountain Club, CA Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected] [email protected]

Sierra Club, Kern‐Kaweah Chapter Women’s Environmental Watch Stephen A. Montgomery, Chair Cathie McHenry, President Bakersfield, CA Solvang, CA [email protected] info@we‐watch.org

Ventana Wilderness Alliance Mike Splain, Executive Director Santa Cruz, CA [email protected]

Ventura Audubon Society Bruce Schoppe, President Ventura, CA [email protected]

Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation Diane Underhill, President Ventura, CA [email protected]

Ventura Coastkeeper Jason Weiner, Associate Director & Staff Attorney Ventura, CA [email protected]

5

Jeff Kuyper

From: Jeff Kuyper Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:52 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Comments From Local Organizations Attachments: 20130516_SignOnLetterFINAL.pdf

Hello, please find attached a comment letter signed by 50 local conservation organizations, urging the zoning of more Recommended Wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest. Thank you for considering these comments.

Best regards,

Jeff Kuyper, Executive Director | Los Padres ForestWatch Post Office Box 831 | Santa Barbara, CA 93102 805.617.4610 ext. 1 [email protected]

ForestWatch is a local nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization working to protect and restore wild places and wildlife in the Los Padres National Forest, the Carrizo Plain National Monument, and other public lands along California's Central Coast. Join us today at www.LPFW.org

1 1

Californians for Western Wildern e ss

Keep the Sespe Wiild Friends of the River

Wilderness 4All

May 16, 2013

William Metz, Forest Supervisor Cleveland National Forest Service 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92127-2107

Submitted via e-mail to [email protected]

Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment

Dear Mr. Metz:

These scoping comments on the Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment (LMPA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)) are submitted on behalf of the California Chaparral Institute, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), California Wilderness Coalition (CWC), Californians for Western Wilderness, Center for Biological Diversity, Community Hiking Club, Friends of the River, Keep the Sespe Wild, Los Padres ForestWatch, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, The Wilderness Society and Wilderness 4All. This letter also incorporates by reference the individual letters on the LMPA DEIS submitted by these 2

organizations. For the CNPS and the Sierra Club, this letter also incorporates by reference the letters on the LMPA DEIS submitted by the affiliated local chapters of these organizations.

Sufficiency of the analysis offered in the LMPA DEIS

The DEIS on page 127 states that, “Since planning decisions do not authorize any ground disturbing activities, the decisions do not have a direct effect on the environment.” This defies common sense. In order for a roadless area to be developed, the US Forest Service (USFS) must first place a roadless area in a land-use zone (LUZ) where development is allowed and then the agency must approve a ground-disturbing activity in that zone. The latter action cannot occur without the former. The impacts of placing a roadless area in a LUZ where development is allowed must therefore be thoroughly studied in all appropriate planning documents. The DEIS offers a more accurate and logical view on page 141 where it states that “…the type of activities that are either prohibited or permitted on national forest system lands as a result of land use zoning do have direct and indirect effects on wildlife and their habitats.” The possibility of subsequent NEPA documents fails to address the impacts of placing IRAs in zones where development and other activities are allowed. The FS must comply with NEPA “at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2. A project-by-project NEPA analysis will not and cannot address the combined and cumulative regional and local environmental impacts of allowing such development to occur in the first place.

The chapter on environmental consequences is excessively general. It is simply insufficient for the DEIS to state over and over again that “There would be more of activity X under Alternative 1, less of activity X under Alternative 2 and even less of activity X under Alternative 3.” The DEIS should fully discuss and describe the impacts of “activity X” on all key ecological and social issues so that the public can understand what it actually means if less or more of “activity X” occurs.

For example, in discussing the impact of Alternative 3 on vegetation and tree management indicator species (MIS) the DEIS simply states that:

This alternative significantly decreases human disturbance by prohibiting public motorized access and the use of mechanized tools/equipment for fuels reductions and fuelbreak construction. Primitive types of recreation are permitted. As in Alternative 2, effects common to vegetation and tree MIS include elimination of vegetation removal resulting from road construction for access and motorized recreation.

This passage and the similar entries for Alternative 1 and 2 on impacts to vegetation and tree MIS beg the following questions: 3

 What impacts occur as a result of vegetation removal for roads, trails and fuelbreaks?  What benefits to air, water, wildlife, recreation and other values occur when vegetation is not removed for roads, trails and fuelbreaks?  What are the impacts of road construction, maintenance and use on all key ecological and social concerns?  What are the benefits to air, water, wildlife, recreation and other values of not building roads?  What are the short and longterm impacts to wildlife, plant communities, scenery, recreation, water quality, etc. of modifying stand structure and species composition during hazardous fuels reduction projects?  What are the impacts of maintaining existing stand structure and species composition?  What are the impacts, both positive and negative, of fire suppression activities?  More specifically, how are vegetation and tree MIS impacted by road, trail and fuelbreak construction?  How is vegetation and tree MIS affected by being placed in protective zones such as RW?

It is not enough to make “conclusory” or “perfunctory references” to cumulative impacts or to continue to use the same boilerplate language throughout the EIS. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 298-99 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Cumulative effects analysis requires “some quantified or detailed information. . .” Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S.F.S., 137 F.3d 1372, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998). “General statements about ‘possible’ effects and ‘some risk’ do not constitute a ‘hard look’ absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” Id. at 1380.

It would obviously be unrealistic for the public to expect a site-specific discussion of the impacts of particular activities such as fuel reduction, fire suppression, roads, fuelbreaks and trails on vegetation, tree MIS, water quality, wildlife or any other topic in the DEIS. However, we ask that the final EIS (FEIS) include a discussion of the known general impacts of various activities. Some portions of the wildlife section of the DEIS includes a much better description of the generic impacts of various activities. For example, in discussing the impact of Alternative 3 on southern steelhead on page 157, the document states that:

Decreased access to spawning sites should improve habitat conditions, as well as allow more individuals to reproduce successfully. Alternative 3 should also result in decreased soil compaction, soil erosion along stream banks and improved water quality. Although people may still be able to access streams/rivers where trout occur, only the least invasive activities are permitted, thus minimizing disturbance to individuals and spawning habitats.

4

The discussion of general impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher also provides a good model for how the rest of the DEIS should have been written:

Effects of reduced road use/access would be beneficial. There would be less physical disturbance and noise disturbance to birds. Even though there is an increase in BCNM in Alternative 2, this is more restrictive use than Alternative 1. Non-motorized use of riparian areas is less disturbing than motorized use as it is less noisy. The reduction in noise would be beneficial to birds during the breeding season as they communicate with sound. Noise reduction would also reduce the likelihood of birds being flushed from nests. Reduced vehicular access should also reduce habitat fragmentation, increase water quality and reduce erosion and sediment into riparian habitats. There should be fewer opportunities to introduce non-native species such as salt cedar and giant reed (i.e. Tamarisk and Arrundo spp.) that reduce habitat quality for birds.

The list of watershed condition class indicators on pages 203-204 also provides a good, general description of potential impacts from various activities.

On the other hand, on page 151 in discussing the arroyo toad the DEIS states that “Alternative 1 effects to ARTO are the same as the existing condition. Toads should continue to be impacted in the same manner as they currently are now.” The document never explains what this means. How is the species being impacted by relevant management and recreation activities now? This vague statement is repeated for many other species.

We request that the LMPA discuss and describe the consequences that RW zoning and non- wilderness management will have on the affected IRAs. Specifically, we request that the LMPA examine the direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative impacts of placing all or part of an IRA in land management zones that allow for types of recreation or land management activities that could result in the roadless area losing its wilderness character over the life of the southern California LMPs. Some of the issues that should be studied, described and discussed for each alternative in the LMPA include:

 The risks of reducing water quality in IRAs.  Consequences of and for fire and fuels management in IRAs.  Impacts of insects and disease in IRAs.  Impacts to the size of roadless areas given that there is a positive relationship between size of an area protected from human disturbance and maintenance of biodiversity.  Impacts to IRAs of development at various elevation distributions.  Impacts to terrestrial animal habitat in IRAs, including fragmentation and connectivity, edge effects, habitat suitability and effectiveness, early successional habitat, game species and late-successional habitat. 5

 Impacts to aquatic animal habitat and species in IRAs, including fragmentation and connectivity, water hydrology and stream channel morphology, habitat complexity, water quality, pools, riparian vegetation, introduction of nonnative species and diseases and over-harvest and illegal introduction.  Impacts to terrestrial and aquatic plant species in IRAs, including non-native invasives and habitat fragmentation.  Impacts to threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species in IRAs.  Impacts to research, monitoring and reference landscapes in IRAs.  Consequences for non-mechanized, mechanized and motorized recreation in IRAs.  Impacts to scenic quality in IRAs.  Consequences to heritage resources in IRAs.  Impacts from IRA development on existing wilderness and the possibility of future wilderness designation.  The impacts every alternative will have on the natural integrity, apparent naturalness, remoteness, solitude, special features, manageability, logical boundaries, and special places or values in roadless areas.

The treatment of individual IRAs in the DEIS

No explanations are given for the boundaries of the RW zones in either Alternative 2 or 3, nor did the DEIS respond to any of the site-specific comments or questions we posed in scoping. We request that the FEIS explain the reasons for the proposed boundaries under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Antimony IRA: This key IRA supports historic condor nest sites and habitat for other rare species. It borders the San Andreas Fault, serves as a habitat connection between the national forest and the Wind Wolves Preserve, one of the state’s key condor reintroduction sites. The IRA also contains several rock art sites and other areas of cultural significance. Because of these values, we encourage the USFS to select Alternative 3 for this area. Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Barker Valley IRA: We are very pleased to provide our strong support for Alternative 2. The proposed boundary includes all of the remaining wild portions of the area while excluding all legally-open vehicle routes, all maintained fuelbreaks and the facilities at High Point. The area is described in the IRAA “as perhaps the most isolated non-wilderness area in San Diego County.” Its rugged, chaparral-covered hills are interspersed with oak-studded valleys that provide a great haven for wildlife like the rare Laguna Mountains skipper butterfly. The West Fork San Luis Rey River originates in the area and the stream is considered very important by biologists because of its unique landlocked steelhead trout population. The river also contains a series of waterfalls that are especially scenic in spring. The area is accessed by the Barker Valley Trail that passes 6 through scenic oak groves and ends at the river. Because of these values, we are quite grateful for the recommendation in the Proposed Action.

Black Mountain IRA: While we support Alternative 3 for the area, we ask that the portion in red, shown below, be added to the RW LUZ. The DEIS does not explain why this portion of the IRA was excluded. It is roadless and does not contain any features or legal activities that would make it ineligible for wilderness designation.

Here is an aerial photograph of the ridge that is shown as the boundary for the RW LUZ under Alternative 3. As you can see, it is extremely minor. The old bulldozer line is less than 10’ wide in places and it is becoming overgrown.

7

The following photograph shows how the eastern end of this old bulldozer line appeared on April 27, 2013 (the picture was taken by Laurel Williams of the CWC). As you can see, it is gated, it not being used by vehicles, and it is substantially overgrown.

The Black Mountain IRA is one of the few roadless areas in the region that includes oak savannah habitat, a once ubiquitous mixture of grasslands and oaks that is being rapidly destroyed by development throughout the state. Due to its habitat diversity, the IRA may host the elusive San Joaquin kit fox and the San Joaquin pocket mouse, and it offers a refuge for mountain lion, badger, California condor and a herd of wild horses. Three sensitive plant species are known to call the area home, and nine more species may exist there. The IRA encompasses the headwaters of the Salinas River which is an extremely important source of water for local communities, agriculture and wildlife. On clear days, visitors are treated to views of the far-off Sierra Nevada.

In the previous version of the IRAA on page 144, the USFS stated that “The overall appearance of the area is of rounded landforms covered with dull green chaparral. The landscape is lacking in variety and distinctive landforms, vegetation or water forms, which make it minimally attractive.” In the latest version of the IRAA, again on page 144, the sentence has been changed to read:

The overall appearance of the area is of rounded landforms covered with chaparral. All of Black Mountain illustrates scenic attractiveness characteristics that are typical or common (Scenic Attractiveness Class B). These are landscapes where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural features combine to provide typical or common scenery. 8

They generally have positive yet common attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern and balance.

The final 10 words of the description are quite Zen-like. While we are not sure what they mean, they sound much better than “dull” and “minimally attractive.”

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Cactus Springs B IRA: For this IRA, we incorporate by reference the comments offered on the DEIS by the Sierra Club.

Caliente IRA: This region on the western boundary of the Los Coyotes Indian Reservation and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park contains a six-mile stretch of the popular Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. The area is noted for its interesting rock formations and seasonal springs that serve as a critical water source for wildlife and for hikers and equestrians using the Pacific Crest Trail. Caliente is also the headwaters of the San Luis Rey River, a very important source of drinking water for downstream communities. Because of these and other features and values, we strongly support the Alternative 2 for this IRA.

Coldwater and Trabuco IRAs: We strongly support Alternative 3 for these areas. Because of urbanization, the Santa Ana Mountains are dangerously at risk of being severed from the Chino Hills and other open spaces in the region. This could be worsened by proposed energy and transportation projects or other developments in the CNF. Protections for the wildest remaining portions of the range should therefore be maximized. Trabuco is the largest unprotected wild area remaining in the Santa Ana Mountains. Its ecological importance is magnified by the fact that it is adjacent to both the Ronald W. Casper Wilderness Park and the National Audubon Society's Starr Ranch Sanctuary. The area contains a wonderful array of natural features, including rugged canyons, native bunchgrass meadows, waterfalls (including Orange County's tallest waterfall), oak groves, several rare and unusual plant species and populations of tree species that meet their southernmost limit in or near the IRA including bigleaf maple, California bay and Pacific madrone. Despite the fact that the Santa Ana Mountains are increasingly a virtual island in an urban sea, the area still shelters a variety of species including California spotted owl, mountain lion and bobcat among others. The area is crossed by several popular foot and horse trails.

Cucamonga B IRA: We support Alternative 2. The BCNM LUZ, in conjunction with the RACR and the existing RW LUZ for most of the IRA, would provide adequate protection for its social and ecological values. Please also see the extensive comments on this IRA offered by the Sierra Club. Those comments are incorporated by reference. 9

Cucamonga C IRA: We support Alternative 3. The southern boundary of the Cucamonga Wilderness currently follows a seemingly arbitrary series of map section lines that leave out low- elevation bighorn sheep habitat, the West Fork Trail and the ruggedly beautiful Cucamonga Canyon with its waterfalls and steep walls. The ANF has already recommended its small portion in the western part of the IRA and it does not make any sense for the SBNF to not recommend its portion as well. Please also see the extensive comments on this IRA offered by the Sierra Club. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Cuyama IRA: We strongly support Alternative 3 for this critically important IRA. Cuyama Peak provides a scenic backdrop for homes and businesses in the Cuyama Valley. This is especially beneficial to businesses seeking to attract an “eco-tourism” clientele such as Sagebrush Annie’s Restaurant. The area contains a number of caves with Chumash paintings adorning the walls. The area also contains mountaintop shrines erected by the Chumash. While it is a feature that is just outside of the proposed wilderness, the Cuyama Peak Lookout (built in 1934) is an important historic site in part because it is one of only four lookouts of its type. The lookout served as a base of operations for America’s Aircraft Warning Service during World War II. Unfortunately, this historic site has suffered a great deal of vandalism over the years and it has recently collapsed. Preventing future development on and near Cuyama Peak through wilderness protection is one possible way to keep vandalism from worsening.

The area is an ecological transition zone between the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra Madre range. Such transition zones serve as important migratory pathways for plants and animals, particular during periods of climate change. The USFS has included the Cuyama Peak region in the Upper Cuyama Area of High Ecological Significance due to its unique topography, rare plants and unusual plant habitat. The area provides habitat for thirteen sensitive plant and animal species, including blunt-nosed leopard lizard, California jewel-flower, California condor, Kern primrose sphinx moth (a species once thought to be extinct) and prairie falcon among others. The San Joaquin kit fox, one of California’s most iconic endangered species with its huge ears and small stature, may also use the area.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Diablo IRA: We support Alternative 3 for this IRA. The area was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002 as an addition to the Matilija Wilderness. The popular Agua Caliente Trail traverses a portion of the area. The streams in Diablo Canyon and Agua Caliente Canyon contain regionally important riparian forests, many deep pools, and several scenic waterfalls. Big Caliente and Rock Creeks provide habitat for the California red-legged frogs. The former stream also supports a healthy population of California pond turtles. In our 10

view, this is a clear indication that wilderness management would benefit these aquatic species by maintaining the fairly undisturbed conditions that have enabled them to persist in this area. In addition, the area includes habitat for eight sensitive plant and animal species including arroyo toad, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, umbrella larkspur and California condor among others.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Dry Lakes IRA: We support Alternative 3 for this IRA. The region was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002 as an addition to the Matilija Wilderness and the majority of it was proposed for wilderness designation again by Representative Gallegly in 2012. The area features the Matilija Escarpment, a 1,500-acre exposed sandstone formation. This geologic feature offers a dramatic, scenic backdrop for people traveling along Highway 33. On clear days, visitors are greeted with excellent views of the surrounding mountains, the Channel Islands and the Pacific Ocean. The area is bordered by the upper Sespe Creek Proposed Wild and Scenic River. The IRA contains the Dry Lakes Ridge Botanical Area, where seasonal ponds provide habitat for a diverse array of unique plant life. The area shelters four “relictual” plant species that do not occur anywhere else in the region as well as remnant groves of ponderosa pines that continue to survive despite the fact that they are quite uncommon in this portion of the LPNF. The proposed addition provides habitat for sixteen sensitive plant and animal species, including arroyo toad, California condor, California red-legged frog, California satintail, hoary bat, Ojai fritillary, pale-yellow layia and Palmer's mariposa-lily among others.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Eagle Peak, No Name and Sill Hill IRAs and the Cedar Creek and Upper San Diego River other unroaded areas: Given this region’s many tremendous social and ecological values and the many development threats that could imperil it in the future, we are extremely grateful for the USFS’ wilderness recommendations for these roadless lands under Alternatives 2 and 3. We support Alternative 2, but with the boundary modifications recommended by the San Diego River Park Foundation and the Sierra Club in their letters on the DEIS.

Fish Canyon and Salt Creek IRAs: We strongly support the proposal to allocate the vast majority of these IRAs to the RW LUZ. The USFS’ proposal recognizes the immense ecological and social importance of these outstanding wild places. It is especially gratifying that the USFS recognizes that the two IRAs are now a single de facto wilderness unit given that the road that once divided them no longer exists. We request, however, that the proposed action be modified to not exclude the non-motorized trails that run through the area. These trails are not used by 11

cyclists to any significant degree at this time, and the Fish Canyon Trail is physically unsuited to such use as it runs right through the riparian zone—in many instances directly in the stream itself. This is not a good place for a trail, especially one that is open to mountain bikes.

Below are Dianne Erskine-Hellrigel’s May, 2013 comments on the state of mountain biking in the Salt Creek and Fish Canyon RW based on recent, and extensive, on-the-ground research:

There is no evidence that any of the 19 miles of trails within the Fish Canyon and Salt Creek RW are currently being used by the mountain bikers. Upper Fish Canyon is in bad condition with portions of trail missing, three huge downed trees, 20 feet of trail missing, and numerous huge landslides. These slide areas along the “trail” make it difficult, if not impossible, to traverse on a mountain bike. Without stream bed alteration and major overhaul, this could not be a feasible mountain biking trail. The beginning of the Gillette Mine Trail is in passable condition except for three downed trees. The trail then deteriorates and crosses a Native Burial Ground. Lower Gillette Mine Trail was washed completely out in 2005 and the connection no longer exists. Without a reroute for the Native American burial ground, and a reroute over crumbling granite (about half of the existing trail), and resurrection of the lower portion of the trail, this could not be a sustainable trail for mountain bikers. The Burnt Peak trail is in very poor condition. There are four areas that were initially reinforced with wooden retaining walls. These walls have been shattered by landslides. There are steep drop-offs on the lower side of each of these and landslides above. These would require constant repair/upkeep and would be difficult and expensive to maintain. There is nowhere else to reroute the trail at these points due to the landslides. The trail dumps into the creek, and there are 1.5 miles of strictly riparian habitat before it meets the Upper Fish Canyon trail. Mountain bikers do use Lower Fish/Gillette to Warm Springs, which is outside the potential wilderness. They also use the mountain bike user-created trail called the Golden Eagle Trail, which is a 27-mile trail near the proposed RW. It dips into the proposed RW in some instances, and would need to be rerouted or corrected in either Alternative 2 or 3.

The recreation needs of cyclists can be met outside of these roadless areas along Sawmill Mountain and the other major ridges in the Castaic region. For these reasons, while we are mostly pleased with Alternative 2, we must support Alternative 3 instead for these IRAs.

Page 206 shows an improvement to Fish Canyon Creek under Alternatives 2 and 3 despite the fact that under Alternative 2 mechanized recreation use would be allowed for some distance in the very bed of the stream. This key difference should have been acknowledged in the DEIS. While it is true that mountain bikes are technically allowed in the canyon now, use is almost non- existent. This could change in the future if Alternative 2 is selected.

12

Lastly, while we do not oppose the exclusion of vehicle routes and mountain bike trails from wilderness that are actually being used, the proposal in Alternative 2 is perhaps unprecedented— all trails are excluded, but none of them are currently used by cyclists to an even remotely significant degree. This is not a good precedent.

Please also see the extensive comments on this IRA offered by the Sierra Club. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Fox Mountain IRA: We support Alternative 3. According to our estimates, Fox Mountain is the largest remaining intact (i.e., not bisected by vehicle routes) unprotected roadless area in the LPNF. The area offers outstanding views of the Carrizo Plain National Monument, the San Joaquin Valley, the San Andreas Rift Zone and the southern Sierra Nevada. The IRA possesses many important cultural values, including some the best known examples of Chumash rock art in the region. Painted Rock is perhaps the most well-known of these areas. As a result, portions of the proposed additions are included in the Sierra Madre Cultural Resource Area, the Sierra Madre Special Interest Area and the Eastern Sierra Madre Ridge Archaeological District. The latter is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A research emphasis over the years has been “archeoastronomy,” the study of how the Chumash and other indigenous peoples have understood the features and phenomena visible to them in the sky. The area is still used by the Chumash people today for cultural purposes. Lion Canyon contains strikingly unique rock formations. Lion Canyon is also a former release site for California condors. The IRA contains several rare plant species found nowhere else in the world, including Blakley’s spineflower, discovered by the late LPNF historian Jim Blakley. In addition, the area provides habitat for 21 sensitive species, including blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Fort Tejon woolly sunflower, giant kangaroo rat, Mount Pinos onion, Nelson's antelope squirrel, San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin woollythreads among others. The area is an ecological transition zone between the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra Madre range. Such transition zones serve as important migratory pathways for plants and animals, particular during periods of climate change.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Garcia Mountain IRA: We support Alternative 3. This area was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002. It contains very fine oak woodlands and grasslands that serve as important foraging habitat for raptors. The headwaters of the Salinas and Huasna Rivers originate along the flanks of Garcia Mountain. Many seasonal tributaries of the Salinas River have shady streamside groves of hardwoods. The area already serves as a condor foraging site, and its numerous erosion-caused caves, cavities, and ledges may once again serve as a nesting ground for the majestic bird. Golden eagles already nest there.

13

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Juncal IRA: We support Alternative 3 for this IRA. This area was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002. The area provides habitat for many sensitive species including arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern pond turtle, southwestern willow flycatcher, and others. While very few people visit this area due to its remoteness and lack of trails, this has the benefit of making it an excellent place to observe wildlife. The area’s seasonal creeks offer many opportunities for challenging hikes through dense riparian areas, tranquil oak forests, and boulder-strewn meanders. From the tops of the ridges, one has views of the entire forest as well as the Pacific Ocean. On a very clear day, all of the Channel Islands can be seen, including tiny Santa Barbara Island over 80 miles away. Signs of bears, mountain lions, bobcats, and other species can be found throughout the area. For the native Chumash people, the area has long been a sacred place, as evidenced by the many rock art sites located in the IRA. In our view Juncal would make a fine addition to the Matilija Wilderness. All essential roads, fuelbreaks, helispots and other key developments and infrastructure can easily be excluded with a few boundary adjustments.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Madulce Buckhorn IRA: We support Alternative 2 for this area. The BCNM LUZ, in conjunction with the RACR and the existing RW LUZ in the northern portion of the area, would provide adequate protection for its social and ecological values. Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Quatal IRA: We support Alternative 2 for this area. The BCNM LUZ, in conjunction with the RACR, would provide adequate protection for its social and ecological values. Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Pyramid Peak A IRA: For this IRA, we incorporate by reference the comments offered on the DEIS by the Sierra Club.

Raywood Flat B IRA: For this IRA, we incorporate by reference the comments offered on the DEIS by the Sierra Club.

Red Mountain IRA: This area was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002 when it was included in the four-unit Castaic Proposed Wilderness. The IRAA does a good job of detailing the IRA’s social and ecological values. This area is a natural extension of 14

the complex of roadless lands extending east from Salt Creek. It should be proposed as wilderness along with its neighbors Fish Creek, Tule and Salt Creek. Please see the comments on the Tule and Red Mountain IRAs offered by Santa Clarita conservationist Dianne Erskine- Hellrigel, below. Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by the Sierra Club. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Sawmill-Badlands IRA: We support Alternative 3 for this IRA. Mount Pinos in the existing Chumash Wilderness and the land around it are sacred territory to the Chumash people. The journey to the top of the mountain from surrounding areas, such as the various units of the IRA, was part of a spiritual experience. At least four villages existed in the area during the pre-contact period. The IRA contains unique rock formations that form arid “badlands” characterized by sparse vegetation and innumerable narrow, deep and eroded canyons. The highly scenic region is visually striking and it evokes the desert terrain often depicted in old Hollywood westerns rather than landscapes more common in the LPNF. The badlands have yielded fossils from the Miocene era, including pig-like peccaries, turtles, three-toed horses, an antelope-like creature called merycodus, camels and a four-tusked ancestor of mammoths called Gomphotherium among other finds. The IRA contains several rare freshwater springs, including Mystery Spring, Kettering Spring, Round Spring, and Sulphur Spring. These water sources are true oases for people and animals in this arid land. The USFS has included part of the proposal in the Upper Cuyama Area of High Ecological Significance. This designation was applied to the area because of its unique topography and rare species of plants. The region provides habitat for 21 sensitive plant and animal species, including American badger, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, California condor, coast horned lizard, Lemmon's jewelflower, prairie falcon, San Joaquin pocket mouse, umbrella larkspur and other species. The addition of lower-elevation lands would complement the existing Chumash Wilderness that was designated by the Condor Range and Rivers Act of 1992. If the IRA was managed in an RW LUZ, the Chumash would extend from over 8,800 feet atop Mount Pinos down to a little over 3,400 feet in the IRA. This would enhance the ecological, scenic and recreational values of the wilderness as a whole by increasing its size and diversity. In an era of climate change, the preservation of such habitat diversity is perhaps more important than ever.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Sespe-Frazier IRA: We support Alternative 3 because it recognizes which portions of the area are currently open to legal OHV use and which portions remain in a wild state. The lands along Piru Creek on the northern side of the Sespe Wilderness are of very high ecological importance. These lands, and the RW LUZ areas to the west, are natural extensions of the Sespe Wilderness. We do request, however, that Alternative 3 be modified to include the roadless lands shown in red in the map below. We do not understand why this land was excluded from the RW LUZ, especially given that the CNF (Eagle, No Name and Sill Hill) and ANF (Fish Canyon and Salt 15

Creek) went beyond the existing IRA boundaries in applying the RW LUZ when circumstances on the ground warranted it. The area shown in red, below, is completely undeveloped and is a natural extension of the roadless lands on its east and west and the designated wilderness on the north.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Spoor Canyon IRA: We support Alternative 3. This area was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002. We consider it a natural extension of the Fox Mountain IRA and the San Rafael Wilderness. On its slopes the cool, moist climates of the north combine with the warm, dry climates to the south creating incredible biodiversity. Spacious native grasslands with oak woodlands offer foraging habitat for the endangered California condor. These majestic birds can be found soaring on thermals in this area throughout the year. In addition, the many weather-sculpted rock formations provide important nesting areas for the condor as well as raptors like the peregrine falcon. The great San Joaquin Valley, Cuyama Valley, and the interior high desert are all visible from the proposed wilderness addition. The wildflower displays in late February and early March are breathtaking and many people make the long drive from the coast to see the springtime sights.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

16

Tequepis IRA: We support Alternative 2 for this area. The BCNM LUZ, in conjunction with the RACR, would provide adequate protection for its social and ecological values. Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Tule IRA: We strongly support Alternative 3 for this critically important wild place. The reasons are eloquently expressed by noted Santa Clarita conservationist Dianne Erskine- Hellrigel:

This is one of the prize jewels of the IRAs in the Castaic region. It has almost no human presence, has dense chaparral, stands of big cone Douglas fir, an important habitat type in southern California, and is THE SPOT for adventure hiking, and the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) crosses through the northern section of the IRA. The views are spectacular with high ridges and steep canyons. There are numerous intermittent streams, one perennial stream, and stands of big cone Douglas fir. Trout fishing is available in the perennial stream that feeds into Lake Elizabeth, hunting, hiking and horseback riding on the PCT, adventure hiking on a few ridges and Tule Canyon, Red Fox Canyon, and on the southern border from Warm Springs Camp through Ruby Canyon. The Cottonwood Campground is available outside the northern boundary for visitors to the area. The FS asserts that “The area does not provide any specific value as a wildlife corridor beyond the general function of the Angeles National Forest as the largest expanse of open space and habitat in Los Angeles County.” As president of the Santa Clara River Watershed Conservancy and part of the Linkage Alliance, I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. This area is highly valued as an animal corridor, linking the Los Padres, Sierra Pelona, San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains. If this area was lost, it would be one more stressor placed on our native and endangered species.

Please see the comments on this IRA offered by the Sierra Club. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

West Fork and Westfork IRAs: We support Alternative 3. This alternative recognizes the immense ecological and social importance of these roadless areas that occupy the south face of the canyon of the West Fork San Gabriel River. These areas were first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002 as additions to the San Gabriel Wilderness. The IRAs encompass Glen Canyon, Phipps Canyon, and several other small tributary watersheds that rise from a 4,500-foot high ridge and then tumble down to the West Fork San Gabriel, a proposed wild and scenic river. The tributary streams often create beautiful if seasonal waterfalls visible from the West Fork National Bikeway (this route is excluded from the wilderness proposal). An area of high ecological significance, the proposed West Fork addition supports one of the largest 17

contiguous stands of big cone Douglas-fir and canyon live oak on the ANF and is home to California spotted owl and the San Gabriel Mountains slender salamander.

Please see the comments on this IRA offered by the Sierra Club. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

White Ledge IRA: We support Alternative 3. This area was first proposed for wilderness designation by Senator Boxer in 2002 as an addition to the Matilija Wilderness. The area is crossed by the historic Ocean View Trail. As its name implies, it offers spectacular views of the Channel Islands and the Santa Barbara Channel. Excellent coastal views are rare in the National Wilderness Preservation System. White Ledge Peak is a striking rock formation visible from Ojai, Highway 33 and Lake Casitas. The area contains mountaintop shrines built by the Chumash. The proposed addition provides habitat for sixteen sensitive plant and animal species, including California condor, Coast Range newt, Davidson's saltscale, Dulzura pocket mouse, Miles' milk-vetch, monarch butterfly, Salt Spring checkerbloom and Sanford's arrowhead among others.

Please also see the comments on this IRA offered by Los Padres ForestWatch. Those comments are incorporated by reference.

Monitoring

The three-part monitoring approach of 1) measuring movement toward desired conditions over the long-term, 2) documenting individual program accomplishments via annual reporting and 3) measuring how well specific project implementation follows forest plan direction, if designed properly and implemented should provide adequate data sets on which to assess the ecological state of the forests and/or the need for adaptive management to achieve goals of the LMP.

A. Additional Monitoring Alternatives Should Be Considered We believe that additional monitoring alternatives should be considered that include the best features of the proposed alternatives and other components necessary to ensure an adequate monitoring regime. A robust and transparent monitoring plan is a critical component of the Forest Service’s long-term management plan of the four forests because it will significantly shape how adaptive management is utilized to meet the plans’ goals. NEPA requires that an EIS contain a discussion of the “alternatives to the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(C)(iii),(E). The discussion of alternatives is at “the heart” of the NEPA process, and is intended to provide a “clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmakers and the public.” 40 C.F.R. §1502.14; Idaho Sporting Congress, 222 F.3d at 567 (compliance with NEPA’s procedures “is not an end in itself . . . [but] it is through NEPA’s action forcing procedures that the sweeping policy goals announced in § 101 of NEPA are realized.”) (internal citations omitted). NEPA’s 18

regulations and Ninth Circuit case law require the agency to “rigorously explore” and objectively evaluate “all reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (emphasis added); Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 234 Fed. Appx. 440, 442 (9th Cir. 2007).

Appendix 3 of the SDEIS lays out only three alternatives for monitoring resources in the forests – the no action (Alternative A), the preferred monitoring alternative (Alternative B) and the extensive monitoring alternative (Alternative C). However, the monitoring questions asked by the different monitoring alternatives are not consistent and confuse the data that is already being collected with what should be collected to answer important environmental questions. Based on the fact that Goals of the Forest Plans are the same independent of the monitoring alternative, we believe that well-crafted questions should be consistent between the alternatives, with the differences in the alternatives residing in the actual monitoring actions. Instead, the three monitoring alternatives in the SDEIS each for the most part ask different questions making comparison more difficult. Alternatives A (no action) and B (Proposed Action) share a number of monitoring questions while Alternative C (Extensive Monitoring) shares few questions, but similar topics or categories, to the other two alternatives.

As the SDEIS is currently configured, Monitoring Alternative C, which we support, may have very little chance of actually being adopted due to Forest Service budget/resource limitations, which make it appear to be an “unreasonable” alternative. Therefore, we believe that a greater range of reasonably implementable alternatives should be included in a revised Draft SEIS and recirculated to the public for comment.

B. Alternative A (No Action Alternative). The on-going monitoring that the forests are already doing collect data that help to answer many of the questions about important ecological and development issues on the forests. These data sets that are currently being collected include:

 Tracking the acres treated for fire hazard reduction in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Defense Zone (App. 3 pg. 3), areas no longer in WUI (App. 3 pg. 3) and areas that have converted to high fire hazard in the WUI or where new development has occurred nearby creating a new WUI(App. 3 pg. 3);  Tracking acres that have been treated or had fire history by vegetation community type (App. 3 pg. 3);  Establish baseline acres of invasive plants/animals, subtracting areas of treatment and adding newly invaded acres (App. 3 pg. 3);  Tracking acres of wilderness (App. 3 pg. 4);  Tracking acres of mineral and energy development and resultant mitigation (App. 3 pg. 4);  Tracking the number and acres of utility corridors (App. 3 pg. 4); 19

 Tracking the number of “impaired streams” (303d list) (App. 3 pg. 4);  Tracking the MIS habitat condition (App. 3 pg. 4);  Tracking the road miles, types and resultant density (App. 3 pg. 5);

These important data sets track many of the issues that are of concern to us and to the forest decision makers as well. All of these issue areas are fundamental to evaluating if the goals of the forest plans are being met. By continuing to acquire and track these data sets the forests will also have opportunities to analyze these data sets in useful ways to help answer additional management questions with minimal effort (see below).

C. Alternative C (Extensive Monitoring) Of the alternative monitoring scenarios provided in the SDEIS, we strongly support Alternative C, the Conservation Alternative for monitoring and evaluation requirements, because it:

 Capitalizes on data sets that have already been collected and/or that are already being collected to analyze and allows them to be evaluated in numerous ways (ex. by watershed, by fire history, by development);  Supports annual monitoring and reporting on management activities and as well as incorporating new inventory data and other scientific and technical information. Keeping the data sets up to date will facilitate the opportunity to evaluate and analyze the best management decisions for managers; and  Provides statistically robust annual implementation monitoring of new projects and ongoing activities as well as a strong validation protocols that will be able to detect problems with implementation of the best management practices and design criteria in a timely manner in order to determine whether those design criteria are in fact effective.

One concern we have is that Alternative C proposes to “restart” the baseline conditions with five years of data collection establishing a new baseline (Appendix 3 at pg. 14). We believe this “baseline” data collection (Appendix 3 at pg. 14) is unnecessary and that baseline acreages from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plan analysis should be used as the “baseline” (as it is in the other alternatives) to compare to subsequent data collection on changed conditions. The other change we would suggest to Alternative C is to restate the Monitoring Questions for Goal 1.2. While we support the protection of communities and areas of concentrated human use from fire, we do not agree that the current science shows a need to protect the forest from fire although prescribed fire may be used to improve ecological conditions in some areas. Changing the focus to monitoring for defensible space and community protection will support the use of the Forest Service’s limited resources where action is actually needed. Our suggested changes to the Goal 1.2 Monitoring Questions are as follows:

• Has the forest improved defensible space around communities? 20

• Has the forest identified areas that would be good ecological candidates for the reintroduction of fire? • Has the forest undertaken prescribed fire treatments to improve ecological function or defensible space in any areas? • We urge the Forest Service to revise Alternative C to incorporate the requirement to explicitly coordinate the forest monitoring program with any consultation monitoring and reporting requirements for listed species, cultural resources, or other resources as indicated in Alternative B (Appendix 3 at pg. 11).

The SDEIS states that Alternative C would be more costly than the other alternatives and the monitoring “would not be improved to a degree commensurate with the increased costs due to the diminishing returns of increased data collection” (SDEIS at pg. 293). Recognizing these concerns, we suggest below several measures that could be incorporated into a revised Alternative B and increase the efficacy of the monitoring alternative with minimal additional staff time or expense.

D. Revised Alternative B Alternative B as detailed in the SDEIS is an improvement over the no action alternative, however, the monitoring scenarios of Alternative B still will not provide the essential information and thorough analyses on which judicious land management decisions are required to be based. We suggest that at minimum the following measures should be incorporated into Alternative B. This would result in a new Revised Alternative B which would increase the strength and efficacy of the monitoring with minimal additional staff time and expense.

Ecological systems are complex and there are a number of ways to evaluate them and their condition. Many of the indicators in Alternative C – Part 1 are basic GIS desktop exercises – looking at different “filters” or ways to look at the data sets once they are collected. For example, Goal 1.1 identifies the monitoring action as calculating the number of acres of fuel breaks constructed/maintained in the WUI and is common to all Alternatives. Alternative C also adds a requirement of evaluating the number of acres of fuel breaks constructed and maintained by watershed. This is an additional, important way to look at the data – in this instance to evaluate if one watershed is experiencing unsustainable clearing that could affect erosion and hydrological functions yet it requires no new data collection, just an additional analysis that will yield important information. These types of simple GIS exercises are informative and easy to implement based on existing data sets that the Forest Service has and data it is already committed to collect going forward. These types of requirements should be included or retained in any monitoring regime that the Forest Service chooses as part of this decision. Requiring managers to use these relatively simple and effective analysis tools to assist in review of impacts to these complex systems will support more informed management decisions and provide defensible science based decisions. Minimizing the way data sets are analyzed will not serve the health of 21 the forests or save significant time and energy of staff—indeed these tools are time and cost efficient ways to increase the usefulness of the data already being collected.

We propose that that “Goals” and “Monitoring Questions” from Alternative B – Part 1 be retained with the following changes:  Goal 1.1 – Monitoring Action – Add: calculate the number of acres of watershed treated in WUI and compare with baseline acres from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Include the approach as discussed above for Alternative C - Monitoring Questions for Goal 1.2.  Goal 3.1 – Monitoring Action – Add: report the number of recreational facilities by use type and compare with the five year number; report the miles of public roads and trails by use type including the miles in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat affected; report the acres of recreational facilities in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat; report the number of recreational residence cabin permits including the number of acres in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat; report the number of organizational camp permits including the number of acres in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat;  Goal 3.2 – Monitoring Action – Add: compare the acres of Wilderness from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans with the current acres.  Goal 4.1a – o Monitoring Action – . Add: Report miles of authorized transmission and distribution powerlines/gas lines including acres in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat; . Add: Report number and acres of authorized oil and gas operations including acres in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat; . Add: Report number and acres of authorized plans of operation for mining including acres in riparian areas and federally designated critical habitat; . Add Report number of acres of mitigation/conservation that has been acquired and managed to off-set impacts to forest resources.  Goal 4.1b – Monitoring Action – Add: Report the number of transportation and utility corridors and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans.  Goal 5.1 - Monitoring Action – Add: Report number of miles of decommissioned roads (Part of Goal 3.1); number of acres in watershed treated (Coordinated with Goal 1.1); number of road/trail water crossings by type; document the number of water extraction projects and authorized water pipelines by watercourse; document the TMDL listed water bodies;  Goal 5.2 – Indicator – Add: Stream Condition – Impaired State listed 303(d) streams 22

 Reassigning existing Goal 6.1 to be 6.1a – Monitoring Action – Add: report number and acreage of grazing allotments and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans. o Add: Goal 6.1b “Monitoring Question” - Does grazing conflict with management for sensitive plant/animal species or cultural resources? Indicator – Sensitive Species/Cultural Resources. Monitoring Action – Compare habitat for sensitive plants/animals and identified cultural resources and grazing allotment boundaries and use areas for conflicts.  Goal 6.2 – Monitoring Action – Add: Report the number of listed species and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Report the acres of critical habitat and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Report actions taken as part of Biological Opinion implementation monitoring; Identify and establish wildlife habitat linkages and analyze for development and vegetation treatment impacts.  Goal 7.1 – Monitoring Action – Add: Report acres of, miles of roads and motorized trails in IRAs, and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Report the number of RNA Management Plans and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Report the number and miles of authorized, administrative roads and ORV roads and trails by type including roads and trails in riparian areas or federally designated critical habitat and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Establish a baseline of unauthorized roads and trails;  Add Goal 8 – Monitoring Question – Are the National Forests protected and preserving cultural resources? Indicators – Coordination with SHPO Monitoring Action – Use cultural site reports and compare the miles of roads/trails and acres of recreational facilities in culturally sensitive areas and compare to the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans; Report the number of tribal coordination meetings each year.

For Part 2 – Monitoring - we believe that each of the indicators associated with a monitoring goal should be included in the Monitoring Summary in addition to the Indicators in Table 5 where they are not duplicative. For Part 3 – Monitoring – we believe if the Part 1 monitoring of Alternative B is modified to include our proposed changes that the modified Part 1 monitoring will achieve the desired monitoring proposed in Part 3 of Alternative B which will provide efficiency and effectiveness for monitoring. We urge the Forests to consider adoption of this Revised Alternative B proposal for monitoring because it will provide important information not adequately provided under the current monitoring or the proposed Alternative B in the SDEIS and it will be a less costly monitoring regime than Alternative C (which we continue to support and prefer).

In closing, while we are often critical of USFS statements regarding roadless areas and, to a lesser extent, designated wilderness, both the original LMP FEIS and the LMPA DEIS deserve 23

praise for including the following succinct, forthright summary of the impact of wilderness on fire suppression:

The notion that wilderness designation makes fire suppression more difficult and restrictive is not based on fact. All roadless areas (including designated wilderness) are difficult to suppress fires within because of our inability to drive there to put the fire out with fire engines. The current protocol to obtain permission to use mechanized equipment to suppress wilderness fires is not a time consuming process or significant barrier to fire suppression efficiency. The encumbrances firefighters encounter in fighting wilderness fires are the same logistical challenges they face in any firefighting situation without road access.

We are grateful for the inclusion of this powerful statement once more.

Thank you for considering our comments. Please keep us abreast of other opportunities to engage in the LMPA process.

Sincerely,

Ryan Henson Senior Conservation Director California Wilderness Coalition 3313 Nathan Drive Anderson, CA 96007 (O) 530-365-2737 (M) 530-902-1648 (F) 574-966-2324 E-mail: [email protected]

Lisa T. Belenky, Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 351 California St., Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 (O) 415-632-5307 (F) 415-436-9683 E-mail: [email protected]

Don Bremner, Chair Forest Committee, Angeles Chapter-Sierra Club 24

1680 Walworth Ave. Pasadena, CA 91104 E-mail: [email protected]

Joyce Burk Southern California Forests Committee Chair Sierra Club P. O. Box 106 Barstow, CA 92312 E-mail: [email protected]

Michael J. Connor, Ph.D. California Director Western Watersheds Project P.O. Box 2364 Reseda, CA 91337 (O) 818-345-0425 E-mail: [email protected]

Alasdair Coyne Conservation Director Keep Sespe Wild Ojai CA 93024. E-mail: [email protected]

Dianne Erskine-Hellrigel Executive Director and President Community Hiking Club 24820 Fourl Road Newhall, CA 91321 (O) 661-259-2743 E-mail: [email protected]

Steve Evans Wild Rivers Project Consultant Friends of the River 1853 3rd Avenue Sacramento, CA 95818 (O) 916-706-2205 Email: [email protected] 25

Richard W. Halsey Director The California Chaparral Institute P.O. Box 545 Escondido, CA 92033 (O) 760-822-0029 E-mail: [email protected]

Jeff Kuyper Executive Director Los Padres ForestWatch Post Office Box 831 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 (O) 805.617.4610, Ext. 1 E-mail: [email protected]

John Monsen, Conservation Chair Forest Committee, Angeles Chapter-Sierra Club 601 E. Del Mar Blvd., #503 Pasadena, CA 91101 (O) 818-427-5699 E-mail: [email protected]

Michael J. Painter Coordinator Californians for Western Wilderness P.O. Box 210474 San Francisco, CA 94121-0474 (O) 415-752-3911 E-mail: [email protected]

Geoffrey Smith Wilderness4All 1512 Frederick Street Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (O) 858-442-1425 E-mail: [email protected]

Dan Smuts 26

Senior Regional Director--California The Wilderness Society 655 Montgomery St., Ste 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 (O) 415-398-1420 E-mail: [email protected]

Greg Suba Conservation Program Director California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816-5113 (O) 916-447-2677 (F) 916-447-2727 E-mail: [email protected]

Randy Moore, Regional Forester May 15, 2013 Region 5, USDA Forest Service 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592-1110

Thomas A. Contreras, Forest Supervisor Angeles National Forest 701 N. Santa Anita Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006-2725

William Metz, Forest Supervisor Cleveland National Forest 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92127-2107

Peggy Hernandez, Forest Supervisor Los Padres National Forest 6755 Hollister Avenue, Suite 150 Goleta, CA 93117-5560

Jody Noiron, Forest Supervisor San Bernardino National Forest 602 South Tippecanoe Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92408-2607

Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment

Dear Forester Moore and Supervisors Contreras, Metz, Hernandez, and Noiron: The California Native Plant Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for the Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment (LMPA).

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) works to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations. CNPS promotes sound plant science as the backbone of effective protection of natural areas. We work closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well informed and environmentally friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices.

This letter contains comments submitted by the CNPS state office on behalf of the statewide organization, that address general issues related to native plants and vegetation as discussed in the Draft Amendment. The Four Forests fall within the areas of seven of CNPS’ 33 local chapters. Each chapter may comment specifically on how the Amendments will affect the native plants and

vegetation in the Forests within their Chapter areas. Two CNPS Policies are pertinent to our analysis of the proposed Alternatives, the CNPS Policy on Shrubland Management and the CNPS Policy on Native Plants and Fire Safety1.

The Policy on Shrubland Management states in part that (emphasis added): 1. The California Native Plant Society supports management activities which sustain the biodiversity of the shrubland community and do not threaten elimination of its native components. Any change in activities which have hitherto sustained the community should be thoroughly analyzed. 2. The California Native Plant Society opposes the conversion of shrubland by any means to ... other forms of natural vegetation (type conversion), except by natural processes. If type conversion is proposed, compelling evidence should be provided ... that a reasonable return on the investment, including public resources, can be expected. 3. The California Native Plant Society acknowledges the value of controlled burning under limited and carefully controlled conditions where it can be shown to be necessary to protect property, significant stands of vegetation, and to reduce fuel levels through the creation of areas of younger vegetation. The Society recommends that agencies use their policies, regulations, and management actions to discourage building structures in fire-prone areas. 4. The California Native Plant Society supports the use of cool fire as a management tool only at such times that late winter and early growth periods are avoided and at frequencies that maintain a natural ecological balance of these shrubland communities.

The Native Plants and Fire Safety Policy states in part that (emphasis added): The California Native Plant Society opposes the unnecessary destruction of California’s native plant heritage for the purpose of wildfire fuel management. The California Native Plant Society supports protecting human lives, property and California’s native plants from poor fuel management practices. California’s superbly diverse native plants are its most valuable resource for erosion control and water conservation, and are vital to the long-term health of California.

On the Alternatives: Based on the Policies cited above, CNPS agrees with the Draft SEIS Summary (p. ii) that “... allocating more of the study area to restrictive land use zones would benefit resources such as watershed, wildlife, and dispersed recreation by limiting future activities. The suitable area available for development of roads, developed recreation, special uses, and energy developments would decrease.” However, we recommend changing the word “restrictive” to “more protective,” and include native vegetation as a key resource to benefit from the proposed allocations, since forest watersheds and forest wildlife benefit when native vegetation benefits.

CNPS finds that Alternative 3 is the most resource-protective of the Alternatives. Native vegetation occurring in areas zoned as Recommended Wilderness (RW) within the 39 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), as proposed in Alternative 3, will provide essential protection and management of these resources. We therefore support the adoption of Alternative 3.

1 http://www.cnps.org/cnps/conservation/policies.php, 1993 and 2010 respectively.

2

CNPS finds that Monitoring Alternative C addresses the integration of management (monitoring) with natural processes that is more in line with current ecological research and resource- management thinking, and incorporates sampling and analysis processes that will help protect native plant resources more than Monitoring Alternatives A or B. We support the adoption of Monitoring Alternative C. We also recognize the modifications to Monitoring Alternative B as proposed in a joint comment letter submitted by a coalition of conservation organizations, including CNPS. We would support our coalition's proposed Revised Alternative B as a second option if Alternative C is not adopted.

CNPS suggests that, by emphasizing preservation and protection of the native-plant resource, the Forests will better provide the ecosystem services that they have long provided, such as protecting their watersheds from erosion and for water production, as well as the newly important service of carbon sequestration2.

On the Vegetation Classification Analysis: On pp. 38-42, Vegetation Conditions are analyzed using the Wildlife Habitat Relationship (WHR) system. The WHR system does not comply with the National Vegetation Classification Standards (NVCS)3, which should be the basis for vegetation classification, rather than the WHR, for the Four Forests.

The Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (MCV2)4 is in compliance with the NVCS and is the most detailed description of California vegetation available in 2013. It is based on modern field surveys done over a large portion of California, thus is the most accurate vegetation dataset available.

The DEIS contains extensive information portraying the Four Forests’ vegetation using WHR, TWINSPAN, and tree MIS. However, these tools are not able to resolve the finer vegetation classifications defined by the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS, referenced above), including delineating locations of rare plant communities from more common types. As a result, the prioritization of management decisions and actions to avoid and minimize impacts to rarer communities is not possible.

Vegetation maps keyed to the NVCS that presents tables of vegetation types and acreages would fully comply with both the national standards and the 2000 MOU noted above, and most importantly, such maps would improve the decision making process for this and future Forest management planning.

The US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region is one of 11 agencies and organizations who are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperative Vegetation and Habitat Mapping and Classification5, finalized by the California Biodiversity Council in 2000. The MOU’s goals are

2 Hongyan Luo, 2007, The Importance of a Mediterranean Type Ecosystem in Trace Gas Fluxes from the Chaparral of Southern California, PhD Dissertation, University of California, Davis and San Diego State University 3 http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008- 02.pdf/ 4 Sawyer, John, Todd Keeler-Wolf and Julie Evens, 2009, Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition 5 http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/vegMOU.pdf

3

“... to establish and maintain statewide vegetation and habitat data layers of known accuracy in compliance with the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS).” We strongly urge the Forest Service, and in this case Pacific Southwest Region staff, to implement the intent of the May 2000 vegetation mapping MOU by developing and including vegetation maps based on the NVCS in the Final EIS, and in subsequent Forest management planning documents.

On Management Indicator Species: On p. 41 it is noted that 27 WHR vegetation types occur in IRAs that are larger than 620 acres. The analysis states: “Not surprisingly, chaparral comprised 63.3% of the total area [within the IRAs] followed by pinyon-juniper which made up 13.7%. Montane hardwoods were next with 5.4% while the remaining 23 types had percentages less than 2.2% [each].” The IRAs are divided into four groups according to results of a Two-Way Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN). These groups are stated to have average chaparral cover of 47.1% (7 IRAs), 68.4% (6 IRAs), 37.5% (6 IRAs), and 85.5% (20 IRAs) respectively.

Although chaparral is by far the dominant plant community in the four LMPA forests, the many different types of chaparral are barely distinguished (WHR defines only two types) and none are given specific resource management plans. Why are there seven tree Management Indicator Species (MIS) (Tables 9 and 10), when trees comprise only a small percentage of all the IRAs’ cover, and no chaparral MIS? How do the WHR, the TWINSPAN and the tree MIS relate to each other? It would be much simpler and more realistic for management of these IRAs if the dominant species of the various chaparral types were MIS. MCV2, cited above, is the authority on chaparral vegetation types; we suggest that it be consulted for appropriate chaparral MIS.

On Threatened, Endangered Plant, and Sensitive Plant Species and Critical Habitat: It is stated on p. 53 that “Out of 29 federally-listed threatened and endangered (T&E) plants that occur on the four forests, only two species ... are known to occur or have designated Critical Habitat in the IRAs.” We agree that “Most of the IRAs have not been completely surveyed for botanical resources. It is possible that undetected occurrences of T&E plants occur in the IRAs,” (p. 53) and request that such surveys be done as part of the Monitoring Alternatives.

Furthermore, we agree that “[b]ecause focused surveys have not been conducted in all parts of every IRA, it is possible that other sensitive plant occurrences are present but undetected/unmapped in the IRAs.” (p. 55) In Tables 18 and 19, many species have been documented within more easily accessible Land Use Zones, i.e., Back Country Motorized Use Restricted, Developed Area Interface. It is likely that focused surveys, off-road and off-trail, would discover a number of additional occurrences of both listed T&E and Sensitive species. In order to assess fully the management needs of these plants, such surveys must be done as part of monitoring associated with any approved Alternative.

On Invasive Non-Native Species and Fuels Management: These issues are intertwined and must be analyzed together, which we do for the following sections of the Draft SEIS:

• CNPS agrees with the Draft SEIS statements on invasive species found at pp. 61-62, 273-274, and elsewhere, and note that, according to Table 21, so few treatment programs are planned or are occurring for the invasives known to be in the IRAs.

4

Lack of funding for invasives control is discussed on pp. 273-274. Controlling non-natives will control their ignitability, hence better protect communities from fire risk as well as aid resilience of the native vegetation. It would be a better investment of time, effort and public resources (e.g., taxpayers’ money) to work on controlling invasives, rather than on constructing buffer zones and fuel breaks in native vegetation.

On pp. 273-274, it is stated that a chief stressor leading to non-native plant invasion is vegetation clearing and ground disturbances. Despite that, clearing and disturbance for fuel reduction (e.g. 100-foot to 1.25-mile buffer zones) and fuel break construction are assumed as part of fuels management even under Alternative 3 (p. 140). This is counterproductive. The buffers and fuel breaks will provide “highways” of disturbed land into and throughout the Forests. These ‘highways” are all too susceptible to invasion by annual non-natives, that quickly turn into flashy fuels, that will increase the very fire danger that the buffers and fuel breaks are supposed to ameliorate. The increase in invasives and the short-period fire regime they foster also reduces the resilience of the native vegetation--the natural ecosystems--that Forests are supposed to protect.

• On p. 114, the Draft SEIS states that: “Recent studies by the Southern California Wildfire Risk Scenario Project have shown that factors that improve the outcome of fuel breaks are firefighter access, fire size, and fuel break condition (Syphard et al 2011)6,7. Firefighter access is the most influential variable. ... Firefighter access is the one variable that is affected by the proposed changes in Land Use Zones, ...” If, as Syphard et al found, fuel breaks really only work for suppression when firefighters are on them, why is it then assumed in the rest of the discussion that existing fuel breaks must be maintained, especially those that are not connected to roads? What is the likelihood that they are in the right place for future fires?

Increased BCNM and RW zoning under Alternate 3 means that bulldozers cannot be used to cut control lines and to get truckloads of firefighters onto the non-road-connected fuel breaks quickly. We suggest that those fuel breaks should be revegetated instead of kept open--and susceptible to invasion by non-natives.

On p. 113-114 it is stated that: “All fires are aggressively suppressed on the [Four Forests]. ... fuel breaks, roads, and past burns have been an effective combination in helping limit wildland fire size.” This contradicts the statements on p. 111: “... 24 wildfires over ten acres have occurred since 2006 within the [Four Forests], including the Day (162,700 acres, 2006), Porter Ranch (58,401 acres, 2007), Witch (197,990 acres, 2007), Zaca (240,207 acres, 2007), La Brea (90,000 acres, 2009), and Station (160,577 acres, 2009) fires.” (Acreages and dates added.) Much recent research has shown that under the Santa Ana wind conditions that occur several times each fall over much of

6 Syphard, A.D., J.E. Keeley, T.J. Brennan, 2011, Comparing the Role of Fuel Breaks Across Southern California National Forests, Forest Ecology and Management 261(2011): 2038-2048. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.02.030 7 Syphard, A.D., J.E. Keeley, T.J. Brennan, 2011, Factors Affecting Fuel Break Effectiveness in the Control of Large Fires on the Los Padres National Forest, California, International Journal of Wildland Fire 20: 764-775; doi: 10.1071/WF10065

5

the Four Forests area, most fires are not even slowed down by “fuel breaks, roads, and past burns8, 9, 10, 11. So we wonder why fuel breaks continue to be constructed and maintained at much effort and (taxpayers’) expense and to the detriment of the natural habitat.

• Throughout the DEIS there is an underlying theme that vegetation equals "fuel," e.g., an unfortunate example is the term “chaparral fuels” on p. 14. At the same time, the importance of fire to the proper functioning of Southern California’s natural ecosystems is discussed in many places, as are the increasing problems resulting from the too-successful fire prevention done during the last century. Thus the Draft SEIS expresses a dichotomy of values that we wish to highlight as the Amendment process moves forward: • Fire causes loss of value (economic as well as habitat) and is to be guarded against and suppressed as much as possible, and • Fire has much value (even if not easily quantifiable) because it is essential to the health of the ecosystems the Forests were set up to protect, and must be allowed to burn safely.

CNPS recommends the adoption of Alternative 3 and Monitoring Alternative C, while further recommending that the vegetation within the four Southern California Forests' IRAs be managed first and foremost as habitat to be conserved.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIS.

Respectfully,

Greg Suba Conservation Program Director California Native Plant Society

8 Price, OF, RA Bradstock, JE Keeley, AD Syphard, 2012, The impact of antecedent fire area on burned area in southern California coastal ecosystems, Journal of Environmental Management 113: 301-307, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.042 9 Keeley Jon E. and Paul H. Zedler, 2009, Large, high-intensity fire events in southern California shrublands: debunking the fine-grain age patch model, Ecological Applications, 19(1), 2009, pp. 69–94 Ó 2009 by the Ecological Society of America 10 Keeley, Jon E., and C. J. Fotherhingham, 2001, Historic Fire Regimes in Southern California Shrublands, Conservation Biology, 15:6, 1536-1548 11 Keeley, Jon E., Fire Management of California Shrubland Landscapes, Environmental Management Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 395–408© 2002 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

6 United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide for Forest Service Monitoring Selected General Technical Report WO-80 Conditions Related to June 2009 Wilderness Character United States Department of Technical Guide for Agriculture Forest Service Monitoring Selected General Technical Conditions Related to Report WO-80 June 2009 Wilderness Character

Peter Landres, Steve Boutcher, Liese Dean, Troy Hall, Tamara Blett, Terry Carlson, Ann Mebane, Carol Hardy, Susan Rinehart, Linda Merigliano, David N. Cole, Andy Leach, Pam Wright, and Deb Bumpus The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the people who served on the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee—Beth Boyst, Mary Beth Hennessy, Brad Hunter, Patrice Janiga, Al McPherson, Douglas S. Powell, Mike Rowan, Susan Sater, Chris Barns (Bureau of Land Management [BLM]), Steve Henry (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [USFWS]), Mark Laker (USFWS), and Denis Davis (National Park Service)—for beginning the effort to actually preserve wilderness character and for providing such broad and capable shoulders to stand on. We thank Forest Service leaders for providing significant financial and administrative support to agency authors while they were developing this technical guide. We also thank the BLM, USFWS, and National Park Service for supporting several other people while they worked on this effort. We also deeply thank the many others who devoted significant time and effort to help on subteams: Untrammeled quality—Al McPherson, Rebecca Oreskes, David Rak, Mike Rowan, and Diane Taliaferro; Air quality—Scott Copeland, Bill Jackson, and Andrea Stacy; Aquatic systems—Steve Glasser, Chris Knopp, Russ Lafayette, Mark Laker, and David Spildie; Vegetation—Paul Alaback, Bruce D. Anderson, Steve Croy, Karen Dillman, and Mark Jensen; Wildlife—Lance Lerum, Kathleen Mathews, Jennifer Moleworth, and Amy Unthank; Undeveloped quality—Chris Barns, Liese Dean, James Demby, Vicky Duvall, Bill Hamele, David Rak, Carol Russel, Susan Sater, Jaime Schmidt, and Bev Thackeray; Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation—Chris Barns, Denis Davis, Brad Hunter, Al McPherson, and Mike Rowan. We also appreciate the support of the national wilderness program leads from the four wilderness managing agencies—Don Fisher (Forest Service), Peter Mali (BLM), Rick Potts (National Park Service), and Nancy Roeper (USFWS). Last, we thank the copy editors for all of their diligence and effort to make this long and complicated document as clear as possible. The passion, dedication, and effort of all these people help ensure that present and future generations may experience the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character iii Authors’ Note

This publication was developed by a technical working group and solely represents the views of its authors. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

iv Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character The Authors

Peter Landres is an ecologist at the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute in Missoula, MT, and was the Technical Guide Development Team Co-Lead and Natural Quality Team Lead.

Steve Boutcher is the information manager for the Forest Service, Washington Office, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Staff in South Burlington, VT, and was the Technical Guide Development Team Co-Lead and Undeveloped Quality Team Lead.

Liese Dean is the wilderness program manager for the Forest Service, Sawtooth National Forest, Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Stanley, ID, and was the Untrammeled Quality Team Lead.

Troy Hall is an associate professor at the University of Idaho in Moscow, ID, and was the Outstanding Opportunities Quality Team Lead.

Tamara Blett is an air quality specialist for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Air Resources Division in Lakewood, CO, and was the Air Quality Subteam Co-Lead.

Terry Carlson is a hydrologist and soil scientist for the Forest Service, Bitterroot National Forest in Hamilton, MT, and was the Hydrology and Aquatic Systems Subteam Lead.

Ann Mebane is an air quality specialist for the Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest in Corvallis, OR, and was the Air Quality Subteam Co-Lead.

Carol Hardy is a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Roanoke, VA, and was the Wildlife Subteam Co-Lead.

Susan Rinehart is a botanist for the Forest Service, Northern Regional Office in Missoula, MT, and was the Vegetation Subteam Lead.

Linda Merigliano is the recreation, wilderness, and trails manager for the Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest in Jackson, WY, and was the Application Lead.

David N. Cole is a geographer at the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute in Missoula, MT, and was the Recreation Impacts Lead.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character v Andy Leach is a statistician for the Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute in Fort Collins, CO, and was the Statistical Lead.

Pam Wright is an associate professor at the University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, and was the Data Analysis and Synthesis Lead.

Deb Bumpus is a fish and wildlife specialist for the Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Springerville, AZ, and was the Wildlife Subteam Co-Lead.

vi Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Contents

Chapter 1. Overview...... 1 1.0. Purpose and Scope...... 1 1.1. Background...... 2 1.2. Key Concepts...... 9 1.3. Reporting and Using Information From Wilderness Character Monitoring...... 14 1.4. Roles and Responsibilities...... 19 1.4.1. National Responsibilities...... 19 1.4.2. Regional Responsibilities...... 20 1.4.3. Forest Responsibilities...... 20 1.5. Relationship to Other Federal Monitoring Programs...... 21 1.6. Change Management...... 22 Chapter 2. Data Management...... 25 2.0. Getting the Data...... 25 2.1. Data Adequacy...... 26 2.2. Data Quality Control and Assurance...... 28 2.3. Data Roles...... 30 2.4. Data Storage...... 30 Chapter 3. Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character...... 33 3.0. How Will Trends in Wilderness Character Be Assessed?...... 33 3.1. Decision Rules...... 34 3.2. Narrative...... 41 3.3. Cautions About Assessing Trends in Wilderness Character...... 43 Chapter 4. Untrammeled Quality...... 45 4.0. Summary...... 45 4.1. Introduction...... 46 4.2. Monitoring Question 1—Actions That Manipulate Wilderness...... 49 4.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Agency Actions...... 50 4.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Management Actions...... 52 4.2.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Fires Suppressed...... 63 4.2.1.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Fish Stocking...... 66 Chapter 5. Natural Quality...... 71 5.0. Summary...... 71 5.1. Introduction...... 72 5.2. Monitoring Question 1—Human Threats...... 73 5.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Air Pollutants...... 75 5.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Ozone N100...... 77 5.2.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Ozone W126...... 84 5.2.1.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Sulfur Wet Deposition...... 86 5.2.1.4. Measure 4 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Nitrogen Wet Deposition...... 98

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character vii 5.2.2. Indicator 2 for Question 1—River and Stream Developments...... 100 5.2.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 1—Dams...... 101 5.2.3. Indicator 3 for Question 1—Nonindigenous Species...... 103 5.2.3.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 3, Question 1—Nonindigenous Invasive Plants...... 105 5.2.3.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 3, Question 1—Other Nonindigenous Species...... 111 5.2.3.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 3, Question 1—Grazing Allotments...... 114 5.3. Monitoring Question 2—Conditions Sensitive to Threats...... 116 5.3.1. Indicator 1 for Question 2—Visual Air Quality...... 118 5.3.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Fine Nitrate and Sulfate...... 120 5.3.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Deciview...... 124 5.3.2. Indicator 2 for Question 2—Extirpated Species...... 126 5.3.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 2—Extirpated Plants and Animals...... 127 Chapter 6. Undeveloped Quality...... 133 6.0. Summary...... 133 6.1. Introduction...... 134 6.2. Monitoring Question 1—Modern Human Occupation or Modification...... 136 6.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Physical Evidence...... 137 6.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Physical Development Index...... 140 6.3. Monitoring Question 2—Motorized Equipment and Mechanical Transport..... 168 6.3.1. Indicator 1 for Question 2—Motorized/Mechanized Use...... 168 6.3.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Emergency Motorized/Mechanized Use Index...... 172 6.3.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Administrative and Nonemergency Motorized/Mechanized Use Index...... 175 6.4. Monitoring Question 3—Inholdings...... 178 6.4.1. Indicator 1 for Question 3—Inholdings...... 178 6.4.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 3—Inholding Acres...... 179 Chapter 7. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality...... 181 7.0. Summary...... 181 7.1. Introduction...... 182 7.2. Monitoring Question 1—Solitude...... 184 7.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Remote, Trailless Wilderness...... 186 7.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Area Away From Access and Travel Routes...... 187 7.2.2. Indicator 2 for Question 1—Wilderness Visitation...... 191 7.2.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 1—Visiting Parties...... 193 7.2.2.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 2, Question 1—Users Residing in Service Area...... 196 7.2.2.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 2, Question 1—NVUM Visits...... 202 viii Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 7.3. Monitoring Question 2—Primitive Recreation...... 205 7.3.1. Indicator 1 for Question 2—Recreation Facilities...... 207 7.3.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Recreation Facilities Index...... 208 7.3.2. Indicator 2 for Question 2—Trail Development Level...... 211 7.3.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 2—Developed Trail Miles...... 212 7.4. Monitoring Question 3—Unconfined Recreation...... 214 7.4.1. Indicator 1 for Question 3—Management Restrictions...... 215 7.4.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 3—Visitor Restrictions Index...... 216 Appendixes...... 221 Appendix A. Glossary...... 221 Appendix B. Statistical Analysis of Trends in the Measures...... 227 Appendix C. Likely Indicators and Measures...... 231 Appendix D. Desired Indicators and Measures...... 235 Appendix E. Dropped Indicators and Measures...... 241 Appendix F. Local Indicators and Measures...... 245 Appendix G. Process Used To Develop Indicators and Measures...... 247 Appendix H. Literature Cited...... 251

Tables Table 1.—An overview of the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures that make up this monitoring protocol...... 12 Table 2.—A graphical representation of the different categories of data quantity and data quality...... 27 Table 3.—A graphical representation of some of the possible data adequacy (combined data quantity and data quality) evaluations for a measure...... 28 Table 4.—The trend in an indicator (in this case, the indicator of air pollutants) is identified by adding across the numerical score of the trends in its component measures...... 37 Table 5.—The trend in the monitoring question is identified by adding across the trends in its component indicators...... 38 Table 6.—The trend in a quality of wilderness character is assessed by adding across the trends in its component monitoring questions...... 39 Table 7.—The trend in wilderness character is identified by adding across the trends in its component qualities...... 40 Table 8.—A hypothetical example showing how the decision rules work together to yield an assessment of trend in wilderness character for this wilderness...... 41 Table 9.—A summary of the indicators and measures monitored in the untrammeled quality...... 45

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character ix Table 10.—The trend in the indicator of agency actions is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures...... 52 Table 11.—General rules for counting and reporting the number of actions for the untrammeled quality...... 55 Table 12.—Attributes for measuring vegetation management actions...... 56 Table 13.—Attributes for measuring fish, wildlife, insects, and disease management actions...... 58 Table 14.—Attributes for measuring soil and water management actions...... 59 Table 15.—Attributes for measuring fire management actions...... 61 Table 16.—Attributes for measuring actions to suppress naturally ignited fires...... 65 Table 17.—The attribute for measuring the number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish...... 67 Table 18.—A summary of the indicators and measures monitored in the natural quality...... 71 Table 19.—The trend in the monitoring question about human threats is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators...... 74 Table 20.—The trend in the indicator of pollutants that degrade air quality is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures...... 76 Table 21.—Attributes for measuring ozone N100...... 79 Table 22.—Attributes for measuring ozone W126...... 85 Table 23.—Attributes for measuring sulfur in wet deposition...... 87 Table 24.—Attributes for measuring nitrogen in wet deposition...... 98 Table 25.—The trend in the indicator of nonindigenous species is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures...... 104 Table 26.—Attributes for measuring the percentage of area occupied by invasive plants that are not indigenous to the wilderness...... 107 Table 27.—Attributes for measuring nonplant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness and are of concern...... 112 Table 28.—Attributes for measuring the number of acres of grazing allotments with authorized use in wilderness...... 114 Table 29.—The trend in the monitoring question about selected biophysical conditions is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators...... 117 Table 30.—The trend in the indicator about visual air quality is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures...... 119 Table 31.—Attributes for measuring fine nitrate and sulfate...... 120 Table 32.—Group 50 nitrate and sulfate example lookup values for wildernesses in the State of Washington...... 122 Table 33.—Attributes for measuring average deciview...... 124 Table 34.—Attributes for measuring the number of extirpated species...... 128

x Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 35.—A summary of indicators and measures monitored in the undeveloped quality...... 133 Table 36.—Inherent weighting of different types of physical evidence...... 138 Table 37.—Attributes for calculating the index of building development...... 142 Table 38.—Attributes related to system trails for calculating the index of system trail development...... 146 Table 39.—Attributes related to major trail features for calculating the index of system trail development...... 146 Table 40.—Attributes for calculating the index of campsite development...... 150 Table 41.—Attributes related to dams for calculating the index of dam development.... 153 Table 42.—Attributes related to other instream structures for calculating the index of dam development...... 154 Table 43.—Attributes for calculating the index of road development...... 158 Table 44.—Attributes for calculating the index of infrastructure development...... 161 Table 45.—Attributes for calculating the index of mine development...... 165 Table 46.—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness...... 170 Table 47.—The trend in the indicator of use authorization actions is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures...... 171 Table 48.—Attributes for measuring emergency use authorizations...... 173 Table 49.—Inherent weights for the actual uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport...... 174 Table 50.—A hypothetical example showing the calculation of the use level value for emergency uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport...... 174 Table 51.—Attributes for measuring administrative and nonemergency use days...... 176 Table 52.—A hypothetical example showing calculation of the use level value for administrative and nonemergency uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport...... 177 Table 53.—Attributes for measuring inholdings...... 179 Table 54.—A summary of the indicators and measures monitored in the outstanding opportunities quality...... 181 Table 55.—The trend in the monitoring question about solitude is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators...... 185 Table 56.—The attribute for measuring the total area that is away from access routes and travel corridors...... 189 Table 57.—Attributes for measuring the number of visiting parties...... 194 Table 58.—Attributes for measuring the number of adult users residing in the service area...... 198 Table 59.—Hypothetical change over time in the number of adult wilderness users residing in the service area of one wilderness...... 200

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character xi Table 60.—Attributes for measuring the National Visitor Use Monitoring annual wilderness visits...... 203 Table 61.—The trend in the monitoring question about primitive recreation is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators...... 206 Table 62.—Attributes for measuring the index of recreation facilities...... 209 Table 63.—Attributes for measuring the number of trail miles in developed condition classes...... 212 Table 64.—Attributes for measuring the index of restrictions on visitor behavior...... 217 Table 65.—A list of categories, scores, and types of restrictions for computing the visitor restriction index...... 219 Table 66.—An example of visitor restriction scoring for the ABC Wilderness...... 220 Table B.1.—Air pollution data from Acadia National Park used to illustrate regression analysis...... 229 Table B.2.—Regression test results for the air pollution data from Acadia National Park...... 229 Table E.1.—Indicators considered and reasons why they were dropped...... 241

Figures Figure 1.—The Wilderness Management Model modified from Forest Service Manual section 2320.6...... 5 Figure 2.—The logical basis for wilderness character monitoring, showing the inferences (arrows) used to develop indicators and measures...... 6 Figure 3.—The “wedding cake” model of administrative and information relationships within the Forest Service...... 8 Figure 4.—A conceptual view of the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. The two primary data sources that feed into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module are shown on the left. The four boxes on the right show the primary outputs from this module...... 31 Figure 5.—Hourly differences in average ozone in two areas. Bent Creek shows a diurnal pattern typical of either low-elevation or urban sites. Shining Rock shows a linear pattern typical of either rural or high-elevation sites...... 82 Figure 6.—National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network and wilderness boundaries...... 88 Figure 7.—An example of a total nitrogen ion trend plot...... 96 Figure 8.—An example of a possible time-series plot for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments data...... 123 Figure B.1.— True (example 1) and modified (example 2) air pollution data from Acadia National Park plotted to show graphical trend in the data...... 229

xii Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 1. Overview

1.0. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of monitoring wilderness character is to improve wilderness stewardship by providing managers a tool to assess how selected actions and conditions related to wilderness character are changing over time. Wilderness character monitoring provides information to help answer two key questions about wilderness character and wilderness stewardship:

1. How is wilderness character changing over time?

2. How do stewardship actions affect this change in wilderness character?

Line officers need the answers to these questions to assess the outcomes of past decisions on wilderness character and to make informed decisions about future actions. Regional and forest wilderness program managers need these answers to track trends in wilderness character over time and to review the effectiveness of implementing agency wilderness policy. On-the-ground managers and rangers in an individual wilderness also need these answers to help them assess the outcomes of their efforts to preserve wilderness character.

Wilderness character is a complex idea encompassing tangible and intangible local and national aspects. To understand the scope of this technical guide, it is necessary to define what wilderness character monitoring does and does not do. Wilderness character moni- toring does the following:

•• Assesses national trends in wilderness character derived from compilations of nationally consistent information from individual wildernesses.

•• Focuses on four specific qualities of wilderness derived from the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness from the Wilderness Act of 1964 that are linked to wilderness character—(1) untrammeled, (2) natural, (3) undeveloped, and (4) outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

•• Monitors a select set of wilderness attributes and stewardship actions that indicate how these four qualities of wilderness are changing over time within a wilderness. It does not monitor the aspects of wilderness character that are unique to a specific wilderness, the intangible aspects related to the symbolic qualities of wilderness, the quality of visitor experiences, or project-specific and site-specific resources of concern.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 1 •• Evaluates whether these four qualities and wilderness character are stable, improving, or degrading over time at the scale of an entire wilderness relative to the legislative direction for each wilderness. This evaluation is based on an assessment of change in selected indicators. This monitoring does not compare wilderness character from one wilderness to another or develop a numerical index of wilderness character that could be used for such purposes.

•• Uses indicators and measures that are relevant, reliable, and cost efficient. Cost- efficiency requires the use of data already existing within Forest Service or other national databases at the time this monitoring is implemented. Because of practical restrictions on funding and staffing, this technical guide does not require any new field data to be collected, although field managers will need to gather and report some information that cannot be obtained through existing databases.

This national monitoring protocol was built in two phases. The first phase consisted of developing the conceptual foundation for this monitoring in the publication Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework (referred to as the “Framework”; Landres and others 2005). Developing this foundation was necessary because, unlike other resources such as air, water, and wildlife, the concept of wilderness character is poorly understood, cuts across many resource areas, and has never been formally described or monitored. The second phase consisted of developing this Techni- cal Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character, which provides the specific protocols for data collection, storage, analysis, reporting, and use. It is essential that the reader and user of this technical guide understand the basis and limita- tions for this monitoring as developed and described in the Framework.

1.1. Background

Although 18 percent of all the land managed by the Forest Service (about 35 million acres) is designated as wilderness, the agency lacks a nationally consistent way to evalu- ate how well it is fulfilling the central mandate of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) to preserve the area’s wilderness character. Wilderness monitoring is needed for various purposes, and, although several programs already monitor some of the specific resources within wilderness, the most critical need is to monitor what makes wilderness unique—its wilderness character—among all other National Forest System (NFS) lands.

What Is Wilderness Character? The Wilderness Act of 1964 does not define “wilderness character,” and, despite a rich legislative history on many aspects of the Wilderness Act, the congressional committees that developed and debated the Wilderness Act of 1964 did not discuss the meaning of

2 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character this phrase (Scott 2002). To develop a deeper understanding of the meanings of wilderness character, Kaye (2000, 2002) and Scott (2002) explored the historical writings of the framers of the Wilderness Act, especially those of Howard Zahniser, its principal author. This exploration reveals three mutually reinforcing societal ideals that are integral to the historical purpose of wilderness and to an understanding of wilderness character:

1. Natural environments relatively free from modern human manipulation and impacts.

2. Personal experiences in natural environments that are relatively free from the encumbrances and signs of modern society.

3. Symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and interdependence in how individuals and society view their relationship to nature.

Wilderness character may be described as the combination of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguishes wilderness from other lands. These ideals combine to form a complex and sometimes subtle set of relationships among the land, its manage- ment, and the meanings people associate with wilderness. Zahniser (1956) describes the relationships and meanings as “…the distinctive ministration of wilderness to modern man, the characteristic effect of an area which we most deeply need to provide for in our preservation programs.” Cordell and others (2005) provide an extensive discussion about these relationships and meanings, and Havlick (2006) discusses how wilderness fosters these traits. Schroeder (2007) explores the profound psychological implications of the symbolic meanings derived from wilderness. In this technical guide, these relationships and meanings are described as “wilderness character.”

Agency decisions and actions may either support or degrade wilderness character, and the humility, restraint, and respect shown by managers is central to preserving wilderness character. For example, the choice to not use a chain saw, to not build a footbridge across a stream, or to not suppress a naturally ignited fire may preserve certain qualities of wilderness character. In contrast, other management actions, such as requiring permits, designating campsites, or authorizing administrative use of motorized equipment and mechanical transportation, diminish certain qualities of wilderness character. Because management decisions and actions in wilderness may have a lasting effect on the land and on the meanings associated with wilderness, the accumulation of seemingly small deci- sions may result in significant loss of wilderness character over time.

Actions taken to protect one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect. For example, a bridge built to protect a streambank from erosion caused by people or horses crossing the stream may also diminish the opportunity for people to experience the challenge of crossing a stream. Similarly, the required use of designated campsites to prevent the proliferation of sites and associated impacts on soil and vegetation may also

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 3 diminish the opportunity for unconfined recreation and the sense of freedom from the constraints of society.

In addition to national perceptions and meanings associated with wilderness character, unique, place-dependent or locally based aspects also exist within each wilderness. Every wilderness is a unique biophysical environment, with specific establishing purposes, management direction, and relationships that people have with the area. The combination of biophysical environment, purposes, management, and relationships means that some aspects of wilderness character are unique to each wilderness. Such aspects of wilderness character can best be evaluated with locally meaningful monitoring indicators and are not part of this national monitoring effort.

Why Is Wilderness Character Monitoring Needed? Currently, it is not possible to consistently describe the loss of wilderness character or the positive stewardship outcomes to be derived from protecting wilderness character. This lack of agency wilderness-specific monitoring occurs despite the following:

•• Zahniser’s (1961) early statement that, “in all concern with wilderness, the first safety must be for the wilderness character itself.”

•• The Wilderness Act of 1964 and agency policy mandate to preserve wilderness character.

•• The steady erosion of wilderness character perceived by many wilderness field and program managers.

•• Increasing wilderness visitor use (Cole 2002) and other widespread threats to wilderness character (Cole and Landres 1996, Hendee and Dawson 2001, Landres and others 1998, Peine and others 1989).

•• Repeated calls for monitoring to improve wilderness stewardship (General Accounting Office 1989, Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2001, USDA Forest Service 2000).

Following on these concerns, wilderness character monitoring is needed to fulfill legal and policy mandates; improve stewardship and accountability; and improve communica- tion among managers, decisionmakers, policymakers, and the public.

The Wilderness Act Statement of Policy, Section 2(a), states that wilderness areas “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character.” (emphasis added). In addition to this Statement of Policy, legal scholars Rohlf and Honnold (1988)

4 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character and McCloskey (1999) assert that Section 4(b), Use of Wilderness Areas, gives the primary management direction for wilderness, that “… each agency administering any area des- ignated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” The Congressional Record (United States Congress 1983) reinforces this assertion, stating, “The overriding principle guiding management of all wilderness areas, regardless of which agency administers them, is the Wilderness Act (section 4(b)) mandate to preserve their wilderness character.” Section 4(b) further states that even when the agency adminis- ters the area for other purposes, the agency must also “preserve its wilderness character.”

Pursuant to the Wilderness Act, Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320.2 (4), directs the agency to “protect and perpetuate wilderness character” from the time of wilderness designation. Figure 1 illustrates Forest Service Wilderness Management policy. The verti- cal axis shows wilderness character improving upwards, and the horizontal axis shows the amount of modern human influence on wilderness character, with increasing influence to the right. The diagonal line shows the general relationship of increasing human influence, causing a decline in wilderness character. In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires Federal agencies to demonstrate accountability “by providing … information about program results and service quality.” Wilderness character monitor- ing in accordance with this technical guide will yield information on the outcomes of agency decisions and actions to “preserve wilderness character.”

Furthermore, wilderness character monitoring improves wilderness stewardship by linking a national set of on-the-ground indicators to the mandates of the Wilderness Act and agency wilderness policy. Although improving wilderness stewardship must occur at the local level, the ability to compile information at regional and national levels provides a power- ful communication tool that is essential to make the case for wilderness stewardship needs and for evaluation of program effectiveness at all administrative levels (e.g., see Urquhart and others 1998). With this full set of national indicators, wilderness character monitoring is a tool to help improve wilderness stewardship in several ways, including the following:

Figure 1.—The Wilderness Management Model modified from FSM 2320.6.

Pristine—absolute wilderness

Wilderness “X” at time of designation

Management preserves wilderness character

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 5 •• Evaluate program effectiveness and help prioritize where future actions should be focused to improve wilderness character.

•• Express how different funding levels affect the statutory requirement to preserve wilderness character.

•• Link performance measures directly to the Wilderness Act mandate to preserve wilderness character.

•• Make resource information about a particular wilderness more accessible to a wilderness manager (including air quality, wildlife, watershed, and vegetation).

•• Establish a permanent database that enables information to be passed on and used by future managers.

How Will Wilderness Character Be Monitored? The logical structure or conceptual model for this monitoring protocol hierarchically links the indicators and measures to wilderness character (fig. 2). The two elements of this figure inside the box are taken directly from the Wilderness Act of 1964, while the four elements outside the box were developed for this technical guide. The Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness is used to identify specific qualities of wilderness that are related to the concept of wilderness character. Then, each of these qualities of wilderness is sequentially divided into a set of monitoring questions, indicators, and measures. Monitoring questions set specific monitoring goals, indicators are the types of information used to answer each monitoring question, and measures are the numeric values that are measured or derived to quantify change over time in the indicator. In this model (fig. 2), the downward-pointing arrowheads show that the concept of wilderness character drives the selection of all the subsequent elements and ultimately the data collected. The upward-pointing arrowheads show how data collected on the measures are used to evaluate successively higher elements.

Figure 2.—The logical basis for wilderness character monitoring, showing the inferences (arrows) used to develop indicators and measures.

6 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character The Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness (see boxed text) is used to focus wilderness character monitoring because this definition directs the management of congressionally The Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2(c) designated wilderness. In addition, legal and wilderness scholars refer to this legislative Definition of definition to understand congressional intent for the meaning of wilderness character Wilderness (McCloskey 1999, Rohlf and Honnold 1988, Scott 2002). Based on this definition of “A wilderness, in contrast wilderness, the following four qualities generally represent the concepts and ideals, and with those areas where man and his own works sometimes subtle distinctions that distinguish wilderness from all other lands: dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as 1. Untrammeled. an area where the earth 2. Undeveloped. and its community of life are untrammeled by 3. Natural. man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 4. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of remain. An area of wilder- recreation. ness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal These four qualities reinforce one another and together constitute an approximation of land retaining its primeval wilderness character for this national monitoring protocol. All these qualities are equally character and influence, without permanent important and none is held in higher regard than the others. The monitoring of these four improvements or human qualities provides management staff, decisionmakers, and policymakers with a solid basis habitation, which is pro- of information to tie some of the changes occurring within wilderness to the legislative tected and managed so as to preserve its natural and policy direction for wilderness. conditions and which (1) generally appears to Nationally consistent indicators compiled from individual wildernesses are necessary have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, to paint a compelling picture of wilderness stewardship needs and to identify broad with the imprint of man’s geographic changes in wilderness character that require regional or national attention work substantially unnotice- able; (2) has outstanding (fig. 3). In this figure, adapted from Powell (2000), each horizontal layer represents the opportunities for solitude breadth of information needs of the different administrative levels within the agency. The or a primitive and uncon- space enclosed by the dashed vertical lines represents national core indicators that cut fined type of recreation; (3) has at least five across all administrative levels. The portion of each administrative level outside the pair of thousand acres of land vertical lines shows the information needs of that level in addition to the core monitoring or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its indicators. The “X” represents the data collected from the individual wilderness under the preservation and use in national monitoring Framework (Landres and others 2005). Indicators are derived from an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain management experience; they are intended to be useful both at the local level and at higher ecological, geological, or administrative levels when information is synthesized. These indicators, however, form other features of scientific, only part of the information needed to manage a local wilderness. For example, managers educational, scenic, or historical value.” of an individual wilderness may need details about specific sites (e.g., popular campsites), local issues (e.g., compliance with maintenance objectives for a particular sensitive plant species), or place-dependent aspects of wilderness character (e.g., conditions associated with airstrips discussed in enabling legislation). Such specific details are beyond the scope of this national technical guide.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 7 Figure 3.—The “wedding cake” model of administrative and information relationships within the Forest Service.

Wilderness character monitoring can be applied to all NFS wildernesses regardless of size, location, or other place-specific attributes because it is based on the Section 2(c) legislative Definition of Wilderness and every wilderness law includes specific language that ties it to the provisions of the 1964 Act and this legislative definition (Hendee and Dawson 2002, Landres 2003). Although individual wilderness laws often include specific exceptions or special provisions that apply to the uses and values of particular areas, no act changes the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness provided in the Wilderness Act, and no subsequent legislation changes the management responsibility of Section 4(b) for “preserving the wilderness character of the area.”

What Concerns Are Associated With Interpreting the Wilderness Act To Monitor Wilderness Character? Developing a practical program of wilderness monitoring requires many decisions and compromises. Two general or overarching concerns accompany the use of agency interpretation of Section 2(c) to derive specific qualities of wilderness that are linked to wilderness character (specific concerns for each quality are discussed in each of the fol- lowing individual chapters, as appropriate).

First, splitting the legislative definition of wilderness into four relatively distinct qualities imposes reductionistic thinking on the fundamentally holistic concept of wilderness char- acter. One problem with this reductionism is that a particular action may be associated with either a positive or negative outcome depending on the particular quality from which the action is viewed. For example, to protect the natural quality, a bridge may be built to reduce resource damage (such as increased sediment in the stream associated with people and horses crossing a stream). Unfortunately, this bridge then reduces the outstanding op- portunities quality because it diminishes the personal discovery and challenge of crossing the stream.

The second concern is focusing on just these four qualities of wilderness may enable managers and others to ignore important experiential, symbolic, and intangible aspects of wilderness character (Putney and Harmon 2003, Schroeder 1992).

8 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Although both these concerns have merit, this national monitoring protocol provides a more solid foundation to tie wilderness stewardship to the legislative direction of the Wilderness Act than has existed before. In many cases, these concerns can be alleviated by explicitly identifying the concern and carefully interpreting the results. The monitoring protocols for each indicator explicitly describe these concerns and provide instructions for interpreting monitoring results.

1.2. Key Concepts

The concepts that form the basis for this technical guide are discussed in detail in the national Framework (Landres and others 2005) and are summarized here. All technical terms used in this technical guide are defined in Appendix A, Glossary.

The Primary Purpose of This Monitoring Is To Improve Wilderness Stewardship This monitoring will help wilderness managers—from field staff to the Washington Office—improve wilderness stewardship by providing information on key indicators that link directly to the statutory requirements of the Wilderness Act and agency policy to “preserve wilderness character.” This information will help answer key questions about the outcomes of wilderness stewardship: •• How is wilderness character changing over time? •• How do stewardship actions affect this change in wilderness character?

Wilderness character monitoring provides local, regional, and national managers a way to assess if wilderness stewardship programs are protecting and perpetuating conditions related to wilderness character. The resulting information could be used to help managers make informed decisions about stewardship priorities and analyze proposed actions for their potential consequences to wilderness character.

This Monitoring Is Nationally Consistent and Locally Relevant To help improve wilderness stewardship from the local to the national level, this monitoring was designed from its inception to be nationally consistent and locally relevant. Monitoring must provide information that is relevant to local staff for them to devote the required time and effort to gather data and report trends. Although improvements in wilderness stewardship must occur at the local level, the ability to compile information at regional and national levels is also essential to make the case for budget and resources to address wilderness stewardship needs and for evaluating program effectiveness at all administrative levels.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 9 Considerable effort was spent choosing a set of national core monitoring indicators that would be relevant to most NFS wildernesses and developing a standardized process to synthesize the resulting data to assess trends in wilderness character. Every wilderness will be required to report on trends in wilderness character, and using nationally consistent data and processes enables compilation of these trends at the regional and national levels.

A standardized monitoring program will enable managers to assess how wilderness character is changing over relatively long periods of time and will become a legacy span- ning the careers of individual wilderness managers. This national wilderness character monitoring program complements but does not replace information needs on locally important and place-dependent aspects of wilderness character.

This Monitoring Is Based on Qualities of Wilderness Derived From the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness Four qualities are derived from Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (see box earlier in this section) and are considered necessary and sufficient for this national monitoring effort to improve agency wilderness stewardship. The four qualities were chosen based on agency experience with managing wilderness and on the scientific literature. Government agencies are required to implement laws in their entirety, and each of the four qualities is interpreted to reflect the elements included in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (McCloskey 1966). A detailed discussion of the historical and scientific support and specific concerns for each of the four qualities is provided in the national Framework (Landres and others 2005).

•• Untrammeled. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness “[is] an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,” and “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” This quality monitors human activities that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness. In summary, wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation.

•• Natural. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” This quality monitors both intended and unintended effects of modern people on ecological systems inside a wilderness since the area was designated. In summary, wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.

•• Undeveloped. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” This quality monitors the presence of structures, construction, habitations, and other

10 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character evidence of modern human presence or occupation. In summary, wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation.

•• Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” This quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation in a wilderness setting; it does not monitor visitor experiences per se. In summary, wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge.

Indicators and Measures Were Selected To Be Relevant, Reliable, and Cost Effective All the indicators and measures were selected under three primary criteria: (1) relevance, (2) reliability, and (3) cost-effectiveness. Relevance means that the indicator must have value and meaning for assessing change in the quality of wilderness and have value and meaning to the managers of an individual wilderness. The Forest Service has management responsibility for all the indicators used in this monitoring protocol, although the degree of influence varies among the indicators. Reliability means that the indicator could be measured accurately with a high degree of confidence, that measurement would yield the same result when measured by different people at different times and across different wildernesses when conditions are the same, and that a reasonable likelihood of future data availability exists. Cost-effectiveness is crucial for successful implementation, and every effort was made to select indicators and measures that were already available from other monitoring programs and would require a minimum amount of time and effort from wilderness staff. No new field data collection will be required; however, managers will need to gather and report information that cannot be obtained through existing databases. Data had to be available from at least 50 percent of NFS wildernesses for the indicator to have been selected.

The criterion of cost-effectiveness was imposed by the Wilderness Monitoring Committee to acknowledge the current budgetary climate in the Forest Service. The wilderness stew- ardship cause would not be served through the development of an unrealistic protocol that had a marginal chance of being funded and implemented. Fortunately, corporate databases in the Forest Service have matured to the point that they can be relied on for providing the data needed for many of the measures.

The indicators and measures in this monitoring protocol (table 1) are surrogates that are relevant to wilderness character based on best professional judgment and the available

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 11 Table 1.—An overview of the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures that make up this monitoring protocol. Wilderness character Quality Question Indicator Measure Number of management actions Untrammeled Manipulation Actions Number of fires suppressed Number of lakes stocked N100 ozone concentration W126 ozone concentration Air pollutants mg/L sulfur deposition mg/L nitrogen deposition Threats Dams Number of dams Natural Percentage of acres of nonindigenous plants Nonindigenous species Number of other nonindigenous species Number of acres of grazing allotments µm fine nitrate and sulfate Visual air quality Biophysical conditions Deciview Extirpations Number of extirpated species Occupation Physical evidence Index of physical development Motorized and mechanical Index of emergency uses Undeveloped Motorized and mechanized uses transport Index of administrative and nonemergency uses Inholdings Inholdings Number of acres of inholdings Remoteness Number of acres away from access/travel routes

Solitude (Option 1a) number of visiting parties Visitors (Option 1b) number of users residing in service area Outstanding Number of NVUM visits per wilderness opportunities Facilities Index of recreation facilities Primitive Trails Number of developed trail miles Unconfined Restrictions Index of visitor restrictions NVUM = National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.

scientific literature. Each indicator reveals a relatively small and partial understanding about the quality of wilderness, so the evaluation of trends should be based on how the set of all indicators is changing instead of on change in any one indicator (Failing and Gregory 2003). Change in an indicator is foremost a red flag for further investigation about the conditions the indicator is tracking and the appropriateness of the indicator and quality of the data.

Reducing the holistic and complex nature of wilderness character into four relatively dis- crete qualities of wilderness means that some indicators will be relevant to more than one quality. For example, a dam and its effects could be monitored under all four qualities:

1. Untrammeled, because the dam was built to manipulate waterflow inside wilderness.

2. Natural, because the dam causes ecological impacts on natural streams.

3. Undeveloped, because the dam is a clear “imprint of man’s work.”

12 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 4. Outstanding opportunities, because the dam may interfere with the outstanding opportunity visitors have to experience a primitive recreation environment.

The Baseline for Evaluating Change Is the Time of Wilderness Designation or the First Time This Monitoring Protocol Is Applied Change over time in the indicators and four qualities of wilderness character is measured and evaluated against a baseline reference point. Ideally, this baseline is described at the time a wilderness is designated. For wildernesses that have already been designated, appropriate historical data, if available, may be used to describe the baseline condition retrospectively. Because few existing wildernesses actually have this information, baseline condition would most likely be described from the first time this monitoring protocol is applied, even though such a description will not give an accurate picture of how the wilderness has changed since the time of designation.

Baseline conditions are simply the beginning point for tracking trends and do not imply that these conditions are “good,” “bad,” or “desired.” For example, at the time of designa- tion, a wilderness may have existing roads, and these roads would be part of the baseline condition of this wilderness. Monitoring would simply show how the undeveloped quality of wilderness stays the same if the roads are not removed or improves if these roads are removed. Baseline conditions are the starting point for tracking change over time; local interpretation is crucial for placing this change in its proper historical and legislative context and for evaluating its relevance.

Wildernesses Will Not Be Compared With One Another and No National Standards for Wilderness Character Will Be Developed The status of wilderness character in a particular wilderness cannot and will not be compared with that of another wilderness. Each wilderness is unique in its legislative and administrative direction and in its social and biophysical setting, so comparing the status of wilderness character among wilderness is inappropriate. For example, a wilderness with legislative provisions that allow a State fish and game department to use motorized equipment to manage wildlife would be expected to have more actions tracked under the untrammeled quality compared with a wilderness that has no such provisions. What is important to understand is whether this motorized use is stable, increasing, or decreasing over time in a particular wilderness, given its context, so that improvements in steward- ship can be made in that wilderness.

For the same reason, no national standards for wilderness character will be developed as part of this monitoring protocol. The only national direction regarding wilderness charac- ter is Forest Service policy to protect and perpetuate wilderness character relative to the time the area was designated as wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 13 Although the status of wilderness character will not be compared among wildernesses, trends in wilderness character (stable, improving, or degrading) could be compared and compiled across different wildernesses because they are derived in a nationally consistent manner. For example, a regional wilderness specialist may want to know the percentage of wildernesses in the region with degrading trends to understand if any problems or concerns exist about how wilderness policy is being implemented.

Decision Rules Are Used To Synthesize Across Indicators, Questions, and Qualities To Evaluate Trends in Wilderness Character Qualitative decision rules are used to synthesize information across indicators to answer a monitoring question, across monitoring questions to evaluate trends in each of the four qualities of wilderness, and across the four qualities to evaluate trends in wilderness character. The goal of these decision rules is to assess change in terms of whether the monitoring question, quality, and wilderness character are improving, stable, or degrading within a wilderness. The trend in wilderness character from individual wildernesses will be compiled at the regional and national levels to determine the overall percentage of wildernesses with wilderness character that is preserved or degrading. For details on the decision rules and how they would be applied, see Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilder- ness Character, later in this technical guide.

1.3. Reporting and Using Information From Wilderness Character Monitoring

This technical guide is designed to produce information about trends in wilderness character in NFS wildernesses. Specifically, this monitoring enables managers to assess whether the trend in wilderness character for an individual wilderness is improving, stable, or degrading compared with baseline conditions for that area. Nationally consis- tent monitoring indicators are used so that information from individual wildernesses can be compiled and presented at regional and national levels. Compiling these trends across individual wildernesses enables the Forest Service to assess the percentage of wilder- nesses within a region or the Nation that have preserved wilderness character (i.e., show an improving or stable trend) and that show a degrading trend in wilderness character.

To demonstrate agency accountability, it is essential to link stewardship efforts directly to the outcomes mandated by the Wilderness Act. This monitoring is essentially a tool to provide information to show where wilderness stewardship is yielding positive results and where improvement is needed.

14 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Reporting the Information From This Monitoring Two different reports will be produced to present monitoring results: 1. National Wilderness Report. The purpose of the National Wilderness Report is to promote communication and enable discussion of monitoring results with line officers and program managers to inform policy review and improve wilderness stewardship. The National Wilderness Report will consist of two parts: (1) a two- page national summary of monitoring results suitable for briefings to the National Leadership Team and similar audiences, and (2) a regional summary presenting trends in wilderness character, qualities, indicators, and measures for each region.

The two-page national summary will present the percentage of NFS wildernesses in which wilderness character is being preserved, the percentage of NFS wildernesses in which wilderness character is degrading, and the national trend in the four wilderness qualities that constitute wilderness character. The national summary will also include a map displaying trends in wilderness character for each of the nine Forest Service regions. The expanded National Wilderness Report is intended to provide the level of detail national and regional wilderness program managers need to help with account- ability for wilderness stewardship and policy review. See the Supplement—National Wilderness Report Example for the suggested format for this report.

2. Local Wilderness Report. A standard report format will be built into the Infra- WILD application enabling local wilderness managers to query the database and produce a report for an individual wilderness. Local managers will be able to produce two different kinds of reports: (1) a summarized Local Wilderness Report suitable for communicating monitoring results with line officers and potentially with interested citizens, and (2) a detailed Local Wilderness Report or “data dump” of all the information entered into the system for use by the local manager to compare current conditions against locally established standards. Such information will help managers with work planning and developing informed management actions. See the supplement for the suggested format of the summarized Local Wilderness Report.

The National Wilderness Report will be produced on a 5-year cycle. Every year, data will be summarized for 20 percent of NFS wildernesses (approximately 80 wildernesses per year). Updates will be produced annually and a comprehensive report produced every 5 years. Producing a report annually for a portion of NFS wildernesses enables compilation and synthesis work to be spread evenly rather than having to staff up once every 5 years. In addition, annual reports provide a more even information flow to leaders in the wilderness program so that some information about trends in wilderness character is available to inform program decisions. At the forest level, highlights from Infra-WILD reports produced for

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 15 local wildernesses could be included in the monitoring and evaluation reports, as required by planning regulations.

Because trend information on wilderness character will not be available until the second 5-year reporting cycle, biannual updates will be produced for the first 5 years. These updates will discuss what is happening with wilderness monitoring, significant findings from data entered to date, share lessons learned from monitoring done to date, and discuss what will be occurring in the next 6 months.

Using the Information From This Monitoring Every wilderness needs to be able to conclude whether wilderness character is preserved or degrading compared with baseline conditions within that wilderness. Because this national set of selected indicators is linked to the concept of wilderness character in the Wilderness Act, information from wilderness character monitoring can be used to make judgments about trends in wilderness character in a consistent manner. This practice en- ables managers to link wilderness stewardship directly with the purpose of management stated in the Wilderness Act and agency wilderness policy.

As noted in the overview of this technical guide, information from wilderness character monitoring cannot be used to compare different wildernesses. Comparisons using absolute values generated for indicators for an individual wilderness are not appropriate because conditions in any one wilderness are partly due to its historical context, and special provisions contained within enabling legislation often modify appropriate actions and uses in an individual wilderness. What is important is that stewardship programs in every wilderness at least maintain wilderness character compared with the character of the wilderness that existed at the time of designation. Information from wilderness character monitoring will be used at the regional and national levels to report the percent- age of wildernesses with wilderness character preserved compared with the percentage of wildernesses showing a degrading trend in wilderness character. Regional or national displays of information about many wildernesses can present a much more compelling picture than information about a single wilderness. Only at the local level will absolute data values be used because these data provide meaningful information to the local manager about how conditions compare with locally established standards and what the magnitude of change is from one monitoring period to another.

More specific ways wilderness character monitoring can be used to improve wilderness stewardship include the following:

•• Prioritize Actions. Evaluate program effectiveness and help prioritize where future actions should be focused to improve wilderness character.

16 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character •• Forest Planning. Help with forest plan revisions by identifying monitoring requirements for wilderness.

•• Communicate Stewardship Needs. Express how different funding levels affect the statutory requirement to preserve wilderness character.

•• Accountability. Link performance measures directly to the Wilderness Act mandate to preserve wilderness character.

•• Establish Legacy Information. Establish a permanent database that creates one place for wilderness information (related to recreation sites, air quality, weeds, wildlife, regulations, etc.) to be passed on and used by future managers.

Local Use of This Monitoring Information For most wildernesses, the first time this monitoring protocol is applied, the resulting data will describe the “baseline” state of conditions related to wilderness character. With first-year monitoring information, managers will only be able to examine the status of individual indicators and use this information to inform decisions if locally developed standards that define acceptable conditions have been established. With only baseline information, it will not be possible to evaluate whether conditions related to wilderness character have been preserved or are degrading. Wilderness character monitoring will have greater value in subsequent years when it becomes possible to evaluate how condi- tions related to wilderness character are changing over time.

Trend information collected over 5 or more years, and information that transcends individual wilderness managers, will be especially powerful in efforts to preserve wilderness character. For example, knowing the number and type of actions taken to manipulate vegetation occurring now compared with what occurs 10 years from now is a valuable indicator about whether management programs are trending toward more or less manipulation of natural processes and conditions. Similarly, knowing the number and development level of buildings, trails, dams, and other physical evidence that exist today compared with the number and development level that will exist 10 or more years from now is a valuable indicator about whether the evidence of human occupation and modification is increasing or decreasing. Such trend information can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of existing stewardship programs and help prioritize what actions will most improve wilderness character.

Regional and National Use of This Monitoring Information At regional and national levels, information from wilderness character monitoring has two primary uses: (1) to improve agency accountability (performance measurement), and (2) to improve agency policy review and oversight to support wilderness stewardship needs at the local level.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 17 •• Accountability. Information from wilderness character monitoring can be incorporated into agency performance measurement and reporting systems. Accountability systems require the development of performance measures to define what “wilderness managed to standard” means. Rather than focusing on work tasks, wilderness character monitoring provides results-based measures that show the effectiveness or outcomes of stewardship in fulfilling the Wilderness Act mandate. Regional and national summaries can show the number or percentage of wildernesses in which wilderness character is preserved compared with the number in which wilderness character is degrading. Summaries can also show which of the four qualities are most significant in creating the overall trend for wilderness character. Simple displays that capture the essence of complex concepts offer a powerful way to communicate where progress is occurring and where problems still exist.

•• Policy Review and Oversight. Information from wilderness character monitoring can be used to help evaluate whether current wilderness management policy is fulfilling the mandate of the Wilderness Act of 1964 to “preserve wilderness character.” If wilderness character across much of the NFS is degrading, a review of policy implementation may provide information on whether this decline is due to existing policies that are not being consistently implemented or to existing policies that are consistently implemented but are insufficient to preserve wilderness character. For example, a widespread trend showing an increase in the number of administrative uses of motorized equipment could trigger a review about why this increase is occurring. Such a review could examine whether current policies are sufficient, examine the consistency of policy implementation, and assess the need for higher level direction to help stabilize or reverse the trend.

Cautions About Reporting and Using This Monitoring Information Before this effort, wilderness character had not been formally described or monitored. Therefore, this technical guide must be viewed with a full understanding of its goals and limitations:

•• Wilderness character is a holistic concept. This concept can present a problem in that users might think that the whole of wilderness character is being captured when, in fact, only a portion is represented by the indicators selected for wilderness character monitoring. By definition, indicators are coarse estimators; as such, they should be viewed as “red flags” rather than as providing complete knowledge about the qualities of wilderness character.

•• Significant assessment problems exist when data for some indicators are only partially available or are missing. A relatively few indicators are being used to

18 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character make a statement about the trend in wilderness character. Thus, if data are not available for some indicators, information may not be sufficient to address the larger question about trend in wilderness character. In cases in which this lack of data is anticipated to be a problem, information available at the regional or national level will be used to determine trends in wilderness character at the broader scales.

•• It is important to monitor information about locally important or place-dependent aspects of wilderness character; and the monitoring described in this technical guide is intended to complement, not replace, these local information needs.

1.4. Roles and Responsibilities

Forest Service responsibilities for resource inventory and monitoring are outlined in FSM 1940.04. Specific roles and responsibilities for the monitoring and evaluation of wilder- ness character follow.

1.4.1. National Responsibilities National roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating trends in wilderness character include the following:

•• Provide direction sufficient for the implementation of the national wilderness character monitoring protocol.

•• Lead and facilitate the servicewide, interdisciplinary development of indicators and measures of wilderness character.

•• Ensure that corporate database systems support the monitoring of wilderness character and that user support facilities are in place, including training, online materials, and help-desk services.

•• Establish and support the centralized staffing necessary for the implementation of the protocol to monitor wilderness character.

•• Secure funding resources necessary for the implementation of the protocol to monitor wilderness character.

•• Provide overall responsibility for the implementation and maintenance of the protocol to monitor wilderness character, including the change management process, according to prescribed timelines.

•• Conduct data analyses and synthesis at the level of the measure, indicator, monitoring question, quality, and wilderness character.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 19 •• Produce interim updates and final reports communicating progress on protocol implementation as well as the evaluation of trends in wilderness character.

1.4.2. Regional Responsibilities Regional roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating trends in wilderness character include the following:

•• Identify the person who will serve as the regional wilderness character monitoring coordinator.

•• Support the implementation of the wilderness monitoring protocol in the regions.

•• Coordinate with adjoining regions that share common management of individual wildernesses.

•• If appropriate, facilitate the development of supplemental indicators that are not a core part of the national protocol but are of particular relevance within that region.

1.4.3. Forest Responsibilities Forest roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating trends in wilderness character include the following:

•• Identify the person who will serve as the forest wilderness character monitoring coordinator.

•• Identify the person who will serve as the field wilderness character monitoring lead for every wilderness for which the forest has lead management responsibilities.

•• Meet all data entry requirements according to the prescribed timeline, including entry of new data and validation of existing data, using the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module.

•• Ensure the maintenance of data quality by adhering to identified data quality assurance/quality control procedures.

•• Help national staff interpret local data.

•• Coordinate with adjoining forests that share common management of individual wildernesses.

•• If appropriate, facilitate the development of supplemental indicators that are not a part of the national protocol but are of particular relevance within the local area.

20 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 1.5. Relationship to Other Federal Monitoring Programs

This effort to monitor selected conditions related to wilderness character is integrated in several ways within a broader movement to refine and focus inventory and monitoring activities across the Forest Service. First, the Washington Office Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers staff, along with the Ecosystem Management Coordination staff, chartered the committee responsible for developing the conceptual Framework (Landres and others 2005) and this technical guide. Second, key representatives from Forest Service national inventory and monitoring staffs directly participated in developing the conceptual frame- work for this monitoring protocol and have reviewed this technical guide. Third, wilderness character monitoring will be incorporated into agencywide inventory and monitoring program plans. Fourth, this technical guide follows a standard template used by other monitoring protocol development teams and will become part of the Forest Service directives system. Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, this technical guide is built into the Forest Service Infrastructure (Infra) database application, which enables data within Infra to be used in monitoring wilderness character and data collected by this monitoring to be used by other programs.

Other wilderness managing agencies (the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) have been part of this Forest Service wilderness monitoring effort. All wildernesses, regardless of which agency administers them, are part of a single National Wilderness Preservation System. Although each of the wilderness managing agencies has a unique culture and set of traditions, as well as unique needs for monitoring wilderness, all share the same legal responsibilities under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent wilderness legislation. Representatives from each of the other agencies have been active members of the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee and have made significant contributions to the conceptual framework for this monitoring. Their participation ensures ongoing inter- agency communication and potential coordination about wilderness monitoring programs.

This technical guide gathers as much data as possible from well-established and scientifi- cally credible national monitoring programs within and outside the Forest Service. Inside the Forest Service, this technical guide will draw as much data as is appropriate and pos- sible from Forest Inventory and Analysis; the Natural Resource Information System; and terrestrial, aquatic, wildlife, and social monitoring programs currently being developed and tested. In addition, at least 19 other Federal monitoring programs provide a variety of environmental and other data (Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources 1997). For example, this technical guide draws data on air pollutants from the Clean Air Status and Trends Network and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 21 1.6. Change Management

The change management process is a comprehensive process that begins with the identifica- tion of a need for change and ends with the resolution of that request. A change manage- ment process is necessary in all monitoring programs and especially for this protocol because the monitoring of wilderness character has never been attempted before. A viable change management process is needed to ensure that this protocol reflects the contempo- rary thinking about wilderness character, that lessons learned during implementation can be used to improve the protocol, and that the protocol uses all available data sets.

The two levels in this change management process follow.

Level 1—Minor Change The minor-change management process is conducted every year and includes the following:

•• Modification of existing indicators and measures, to be necessitated by the following factors:

• Experience gained during the practical implementation of the monitoring protocol.

• Availability of new data sources for existing indicators and measures.

• New research or other perspectives about what constitutes wilderness character.

• Need for some level of consistency of indicators and measures among the other National Wilderness Preservation System agencies.

•• Changes to the wilderness character monitoring process and timeline.

•• Changes to the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module.

Change Management Process. Change management requests can be submitted at any time during the year but they are stockpiled for once annual evaluation and resolution. Requests are submitted by a change requester, who can be anyone in the Forest Service, including members of the Technical Guide Development Team, wilderness researchers, or the general user community. The change manager consolidates the change requests and conducts an initial assessment of the benefits and impacts of implementing the proposed changes as well as the impacts of not implementing the changes. The Change Manage- ment Team meets to discuss the proposed changes in total and develops its preliminary recommendations as to a potential resolution. These preliminary recommendations are posted on the Forest Service Web site for a 45-day comment period by anyone with a stake in wilderness character monitoring. Using the feedback received during the com- ment period, the Change Management Team develops its final recommendations.

22 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Change Management Responsibilities. Three different responsibilities are associated with this change management process:

•• The change requester is anyone with a vested interest in the wilderness character monitoring protocol.

•• The change manager role will be filled by the wilderness character monitoring project leader.

•• The Change Management Team role will be filled by members of the Wilderness Monitoring Committee (for changes related to the monitoring process, including modifications to the list of indicators and measures) and by members of the Wilderness Information Management Steering Group (for changes related to the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module as well any additional analytical or presentation tools). Either of these teams may enlist the support of other subject matter experts, including members of the Technical Guide Development Team, as needed.

Level 2—Major Change The major-change management process is conducted every 5 years and is more compre- hensive than the level 1 process. Level 2 change includes the following:

•• Determining the appropriateness of the currently used legislated wilderness qualities, monitoring, questions, indicators, and measures—including the potential for deleting existing measures or adding new ones.

•• Determining the appropriateness of the data analysis and synthesis techniques.

Change Management Process. Details of the level 2 process have not yet been devel- oped; however, a more thorough, comprehensive review is warranted every 5 years. The basic foundation of the monitoring protocol needs to be reevaluated by those directly associated with the protocol, the user community, academia, and others, based on lessons learned after several years of practical implementation as well as on any new thinking about wilderness character. This process would likely entail conducting a workshop and developing a workplan for the resolution of issues and concerns identified by participants.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 23 24 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 2. Data Management

2.0. Getting the Data

The data used in this protocol to assess trends in wilderness character come from several types of sources, which can generally be categorized as the following:

•• Existing data currently residing in a Forest Service corporate database, with opportunities for validation and modification.

•• Existing data from external data sources.

•• New data entered using office records and professional knowledge.

The Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module will provide the tool to consolidate the data from these disparate sources. Screens have been built to facilitate the review, valida- tion, and modification of existing data as well as the entry of new data.

This technical guide provides documentation for the specific attributes to be entered for each measure. The guide makes a distinction between those attributes used in the direct calculation of the measure (marked with an asterisk in the table of attributes for each measure) and those attributes that serve in a supporting role and are considered necessary to help with the documentation or subsequent interpretation of the results.

Centralized Data Data from external sources, such as the air-quality data sets, and national internal sources, such as grazing allotment boundary maps, will be acquired, processed, and analyzed by a single, centralized data analyst. These tasks have been centralized for three reasons: (1) to markedly increase efficiency by having a single person access national data sets for all 407 National Forest System wildernesses; (2) to ensure the proper staff is processing the data because the required acquiring and processing skills, such as complex spatial analysis, are not commonly found at the field level; and (3) to remove as much of the workload burden as possible from field staff.

Professional Judgment In certain situations, the use of professional judgment is acceptable in this monitoring protocol when no other data are available for an indicator that is deemed crucial for as- sessing trends in wilderness character. Professional judgment will only be used to assess the status or condition of selected measures (e.g., the coverage of nonindigenous plants within a wilderness) and will not be used to evaluate the effects of a measure on other

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 25 resources or trends of an indicator. The use of professional judgment must always be done with care and caution. In this monitoring protocol, the use of professional judgment is highly limited to only those situations in which it represents the best available data. Whenever professional judgment is used in this monitoring protocol to assess the status of a measure, other information is also required to define or bracket the quality of this judg- ment. For example, in the scenario about the coverage of nonindigenous plants, additional information is required about the basis of this judgment, including the extent of the wilderness actually observed, who did the observations, and how current the information is. When professional judgment is used as a source for data, these data will be used in the same way as any other data used in assessing trends in the indicator.

2.1. Data Adequacy

Data adequacy is evaluated and reported for all the measures in this technical guide. Data adequacy is defined as the reliability of the data to assess trends in the measure. The intention behind evaluating data adequacy is to understand where improvements in data collection need to be made and not to evaluate how well an individual measure represents a particular aspect of wilderness character. For example, if the data indicate a downward trend in a particular indicator and the data adequacy is deemed “low,” these factors would suggest that the trend be interpreted conservatively, not discounted entirely, and that greater efforts be expended in future years to acquire more or better data.

Several dimensions of data adequacy exist, including the quantity and distribution of the data throughout the wilderness, the source of the data, whether validation techniques were used to confirm the accuracy of the data, and whether known data gaps were filled. Addressing all these aspects of data adequacy is beyond the practical and fiscal means of this monitoring protocol. Instead, two related but distinct aspects of data adequacy are subjectively evaluated: data quantity and data quality.

Data quantity refers to the level of confidence that all appropriate data records have been gathered. Data quantity is subjectively evaluated for each measure and assigned one of three categories:

1. Complete. This category indicates a high degree of confidence that all data records have been gathered. For example, to assess the occurrence of nonindigenous invasive plants, a complete inventory of the wilderness was conducted or all likely sites were visited. Similarly, to assess visitor use, all trailheads were inventoried. This category is represented graphically by a solid left half-circle.

2. Partial. This category indicates a moderate degree of confidence that all data records have been gathered. For example, to assess the occurrence of

26 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character nonindigenous invasive plants, a partial inventory was conducted or a sampling of sites was conducted in which these plants are likely to occur were visited. Similarly, visitor use was assessed at selected trailheads. This category is represented graphically by a left half-circle with a thick horizontal line in the middle.

3. Insufficient. This category indicates a low degree of confidence that all records have been gathered. For example, no inventory for nonindigenous invasive plants has been conducted, and visitor use was not assessed anywhere. This category is represented graphically by an empty left half-circle.

Data quality refers to the level of confidence about the source(s) of data and whether the data are of sufficient quality to reliably identify trends in the measure. Data quality is subjectively evaluated for each measure and assigned one of three categories:

1. High. This category indicates a high degree of confidence that the quality of the data can reliably assess trends in the measure. For example, data on the occurrence of nonindigenous invasive plants is from ground-based inventories conducted by qualified personnel; for visitor use, data would come from visitor permit data. This category is represented graphically by a solid right half-circle.

2. Moderate. This category indicates a moderate degree of confidence about the quality of the data. For example, data on invasive plants could come from national or regional databases; for visitor use, data could come from trailhead registers. This category is represented graphically by a right half-circle with a thick horizontal line in the middle.

3. Low. This category indicates a low degree of confidence about the quality of the data. For example, data on invasive plants and visitor use could come from professional judgment. This category is represented graphically by an empty right half-circle.

Each of these data quantity and data quality categories is represented graphically in the Local Report on trends in wilderness character (see the example reports in the supplement). The categories are also illustrated in table 2.

Table 2.—A graphical representation of the different categories of data quantity and data quality. Data adequacy Data quantity Data quality Complete Partial Insufficient High Moderate Low

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 27 When the individual categories for data quantity and data quality are combined for each measure, they form a circle that graphically shows data adequacy for each measure, as shown in table 3.

Table 3.—A graphical representation of some of the possible data adequacy (combined data quantity and data quality) evaluations for a measure. Description of data adequacy Graphical representation

Data quantity complete/data quality high

Data quantity complete/data quality moderate

Data quantity partial/data quality high

Data quantity partial/data quality moderate

Data quantity partial/data quality low

Data quantity insufficient/data quality moderate

Data quantity insufficient/data quality low

The specific criteria for evaluating data adequacy will be described in the detailed discus- sion for each measure. Data adequacy will be evaluated at the lowest level of measurement, generally the measure. Two measures are composed of components (management actions under the untrammeled quality and physical development index under the undeveloped quality); however, for these two measures, data adequacy will be evaluated at the component level rather than the measure level. Data adequacy applies only to the individual measure; therefore, it will not be compiled across measures, indicators, monitoring questions, or qualities to derive a single estimate of data adequacy at the regional or national levels.

For particular measures, the concept of data quantity or data quality may not be relevant or appropriate, and, in these cases, only the relevant aspect of data adequacy will be evalu- ated and shown in the Local Wilderness Report. For example, for the “number of manage- ment actions” measure under the untrammeled quality, data quality will not be evaluated because the only source of information is the records or recollections of resource staff; no other sources exist that could provide lower or higher quality data.

2.2. Data Quality Control and Assurance

To maintain a level of confidence in the results of the analysis and synthesis, data quality control and assurance must be maintained at all the steps in the process. Although the need for data quality control and assurance is true for all monitoring protocols, the task is made even more challenging with this protocol because of the reliance on data from so many disparate sources.

28 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Data Cleaning Field data must be reviewed for completeness and obvious errors before use in the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. Two techniques will be used to accomplish this important task.

1. Field Level. Staff in the field will be required to review the data for the measures they are responsible for. This requirement will involve either validating previously entered data or reviewing newly entered data using the screens provided in Infra- WILD. Additional reports or other tools will be provided to facilitate this review. Local staff will be asked to certify that the data are complete and accurate before the data are used in this protocol.

2. Centralized/Automated. After the data are incorporated in Infra-WILD, they will be subjected to further review. Automated data routines will be created to identify data gaps and numeric data that are outside of expected ranges. An opportunity to manually intervene or ignore potential errors will be provided.

Data Audits A system of audits will be implemented to ensure that data integrity is maintained. These audits will apply to those data management activities conducted by both field staff and centralized staff. A number of field units will be visited each season to observe the imple- mentation of the protocol. This practice will provide an opportunity to validate that data quality procedures are being followed and will identify other areas of the protocol needing improvement or modification for insertion in the change management process.

Metadata “Metadata” refers to data about the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data or simply data about data. Because data will be coming from so many different sources, tracking metadata is particularly crucial for this protocol. All data will have the following metadata columns, where applicable: •• Data source type (internal, external, etc.). •• Data source name. •• Data pull date. •• Created date. •• Created by user. •• Created by managing organization. •• Modified date. •• Modified by user. •• Modified by managing organization.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 29 Cuff Notes As further documentation, users will be requested to enter “cuff notes” for each of the measures. Specific suggestions for appropriate notes for each measure will be included in the desk guide. The cuff notes are intended to create a legacy of the reasons why particular data were either entered or not entered during a particular monitoring year. These notes will be of great value in future monitoring cycles to ensure the consistency of reporting, particularly as staff changes.

2.3. Data Roles

Oracle databases ensure data integrity by assigning privileges to certain users for viewing, creating, modifying, or deleting records through the use of “roles.” A new Oracle role, “wilderness character evaluator,” or “ii_wild_char_eval,” will be created in the Infra database to support data maintenance activities for this protocol. Other specific Infra roles will be needed to make modifications to data from other business areas, such as trails, buildings, or dams.

The wilderness character evaluator will be responsible for entering new data specifically for this protocol, reviewing existing data, and certifying the data are complete and accu- rate; the wilderness character evaluator also is responsible for initiating the pull process.

Each wilderness currently has an identified “lead wilderness data steward.” This steward will have the responsibility to determine who should be granted the wilderness character evaluator role for a particular wilderness through the User Management Account utility in Infra.

2.4. Data Storage

Infra is a national database application consisting of more than 20 modules that serve various needs within the agency, including deferred maintenance reporting of fixed assets, range billings, and special-use permits. A wilderness module, called Infra-WILD, has been in place since 2002 to support field- and national-level business functions, and a Wilderness Character module has been developed to support this protocol (refer to figure 4).

The Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module has several components: •• Data importation screens for use by national staff. •• Data validation, modification, and approval screens for use by local staff. •• Data entry screens for use by local staff.

30 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character •• Data export utilities to Microsoft Excel. •• Canned reports and ad hoc user views.

After data have been processed, they will be made available for subsequent use through the Corporate database, which is accessible from the I-Web main menu.

Figure 4.—A conceptual view of the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. The two primary data sources that feed into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module are shown on the left. The four boxes on the right show the primary outputs from this module.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 31 32 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 3. Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character

The four qualities of wilderness described in the overview to this document—untram- meled, natural, undeveloped, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation—will be synthesized into a single integrated assessment of trend in wilderness character. Evaluating detailed information on individual measures and indicators is critical for local managers, but it is just as critical for local managers, program managers, and policymakers to understand the larger picture—the status and trends of legislated wilderness qualities and of wilderness character. The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates the Forest Service to preserve wilderness character as a whole, not just maintain four separate qualities of wilderness. Synthesizing this information also yields a more holistic picture that is a more powerful and effective tool for communicating trends of wilderness character to a broad audience, including the public, agency decisionmakers and policymakers, and legislators (Failing and Gregory 2003).

3.0. How Will Trends in Wilderness Character Be Assessed?

As discussed in the national Framework (Landres and others 2005), wilderness character is a complex and abstract concept, and the identification of selected conditions of wilder- ness character to monitor is not an absolute science. The conceptual and practical reality of identifying indicators and measures requires the selection of specific, measurable, and understandable parts of the larger concept. Similarly, although a conceptual model linking the qualities of wilderness to wilderness character has been developed in the Framework, these qualities do not cover all aspects of wilderness character. For these and other reasons described in the Framework, a numerical index or report card grade of wilderness charac- ter is not appropriate conceptually or practically and will not be used to assess trends in wilderness character.

Instead, a set of decision rules will be used to synthesize the trends from the different lev- els of this monitoring (measures, indicators, monitoring questions, and qualities) to derive a nationally consistent assessment of trends in wilderness character within a wilderness. This assessment will be conducted every 5 years for every National Forest System (NFS) wilderness. These decision rules assign trends into one of four categories:

1. Improving. () On balance, the conditions related to wilderness character are trending in a positive or improving direction.

2. Stable. () All the individual components are stable with no change.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 33 3. Offsetting Stable. () On balance, no change in the conditions related to wilderness character is evident because degrading conditions are offset by an equal number of improving conditions.

4. Degrading. () On balance, the conditions related to wilderness character are trending in a negative or degrading direction.

Assigning trends into one of these four categories enables wilderness managers to show success where appropriate and take actions as needed to improve specific elements of wilderness character. Short-term trends will be assessed by comparing the current monitoring results with the immediately preceding results, while long-term trends will be assessed by comparing the current monitoring results with the baseline.

For upward reporting purposes that will yield a regional or national assessment of trends in wilderness character, the trend from each wilderness will be reported in one of two categories:

1. Preserved. The category is assigned from the improving, stable, or offsetting stable trends.

2. Degrading. The category is assigned from the degrading trend.

3.1. Decision Rules

Decision rules are used to identify significant trends in the data for each measure and then used to synthesize this information to identify trends in the indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and, ultimately, wilderness character. Although these decision rules enable assessing the trend or direction of change, they do not enable assessing the mag- nitude of this change. For example, the results of this monitoring might show that wilder- ness character for a given wilderness has improved over the 5-year monitoring period, but this monitoring will not reveal how much wilderness character has improved.

This set of decision rules is based on the following considerations: •• Standardized decision rules are required to develop a nationally consistent assessment of trends in wilderness character. •• All indicators, monitoring questions, and qualities are given equal weight in this assessment because no conceptual or other reasons exist for giving more weight to one than any of the others. •• Quantitative data are used to assess whether a measure is improving, stable, or degrading, but quantitative data are not used to synthesize across measures, indicators, monitoring questions, and qualities because of the following conditions:

34 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character • Synthesizing would require combining elements that are completely different from one another (e.g., the number of structures and the number of motorized use authorizations).

• Sufficient uncertainty exists in the quantitative data that synthesizing at higher levels compounds this uncertainty in unknown ways.

Decision Rule 1. Identifying the Trend in a Measure The trend in each measure is categorized as improving (), stable (), or degrading () based on the results of statistical analysis or specific criteria used for identifying signifi- cant change for individual measures described under each quality of wilderness character. The offsetting stable trend does not apply to the level of the measure because nothing is present to offset the trend in a single measure.

For some of the measures, the data that are reported may significantly change from one year to the next; for other measures, the data are not expected to change much, if at all, between subsequent years. Although the monitoring cycle for assessing trends in wilder- ness character is 5 years, data will be recorded yearly for the following measures that are expected to change year to year.

•• Untrammeled quality:

• Agency actions to manage vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and disease; soil and water; and fire.

• Percentage of lightning-caused fires suppressed.

• Lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish.

•• Natural quality:

• Pollutant and air-quality measures.

• Number of acres of grazing allotment with authorized use.

•• Undeveloped quality:

• Mechanical and motorized equipment use measures.

•• Outstanding opportunities quality:

• Visitation—visitation and census measures.

• Management restrictions on visitor behavior measure.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 35 The different data collecting cycles (yearly and once every 5 years) for different types of measures require different means for assessing change from one monitoring period to the next, as follows.

1. First or baseline monitoring cycle:

• No assessment of change in any of the measures will occur.

2. Second monitoring cycle, occurring 5 years after baseline monitoring:

• Measures That Have Yearly Data. Five data points, one for the baseline and one for each of the 4 subsequent years will have been collected. Regression analysis can be used on these data to assess if a significant change has occurred over the 5-year period. See Appendix B, Statistical Analysis of Trends in the Measures, for a detailed discussion of how this analysis is used to identify significant change in the data.

• Measures That Do Not Have Yearly Data. Just two data points, one for the first and one for the second monitoring cycles, will have been collected; specific criteria for assessing significant change are described for each measure under each of the qualities of wilderness character. Regression analysis cannot be used in this case because of insufficient data.

3. Third and fourth monitoring cycles, occurring 10 and 15 years, respectively, after baseline monitoring:

• Measures That Have Yearly Data. Regression analysis will be used to assess if significant changes have occurred. See appendix B for details of this analysis.

• Measures That Do Not Have Yearly Data. Specific criteria are described for each measure under each of the qualities of wilderness character for assessing significant short-term change that compares the two most recent monitoring cycles and long-term change that compares the first monitoring cycle data with the most recent data.

4. Fifth monitoring cycle, occurring 20 years after baseline monitoring, and all subsequent monitoring cycles:

• For all measures, regression analysis will be used across the preceding monitoring cycles to assess if significant changes have occurred. See appendix B for details of this analysis. For the measures that have yearly data, 20 data points (one for each year, including the baseline) will have been collected. For the measures that data were collected once every 5 years, five data points will have been collected.

36 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Decision Rule 2. Identifying the Trend in an Indicator The trend in an indicator is derived by synthesizing across the trends in the measures that make up that indicator, using the following three steps.

1. A numerical score is assigned to the trend for each measure as follows:

• Improving equals +1.

• Stable equals 0.

• Degrading equals –1.

2. The numbers for each measure are added together to yield a single numerical score for the indicator.

3. The trend for the indicator is assigned as follows:

• Improving, when the summed numerical score is greater than 0.

• Degrading, when the summed numerical score is less than 0.

• Stable, when the summed numerical score is 0 because all the measures were stable.

• Offsetting stable, when the summed numerical result is 0 because improving measures offset degrading measures.

Table 4 shows how this decision rule applies in 10 hypothetical cases to yield the trend in an indicator. In each case, if the trend in the measure is improving, it is assigned a +1; if the measure is stable, it is assigned a 0; and, if the measure is degrading, it is assigned a –1. Adding these scores across all the measures for a given case results in a total numerical score (and trend) for the indicator that is greater than 0 (improving), 0 (stable or offsetting stable), or less than 0 (degrading).

Table 4 shows that the resulting trend in the indicator is improving in the first three col- umns of possible outcomes, offsetting stable in the fourth and fifth columns, stable in the sixth column, and degrading in the last four columns.

Specific decision rules for assessing change in an indicator, if applicable, are discussed under each of the qualities of wilderness character.

Table 4.—The trend in an indicator (in this case, the indicator of air pollutants) is identified by adding across the numerical score of the trends in its component measures. Measure Possible trends in the measure Ozone N100           Ozone W126           Sulfur wet deposition           Nitrogen wet deposition          

Resulting trend in the indicator          

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 37 Decision Rule 3. Identifying the Trend in a Monitoring Question The trend in a monitoring question is derived by synthesizing across the trends in the indicators that make up that question, following the steps in decision rule 2, with two additional rules.

1. An offsetting trend in an indicator is assigned a numerical value of 0.

2. If an offsetting stable trend in an indicator is added to another indicator with either a stable or offsetting stable trend, the resulting trend in the monitoring question is offsetting stable. The reason for this rule is that the offsetting stable trend is a result of some things going up and some things going down, so the resulting trend should not be stable because this would mean that the trends in all the indicators were stable. An example of this situation is shown in the fifth column of possible monitoring question trends in table 4.

Table 5 shows how this decision rule applies in 10 hypothetical cases to yield the trend in a monitoring question. In each case, if the trend in the indicator is improving, it is assigned a +1; if the indicator is stable or offsetting stable, it is assigned a 0; and, if the indicator is degrading, it is assigned a –1. Adding the scores across all the indicators gives a total numerical score (and trend) for the monitoring question that is greater than 0 (improving), 0 (stable or offsetting stable), or less than 0 (degrading).

Table 5 shows that the resulting trend in the monitoring question is improving in the first three columns of possible outcomes, offsetting stable in the fourth and fifth columns, stable in the sixth column, and degrading in the last four columns.

Specific decision rules for assessing change in a monitoring question, if applicable, are discussed under each of the qualities of wilderness character.

Table 5.—The trend in the monitoring question is identified by adding across the trends in its component indicators. Indicator Possible trends in the indicator Pollutants that degrade air quality           Developments that degrade rivers           Nonnative species           Resulting trend in the monitoring question          

38 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Decision Rule 4. Identifying the Trend in a Quality The trend in a quality of wilderness character is derived by synthesizing across the trends in the monitoring questions that make up that quality, following the steps in decision rules 2 and 3.

Table 6 shows how this decision rule applies in 10 hypothetical cases to yield the trend in a quality. In each case, if the trend in the monitoring question is improving, it is assigned a +1; if the monitoring question is stable or offsetting stable, it is assigned a 0; and, if the monitoring question is degrading, it is assigned a –1. Adding the scores across all the monitoring questions gives a total numerical score (and trend) for the quality that is greater than 0 (improving), 0 (stable or offsetting stable), or less than 0 (degrading).

Table 6 shows that the resulting trend in the natural quality is improving in the first three columns of possible outcomes; offsetting stable in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth columns; stable in the seventh column; and degrading in the last three columns.

Specific decision rules for assessing change in a quality, if applicable, are discussed under each of the qualities of wilderness character.

Table 6.—The trend in a quality of wilderness character is assessed by adding across the trends in its component monitoring questions. Monitoring question Possible trends in the question Threats to natural conditions           Biophysical conditions and processes          

Resulting trend in the quality          

Decision Rule 5. Identifying the Trend in Wilderness Character The trend in wilderness character is identified by synthesizing across the trends in the four qualities, following the steps in decision rules 2 and 3, with one additional rule.

•• For local reporting, the trend in wilderness character is identified using the same four categories (improving, stable, offsetting stable, and degrading) as described previously; for national reporting, the trend is identified as either preserved or degrading. The preserved category is assigned when the resulting trend in wilderness character is improving, stable, or offsetting stable.

The reason for this additional rule is that different users need different levels of informa- tion detail. The line officer and manager of a local wilderness unit need more detail to evaluate the outcomes of local decisions and actions. In contrast, a more general level of synthesis is appropriate for oversight and review of national wilderness policy (which directs the agency to “protect and perpetuate wilderness character”).

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 39 Table 7 shows how this decision rule applies in 10 hypothetical cases to yield the trend in a quality. In each case, if the trend in the monitoring question is improving, it is assigned a +1; if the monitoring question is stable or offsetting stable, it is assigned a 0; and, if the monitoring question is degrading, it is assigned a –1. Adding the scores across all the monitoring questions gives a total numerical score (and trend) for the quality that is greater than 0 (improving), 0 (stable or offsetting stable), or less than 0 (degrading).

For local reporting purposes, table 7 shows that, for the first three columns of possible outcomes, the resulting trend in wilderness character would be reported as improving; for the fourth and fifth columns, the trend would be reported as offsetting stable; for the sixth column, the trend would be reported as stable; and, for the last four columns, the trend would be reported as degrading. In contrast, for national reporting purposes, table 7 shows that, for the first six columns, wilderness character would be reported as preserved and, for the last four columns, it would be reported as degrading.

Table 7.—The trend in wilderness character is identified by adding across the trends in its component qualities. Quality Possible trends in the quality Untrammeled           Natural           Undeveloped           Outstanding opportunities          

Resulting trend in wilderness character          

Table 8 shows a hypothetical example of how all these decision rules work together to identify the trend in wilderness character. In this example, the trend in wilderness char- acter for this hypothetical wilderness would be degrading because the summed numerical score of –1 is derived from adding the scores of the untrammeled quality (0), the natural quality (–1), the undeveloped quality (+1), and the outstanding opportunities quality (–1).

40 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 8.—A hypothetical example showing how the decision rules work together to yield an assessment of trend in wilderness character for this wilderness. Trend in Trend in Trend in Trend in Trend in Measure wilderness measure indicator question quality character Untrammeled quality Management actions  Fires suppressed     Fish stocking  Natural quality Ozone N100  Ozone W126   Sulfur deposition  Nitrogen deposition   Dams   Nonindigenous plants   Other nonindigenous species   Grazing allotments  Fine nitrate and sulfate   Deciview    Extirpated species   Undeveloped quality Physical development index    Emergency motorized and mechanized use index     Administrative and nonemergency motorized and mechanized use index  Inholdings    Outstanding opportunities quality Area away from access/travel   Visiting parties *  Users residing in service area  NVUM visits per region   Recreation facilities index    Developed trail miles   Visitor restrictions index    * Only one trend is identified for these two measures because only one of these measures is used (for explanation, see Chapter 7, Outstanding Opportunities Quality). NVUM = National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.

3.2. Narrative

In addition to the decision rule-based assessment of trends in wilderness character, a narrative will be required that provides information about local conditions, circumstances, and context that affect the interpretation and use of the results of this monitoring. This narrative gives local managers the opportunity to add qualitative information and insights from their professional judgment to complement and help interpret the data obtained from the measures. This narrative, for example, will enable managers to validate and explain why downward or upward trends are occurring. This narrative will be a valuable part of the legacy information passed to future wilderness managers, help ensure consistency in reporting over time, and provide insight about this monitoring program that will feed into the change management process to improve this monitoring.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 41 A place will be provided within the Infrastructure data reporting screens for local users to enter appropriate narrative information about the trend in each of the four qualities and about wilderness character over the 5-year monitoring period. The following questions are intended to serve as a guide to help structure this narrative.

•• Is this trend in the quality or wilderness character an accurate reflection of recent conditions in your wilderness? Why or why not? Here are some examples of factors that could affect wilderness conditions:

• Natural events in or outside wilderness (e.g., fires, weather events, snowloads, or windstorms).

• Change in staffing or effort since the last monitoring cycle (e.g., type and amount).

• New or expanded data collection efforts (e.g., in wilderness program and other program areas).

• Change outside the wilderness that is affecting wilderness character (e.g., wildland-urban interface concerns or development, advertising or promotion of recreation use, or industrial development).

• Change in legislation or interpretation of legislation that affects policy or actions (e.g., upgrades to structures based on current Americans with Disabilities Act policy guidance).

•• How should this trend in wilderness character be interpreted if one of the four qualities is improving while another is degrading? Here are some examples of factors that could affect wilderness character:

• Differences in the magnitude of change in the four qualities are not taken into account in assessing the trend in wilderness character, and key differences may exist among the qualities that you feel should be taken into account in this assessment.

• Legislative provisions may account for the trends in one or more qualities that affect this assessment of wilderness character (e.g., the number of structures may be stable over time because they are all legislatively permitted).

•• Do you have confidence in the data generated by this monitoring protocol? What is the basis for your opinion? Here are some examples of factors that could affect the quality of data:

42 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character • Professional judgment or sense of change.

• Other information about things that have affected the trend in this quality that is not included in any of the indicators or measures.

• Better data for one of the indicators or measures that suggests a trend different than that reported in this monitoring program.

•• Are there aspects of this monitoring protocol that could be improved? How could they be improved?

3.3. Cautions About Assessing Trends in Wilderness Character

Many cautions should be heeded in developing this assessment of trends in wilderness character and in interpreting the resulting information.

The choice of monitoring indicators and measures represents a selection of conditions and stewardship actions related to wilderness character. This set of indicators and measures is not intended to represent the full or holistic nature of wilderness character. For example, broad societal values of wilderness character are not monitored. Furthermore, as shown in figure 3, the indicators used to derive an assessment of trends do not represent local aspects of wilderness character. Even if the entire universe of wilderness character were known, it would be impractical to design a monitoring program to include all these com- ponents. Therefore, it is critical to understand that this synthesis is not a determination of wilderness character but an assessment of selected indicators of wilderness character.

The assessment is based on indicators and measures that were chosen because data can be consistently gathered for them from at least 50 percent of NFS wildernesses nationwide. In assessing trends in wilderness character, the number and percentage of wildernesses contributing to the assessment will be reported.

Developing a single assessment of trends in wilderness character for an entire wilderness requires that very different elements be combined. Combining elements in this way overly simplifies the complexity of wilderness character. For example, some qualities, such as the untrammeled and natural qualities when actions are taken to restore certain natural condi- tions, may be inversely related. In addition, different elements change at different rates or they may represent differing wilderness aspects; combining these elements may obscure changes or trends that are important for the local manager to understand.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 43 44 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 4. Untrammeled Quality

4.0. Summary

Table 9 provides a summary of the monitoring question, indicator, and measures for the untrammeled quality.

The objective of monitoring the untrammeled quality is to track over time whether man- agement programs are trending toward more or less human manipulation of plant com- munities, populations of fish, wildlife, insects and disease, soil and water resources, and fire processes. This monitoring focuses on agency actions that intentionally manipulate the “community of life” inside wilderness. For conceptual and practical reasons, this monitor- ing does not capture all human manipulations of wilderness (e.g., global manipulation of climate or small-scale, localized manipulations such as removing a single hazard tree). The focus on actions that are both important (in effect or large in amount or quantity rela- tive to the wilderness resource) and trackable (those actions for which reasonably reliable data are available over time) provides more reliable data and is sufficient to understand whether management programs are generally trending toward less or more manipulation of wilderness. Ultimate determination of scale and importance will be left up to the indi- vidual manager. Consistency of interpretation is important at a wilderness level but may vary across National Forest System wildernesses.

The prominence of the word “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act and the tendency of most people to blur the untrammeled quality with the natural quality justify separating these two important concepts to give each equal stature. The untrammeled quality moni- tors intentional agency actions whereas the natural quality monitors the effects of both intentional agency actions and external threats. Furthermore, in this monitoring protocol, untrammeled refers to management actions that constrain the land and natural processes, not those that constrain the visitor experience.

Table 9.—A summary of the indicators and measures monitored in the untrammeled quality. Quality of wilderness Monitoring question Indicator Measure Untrammeled—wilderness is What are the trends in actions Agency actions that control or Number of actions to manage essentially unhindered and free that control or manipulate the manipulate plant communities, vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, from modern human control or community of life in wilderness? animal populations, soils, water and disease; soil and water; and manipulation bodies, or natural disturbance fire processes Percentage of natural fire starts that received a suppression response

Number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 45 Untrammeled quality monitoring focuses on actions rather than authorizations. This focus enables managers to track trends in the number of manipulations and controls that actually occurred. Through monitoring this untrammeled quality, information will be collected on the number of actions taken annually, reasons for those actions, trends over time, and, to some degree, the extent of each action. Some of the information collected might not be directly useful at the national level but may help the local manager interpret the data and trends over time.

4.1. Introduction

In defining wilderness, Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” The word “untrammeled” is rarely used in ordinary conversation, but Howard Zahniser, the primary author of the Wilderness Act, carefully selected untrammeled to be a key word in the definition of wilderness.

Since passage of the Wilderness Act, the word “untrammeled” and its meaning for wilderness management have been discussed at length (e.g., Aplet 1999, Scott 2002). Untrammeled means “allowed to run free” (Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries 1992); synonyms for untrammeled include unrestrained, unrestricted, unhindered, unimpeded, unencumbered, self-willed, and wildness. National Forest Service policy defines untrammeled as an area “where human influence does not impede the free play of natural forces or interfere with natural processes in the ecosystem” (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2320.5).

Zahniser noted that the inspiration for wilderness preservation “is to use ‘skill, judgment, and ecologic sensitivity’ for the protection of some areas within which natural forces may operate without man’s management and manipulation.” (Zahniser 1963: 2) Wilderness is very different than other lands in that legislation dictates not only the goals of stewardship but also how management is to be approached—with humility and with an eye toward not interfering with nature and not manipulating the land and its community of life. Furthering this notion, Lucas commented, “If ecological processes operate essentially uncontrolled within the Wilderness frame of reference, the results, whatever they might be, are desir- able by definition. The object is not to stop change, nor to recreate conditions as of some arbitrary historical date, nor to strive for favorable change in big game populations or in scenic vistas. The object is to let nature ‘roll the dice’ and accept the results with interest and scientific curiosity.” (Lucas 1973: 151) More recently, Nash noted that “Restraint is at the core of the new valuation of wilderness as a moral resource. When we protect wilder- ness we deliberately withhold our power to change the landscape” (Nash 2004: 8).

46 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Agency actions that manipulate or control ecological systems inside wilderness degrade the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. For example, wilderness is manipulated and the untrammeled quality of wilderness character is diminished when naturally ignited fires are suppressed inside wilderness, when dams that impede natural flood cycles are built, when native animals or plants are removed, or when actions are taken to lessen the impact a pathogen might have on lands outside of but adjacent to the wilderness. This concept of trammeling applies to all manipulation since the time of wilderness designa- tion but does not apply to manipulations that occurred before wilderness designation, such as the use of fire by native people to promote game habitat.

As already noted, wilderness is unlike any other land in the Nation because legislation directs the managing agency to scrutinize its actions and minimize control or interference with plants, animals, soils, water bodies, and natural processes. Although many people consider minimizing interference with natural processes to be part of maintaining natural conditions, the prominence of the word “untrammeled” in the Wilderness Act justifies distinguishing the untrammeled quality from the natural quality. In essence, the untram- meled quality monitors intentional agency actions whereas the natural quality monitors the effects of both intentional agency actions and effects caused by external threats to wilderness. Separating actions from effects offers clearer understanding of trends in actions compared with trends in effects, permitting more effective analysis and use of the information to improve wilderness stewardship.

Specific legislative, regulatory, and policy direction relative to the untrammeled quality is contained in the Wilderness Act, Code of Federal Regulations, and National Forest Service Policy Directives.

The Wilderness Act In Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, wilderness is defined as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Although the act further defines wilderness first as an area that “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature,” Section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act in does provide some latitude for agency action, stating that “measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects and disease, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.”

Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 293, provides regulatory direction to the Forest Service for implementation of the Wilderness Act. This direction states that “natu- ral ecological succession will be allowed to operate freely to the extent feasible” (293.2), but the Forest Service Chief “may prescribe measures necessary to control fire, insects

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 47 and disease” (293.3). This direction also prohibits “cutting of trees for non-wilderness purposes” (293.6).

National Forest Service Policy, Forest Service Manual 2320, Policy and Objectives Directives The following FSM direction, while subject to change, implements the Code of Federal Regulations pursuant to the Wilderness Act.

•• “Maintain wilderness in such a manner that ecosystems are unaffected by human manipulation and influences so that plants and animals develop and respond to natural forces.” (FSM 2320.2)

•• “Provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist.” (FSM 2323.31)

•• “Discourage measures for direct control (other than normal harvest) of wildlife and fish populations.” (FSM 2323.32)

•• “The policy for soil and water management is generally the same as for all National Forest watersheds. However, in wilderness natural processes shall dominate; measures that modify plant cover and treat soil mantles or other activities designed to supplement natural water yield are inappropriate.” (FSM 2323.42)

•• “Do not permit long-term weather modification programs that produce, during any part of successive years, a repeated or prolonged change in the weather directly affecting wilderness areas.” (FSM 2323.45)

•• “Manage forest cover to retain the primeval character of the environment and to allow natural ecological processes to operate freely.” (FSM 2323.51)

•• “Do not control insect or plant disease outbreaks unless it is necessary to prevent unacceptable damage to resources on adjacent lands or an unnatural loss to the wilderness resource due to exotic pests.” (FSM 2324.12).

•• “Permit lightning caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within wilderness.” (FSM 2324.21)

•• “Forest Service managers may ignite a prescribed fire in wilderness to reduce unnatural buildups of fuels only if necessary to meet at least one of the wilderness fire management objectives set forth in FSM 2324.21 and if all of the following conditions are met:

48 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character • “The use of prescribed fire or other fuel treatment measures outside of wilderness is not sufficient to achieve fire management objectives within wilderness.

• “An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists has evaluated and recommended the proposed use of prescribed fire.

• “The interested public has been involved appropriately in the decision.

• “Lightning-caused fires cannot be allowed to burn because they will pose serious threats to life and/or property within wilderness or to life, property, or natural resources outside of wilderness.” (FSM 2324.22)

•• “Do not use prescribed fire in wilderness to benefit wildlife, maintain vegetative types, improve forage production, or enhance other resource values. Although these additional effects may result from a decision to use prescribed fire, use fire in wilderness only to meet wilderness fire management objectives. Do not use management ignited fire to achieve wilderness fire management objectives where lightning-caused fires can achieve them.” (FSM 2324.22)

Trends in the untrammeled quality will be assessed by synthesizing information from the measures to the indicator and the monitoring question using the decision rules described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character.

4.2. Monitoring Question 1—Actions That Manipulate Wilderness

What are the trends in actions that control or manipulate the community of life in wilderness?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is a place where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man. In today’s terms, the phrase “community of life” means the biological composition, structure, and function of wilderness ecosystems, including natural disturbance processes such as fire, wind events, insect and disease outbreaks, and floods. The untrammeled quality of wilderness is fundamentally about our actions as managers, as well as actions by other agencies that conduct activities in wilderness, that affect the community of life rather than the effects on visitors.

It is acknowledged within the Wilderness Act and subsequent policy that cases exist in which plant communities, animal populations, soils, water bodies, or natural disturbance processes may be managed as necessary for wilderness purposes, for emergency conditions or public safety, or in cases in which actions were part of the management of the area at

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 49 the time the wilderness was established and in which continued practice is considered necessary. Tracking the number of agency actions, including actions allowed by law and policy, will provide a good indication of whether management programs are trending toward more or less trammeling over time.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? Only one indicator for this monitoring question exists—agency actions that control or manipulate plant communities, animal populations, soils, water bodies, or natural disturbance processes—so no synthesis of different indicators is required to answer the monitoring question. If the measures show that the indicator is decreasing, stable, or increasing, this same answer is given for the monitoring question.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? Although it is recognized that managers make (often difficult) decisions that represent considerable restraint, untrammeled quality monitoring does not attempt to track those decisions. The intent of monitoring the untrammeled quality is not to produce a “score- card” but rather to track whether management programs are trending toward more or less human manipulation in a given wilderness.

This monitoring question does not address actions taken outside the jurisdiction of the wilderness managing agency: illegal actions that managers are not aware of or those actions that occur or are initiated outside wilderness boundaries. This question also does not consider the cumulative impact of small-scale actions. Although such small-scale actions may manipulate or control elements of the wilderness environment, they tend to be done at a lesser scale that manipulates individual animals or plants rather than populations or communities.

4.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Agency Actions Agency actions that control or manipulate plant communities, animal populations, soils, water bodies, or natural disturbance processes.

Why Is This Indicator Important? This indicator represents the range of actions that management agencies take to manipu- late or control the biological composition, structure, and function of wilderness eco- systems. This indicator does not provide an understanding of effects but rather provides managers a way to track over time the level of these intentional actions. Monitoring this indicator will provide a way to understand whether managers, as stewards of wilderness, are controlling and manipulating wilderness or practicing restraint to enable a wilderness area to persist in its untrammeled condition.

50 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator was selected because actions taken by managing agencies represent most actions that control or manipulate the community of life in wilderness. The focus on actions rather than authorizations enables managers to track trends in the number of manipulations that actually occurred. Although data are not currently recorded for these actions, information can be gathered from managers and can be assumed to be credible and accurate. This indicator is responsive to change at a wilderness scale, reflected as an increase or decrease in the number of actions reported.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Each of the three measures tracks a different aspect of actions that manipulate wilderness. The first measure tracks the number of management actions, the second measure tracks the percentage of natural fire starts that received a suppression response, and the third measure tracks the number of water bodies stocked with fish. The first measure has four distinct components, and all are considered on a par despite their size, effect, or duration. All four components will be reported separately but will be combined with equal weight to represent this first measure. Different components of fire management are represented within both the first and second measures, ultimately weighting fire more than the other elements of the community of life. This weighting is considered acceptable because of the significant role fire plays as a natural disturbance process in most Forest Service wildernesses.

Two of the measures selected to assess agency actions are directly related to Forest Service policy for wilderness. This policy provides clear management direction related to this indicator and projects that are considered under each measure. A link is provided under each measure in the text of this technical guide to the applicable part of the FSM 2320. These links will be updated as necessary to reflect manual revisions.

The measures for this indicator capture the range of activities or actions that take place across the wilderness system. All these activities are of equal importance in assessing na- tional trends in this untrammeled quality. For example, the introduction of lime to change the chemical composition of a stream may only take place in a handful of wildernesses nationally, but this action represents a significant trammeling where it does occur. This activity is comparable to the introduction of a large mammal species in a different wilder- ness. Viewed together, all such actions provide a representation of trammeling that is taking place nationally. In addition, reporting these actions as separate components of the measure enables further and more detailed analysis at the local, forest, or regional levels.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends of the individual measures will be synthesized to develop an overall trend estimate to provide

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 51 information about the indicator. Table 10 shows possible combinations of trends in the measures and the resulting trend in the indicator of agency actions. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward- pointing arrow).

Table 10.—The trend in the indicator of agency actions is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures. Measure Possible trends in the measure Number of actions to manage vegetation; fish, wildlife,          insects, and disease; soil and water; and fire Percentage of natural fire starts that received a          suppression response Number of water bodies stocked with fish         

Resulting trend in the indicator         

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? Although it is recognized that one action may have a greater effect on the landscape than another (e.g., the suppression of fire compared with radio-collaring of wildlife), the extent of that effect will not be analyzed here. The purpose here is to track human intent to control or manipulate, not to make a judgment on the effect or scale of the action; there- fore, the size and duration of actions will not be considered directly. Species and/or acres affected will be reported for some attributes, enabling further analysis and interpretation at the local level; however, these attributes will not be considered part of the core measure for national reporting.

Management actions are often taken with the intent to improve another quality of wilder- ness character, especially naturalness. This relationship between qualities will be tracked by recording the reason for an action. This association will provide opportunities for further cause-and-effect analysis; however, it is not intended to provide a way to validate actions that may diminish the untrammeled quality of wilderness. The need for all actions should be analyzed through the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide before imple- mentation (USDA Forest Service 2005). In addition, certain actions are allowed under legislative provisions of the Wilderness Act, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, or subsequent wilderness legislation.

4.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Management Actions Number of actions to manage vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and disease; soil and water; and fire.

52 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Why Is This Measure Important? Vegetation, fish and wildlife, insects and disease, soil and water, and fire are critical com- ponents of wilderness ecosystems or the community of life as referenced in the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness in the Wilderness Act. Although Forest Service policy states that the intent of managing wilderness is to enable natural processes to operate freely, these elements are often controlled or manipulated by managers. This measure tracks actions that trammel these components.

What Are the Components of This Measure? This measure includes four components and all are considered equally important: 1. Actions that manage vegetation. 2. Actions that manage fish, wildlife, insects, and disease. 3. Actions that manage soil and water. 4. Actions that manage fire.

Each of these actions in some way controls or manipulates the community of life in wilderness. The assignment of management actions into these components, however, is not straightforward and different people may reasonably assign an action to different com- ponents. For example, the introduction of an insect to biologically control invasive plants could be considered either an action to manage vegetation based on the purpose of the introduction or an action to manage wildlife based on the introduction of a new species into the wilderness.

Local managers should make these assignments based on what makes most sense to them for understanding the long-term trends in actions that trammel the wilderness. The consistency of assigning an action to a component within a wilderness is more important than which component the action is assigned to because trends are only assessed relative to an individual wilderness. The data entry screen will enable users to provide cuff notes describing why an action was assigned to a certain component.

The following examples illustrate possible assignment of many different actions into the four components. 1. Actions that manage vegetation include the following:

• Spraying herbicide to control populations of invasive plants.

• Removal of invasive plants by mechanical means.

• Spreading seed to rehabilitate an area that burned.

• Spreading fertilizer.

• Planting vegetation.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 53 2. Actions that manage fish, wildlife, insects, and disease include the following:

• Introducing biological control agents.

• Manipulating wildlife habitat (e.g., installing guzzlers, creating fish barriers).

• Removing animals (e.g., predators, population sampling).

• Introducing or supplementing animals (e.g., mountain goats).

• Using management-ignited fire to improve forage.

3. Actions that manage soil and water include the following:

• Burned Area Emergency Response projects, including actions that fell trees to reduce soil erosion.

• Diverting water for irrigation.

• Spreading lime to buffer acid deposition.

• Restoration of a mine site.

4. Actions that manage fire include the following:

• Suppressing human-caused fire.

• Mechanical fuel reduction to reduce accumulated fuels.

• Using management-ignited prescribed fire to reduce accumulated fuels.

Under this measure, actions are the “unit of analysis” or the information that is recorded for assessing trends in the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. Every action needs to be entered as a separate record, but what constitutes an action? An “action” is defined for this monitoring as an act or a series of acts that are purposefully taken to manipulate the biophysical environment. Only those actions taken (or authorized) by a State or Federal agency will be tracked. It is important to remember that the purpose of monitoring the untrammeled quality is to track the intentionality of a decision to take an action (i.e., to trammel) rather than track the consequence of that decision.

Different people may define an action differently, so it is critical that explicit notes ac- company data entry to clarify how an action was defined. The importance of these notes cannot be overemphasized if future managers are to have consistent data over time for a given wilderness. Table 11 offers general rules to help the local manager determine how to count the number of actions; exceptions are discussed under specific action categories.

Each of these four components is described under separate headings in the following text along with pertinent FSM references to help determine which actions should be considered under each component. The attributes to be measured are also described for each of these four components.

54 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 11.—General rules for counting and reporting the number of actions for the untrammeled quality. Type of action Example Counting rule Reporting Single action at a single location Spotted knapweed treated in a single Count as one action Report one action location

Single action at multiple Spotted knapweed treated with Tordon® K Count as one action Report one action for the locations in several locations single species regardless of the number of locations

Multiple actions at a single Tordon K is used to treat spotted Count as multiple actions Report one action for each location knapweed and Canada thistle in the same species; e.g., one treatment location on two species = two actions

Multiple actions at multiple Mechanical treatment is used in addition to Count as multiple actions Report one action for each locations herbicides treatment on each species; e.g., two treatments on two species = four actions

Action occurs within in a single Spotted knapweed is treated with Count as one action Report one action fiscal year herbicide between June and July 2007

Action spans multiple fiscal Herbicide treatment initiated in August Count as one action Report as one action in fiscal years without interruption 2007 ends in November 2007 year 2007

Action spans multiple fiscal Herbicide treatment initiated in August Count as multiple actions Report as one action in fiscal years with interruption 2007 ends in November 2007 and is year 2007 and one action in reinitiated in August 2008 fiscal year 2008

Actions that manage vegetation. Policy direction found in FSM 2323.5, Management of Forest Cover, and in FSM 2323.2, Management of Range, clarifies what constitutes an im- portant action. Objectives for the management of vegetation in wilderness are as follows:

•• “2323.51—Objective. Retain the primeval character of the environment, to allow natural processes to operate freely.

•• “2323.21—Objective. Manage wilderness range in a manner that utilizes the forage resource in accordance with established wilderness objectives.” (36 C.F.R. 293.7)

The intent of this component is to record important and trackable actions, such as the con- trol of invasive plants, compared with actions of lesser importance, such as the removal of a single hazard tree or annual logging out of trails. Or, a broad-scale aerial seeding project would be monitored but the sprinkling of seed for campsite rehabilitation would not.

The introduction of insects or other organisms for invasive plant control will not be con- sidered under this component; rather, they will be tracked under actions to manage fish, wildlife, insects, and disease.

The unintended introduction of vegetation (e.g., the spread of nonnative species by human vec- tors) will not be considered here but will be monitored under the natural quality as appropriate. Table 12 describes the attributes for measuring management actions that affect vegetation.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 55 Table 12.—Attributes for measuring vegetation management actions. Attribute Name of action* Type of action—select primary: • Vegetation seeding (with indigenous or nonindigenous seed) • Biological control of plants • Chemical control of plants • Mechanical control of plants • Fertilizing • Vegetation removal (including large-scale seed collecting) • Restoring occurrence/distribution of natural vegetation (including reforestation) • Other (specify) Reason for action—select primary: • Improving natural quality • Improving undeveloped quality • Improving outstanding quality • Improving user safety and convenience • Legislated provision that allows State or other Federal agencies to take actions Requesting agency—select one: • Forest Service • Other Federal agency • State agency • University/private-sector research organization Confidence level that all the actions for this component have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

Actions that manage fish, wildlife, insects, and disease. Policy direction found in FSM 2323.3, Management of Wildlife and Fish, and FSM 2324.1, Management of Insects and Disease, clarifies what constitutes an important action. Additional direction can be found in 2323.3, Management of Wildlife and Fish, as it relates to the management of habitat.

Objectives for the management of fish and wildlife in wilderness are as follows:

•• “2323.31—Objectives.

1. “Provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human actions determine which and what numbers of wildlife species will exist.

2. “Consistent with objective 1, protect wildlife and fish indigenous to the area from human-caused conditions that could lead to Federal listing as threatened or endangered.

3. “Provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previous habitation, of federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats.”

56 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Objectives for the management of insects and disease in wilderness are as follows:

•• “2324.11—Objectives.

1. “To allow indigenous insect and plant diseases to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within wilderness.

2. “To protect the scientific value of observing the effect of insects and diseases on ecosystems and identifying genetically resistant plant species.

3. “To control insect and plant disease epidemics that threaten adjacent lands or resources.”

The intent of this component is to record important and trackable actions, such as the removal of an animal species, compared with actions of lesser importance, such as the removal of an individual animal.

Public hunting, fishing, or trapping will not be considered under this indicator because these are not intentional actions taken by wilderness managers. Untrammeled quality monitoring tracks management actions, not the individual number of animals taken or plants harvested; therefore, only actions taken by agency managers will be tracked under this component. Examples of such agency actions might include special hunts or predator control activities intended to reduce population numbers.

The term “fish and wildlife” should be considered broadly for this component. it includes all animals living in the wilderness, including, for example, amphibians.

The unintended introduction of fish, wildlife, insects, or disease (e.g., the spread by wind of nonindigenous plant species from outside the wilderness) will not be considered here but will be monitored under the natural quality as appropriate. Table 13 describes the at- tributes for measuring management actions that affect fish, wildlife, insects, and disease.

Actions that manage soil and water. Policy direction found in FSM 2323.4, Manage- ment of Soil and Water Resources, and in FSM 2323.72, Management of Minerals and Mineral Materials, clarifies what constitutes an important action. Additional direction can be found in 2323.3, Management of Wildlife and Fish, as it relates to the management of habitat. Objectives for the management of soil and water in wilderness are as follows:

•• “2323.41—Objective. Maintain satisfactory natural watershed condition within wilderness.”

•• “2323.72—Objectives.

1. “To preserve the wilderness environment while allowing activities for the purpose of gathering information about mineral resources.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 57 Table 13.—Attributes for measuring fish, wildlife, insects, and disease management actions. Attribute Name of action* Type of action—select primary: • Reintroduction, introduction, or supplementation of wildlife—check box if indigenous or nonindigenous • Removal of fish or wildlife • Manipulation of fish or wildlife habitat—check box if guzzler, baiting/salting, planting for wildlife, burning for wildlife, seeding for wildlife, or removal or addition of instream structures or barriers for wildlife • Fish or wildlife research, monitoring, or other interference—check box if capturing, netting, or collaring animals; electroshocking fish; installing transmitters in animals or fish; performing sterilization; collecting blood or performing other tissue removal; or performing disease control actions • Biological control of insect or disease • Chemical control of insect or disease • Mechanical control of insect or disease • Other (specify) Reason for action—select primary: • Improving natural quality • Improving undeveloped quality • Improving outstanding quality • Improving user safety and convenience • Legislated provision that allows State or other Federal agencies to take actions Requesting agency—select one: • Forest Service • Other Federal agency • State agency • University/private-sector research organization Confidence level that all the actions for this component have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

2. “To ensure that mineral exploration and development operations conducted in accordance with valid existing rights for federally owned, locatable, and leasable minerals (FSM 2810 and FSM 2820) and for nonfederally owned minerals (FSM 2830) preserving the wilderness resource to the extent possible.

3. “To ensure the restoration of lands disturbed during exploration and development activities as nearly as practicable promptly upon abandonment of operations.”

Policy also states that natural processes shall dominate in wilderness areas. Measures that modify plant cover and treat soil mantles or other activities designed to supplement natural water yield are inappropriate.

The intent of this component is to record important and trackable actions, such as vegeta- tion treatment for a municipal watershed, compared with actions of lesser importance, such as the channeling of water for a trail project. The most common form of weather

58 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character modification is cloud seeding. These activities are not performed by the Forest Service but they are commonly licensed by State agencies.

The treatment of soil can occur in several ways. Soil may be removed for hazardous waste treatment or amendments may be added. Soil treatment of an important scale should be considered as an action and tracked under this component.

Site restoration is a relatively frequent activity in wilderness. It may involve inholdings, mine sites, campsites, or other abandoned sites. Untrammeled quality monitoring is not intended to track the restoration of individual campsites. Rather, the intent is to track larger scale projects in which activities such as recontouring of the landscape take place. A campsite restoration project involving an entire area, such as a lake, basin, or drain- age section, could be judged to be important. The rationale for this judgment should be described in the notes block provided in the Infra-WILD data entry screen.

The intent of reporting new water developments is not to track the development per se (which is monitored under the undeveloped quality as appropriate) but to recognize the trammeling aspect of the development—the action taken to control or manipulate the water. Table 14 describes the attributes for measuring management actions that affect soil and water.

Table 14.—Attributes for measuring soil and water management actions. Attribute Name of action* Type of action—select primary: • Watershed condition improvements • Burned Area Emergency Response • New water developments—check box if dam, spring development, water transmission line, or flood control facility • Removing structures that impede waterflow • Weather modification • Chemical treatment of soil • Chemical treatment of waters • Large-scale manipulation (e.g., mine or dam restoration) • Other (specify) Reason for action—select primary: • Improving natural quality • Improving undeveloped quality • Improving outstanding quality • Improving user safety and convenience • Legislated provision that allows State or other Federal agencies to take actions Requesting agency—select one: • Forest Service • Other Federal agency • State agency • University/private-sector research organization Confidence level that all the actions for this component have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 59 Actions that manage fire. Policy direction found in FSM 2324.2, Management of Fire, clarifies what constitutes an important action. Objectives for the management of fire in wilderness are as follows:

•• “2324.21—Objectives.

1. “Permit lightning-caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within wilderness.

2. “Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire within wilderness or escaping from wilderness.”

The impacts of fire-suppression accumulated fuels are well known and mechanical fuel reduction and management-ignited prescribed fire are used or being considered for many wildernesses to restore a more natural fire regime. These actions, however well intended, are strong manipulations of the ecosystem. Each fire project will be recorded as a separate trammeling action.

The use of management-ignited fire for the purposes of forage improvement is permitted in some cases (see FSM 2323.26b (5)) and is tracked as an action to manipulate wildlife habitat.

Although the historical role humans have played in introducing fire into the landscape is well documented, current Forest Service policy mandates the suppression of all human- caused fire. Although the effects of suppression activities may have greater impacts on the wilderness resource than the fire, the purpose of this monitoring is to record the trammeling actions and not the effects of the action. Each wildfire suppressed—not each suppression action taken—will be recorded as a separate trammeling action. Fire ignitions that are part of a suppression strategy will not be documented as part of this component. Actions taken to suppress natural, lightning-caused fires will be recorded under a separate measure, “percentage of natural fire starts that received a suppression response.” Table 15 describes the attributes for measuring actions related to the management of fire.

60 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 15.—Attributes for measuring fire management actions. Attribute Name of action* Type of action—select primary: • Management-ignited fire • Mechanical fuel reductions • Wildfire suppression Reason for action—select primary: • Improving natural quality • Improving undeveloped quality • Improving outstanding quality • Suppression of human-caused fire • Reduction of fire hazard to protect socioeconomic values outside wilderness • Improving forage • Legislated provision that allows State or other Federal agencies to take actions Confidence level that all the actions for this component have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Field data stewards will be responsible for entering all the data on actions into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. Secondary data sources may vary depending on the component and the data being collected.

• Actions that manage vegetation. The secondary resource would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities or the forest botanist, ecologist, or range specialist. Some forests may have available data on invasive plant control in the Natural Resource Information System database. Although it is not reliable at the current time, this data source should improve in the future. All pesticide use requires approval of a Pesticide Use Proposal from the respective regional office. Regional wilderness specialists are a data source for these data.

• Actions that manage fish, wildlife, insects, and disease. The secondary resource would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities.

• Actions that manage soil and water. The secondary resource would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities or the forest hydrologist. The availability of data on weather modification varies by State; however, some information, including maps, is available on the Internet, and data may become more available in the future. Spatial overlays of wilderness boundaries on these maps may provide data regarding weather modification activities.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 61 • Actions that manage fire. The secondary resource would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities or the forest fire management officer.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected and input annually at the wilderness level and assessed every 5 years at the national level.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. These data are currently unavailable, and local managers will need to report these new data through Infra-WILD.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. This measure does not include temporal or spatial subsets. Data gaps will be minimized by identifying a local lead data steward, providing funding, and requiring timely data entry. Communication with other resource programs is critical to minimize data gaps.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be assessed by the attribute about the data stewards’ level of confidence that all actions have been captured for each component: high, moderate, or low. Data quality is not relevant for this measure and will not be assessed.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Data reported in Infra-WILD will be extracted for the particular wilderness along with the attributes of interest. The number of actions recorded in each of the four components of this measure will be counted and tallied as “actions.” As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, because these data will be collected yearly, regression analysis will be used to identify if the trend in the number of actions over the 5-year monitoring cycle is significantly increasing, stable, or decreasing (see appendix B for details on this analysis).

A narrative block will be provided for managers to make comments about individual at- tributes and to identify other important actions that may be occurring in their wilderness.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Scale is important when tracking actions related to this measure. This monitoring focuses on agency actions that represent larger scale, more important manipulations of populations, communities, and disturbance processes rather than smaller scale, localized manipulations. The structure of this monitoring protocol enables local managers to make the determination as to what is important for their wilderness. As long as that determina- tion is made consistently within each wilderness, some variation across wildernesses is acceptable. To improve consistency over time within a wilderness, a “notes” text block

62 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character is provided for the wilderness manager to document the rationale used to determine importance.

Actions to be tracked include those taken by area managers as well as those taken by managers of other agencies, such as State fish and game agencies. Only those actions that take place after wilderness designation and are initiated within the congressionally designated boundaries of wilderness will be tracked in this monitoring effort. Although potentially important on a local scale, unauthorized or illegal actions will not be tracked under this indicator for several reasons: data are not considered reliable or consistent na- tionally, and trends may reflect the amount of effort extended to track such actions rather than the actual number of illegal actions. Wilderness units may want to consider collecting information on unauthorized or illegal actions locally.

This measure will not represent a subjective judgment of the value of each action (e.g., does one action “trammel” more or less than another?) or the effects of that trammeling. Actions clearly vary in significance; however, it is neither practical nor reasonable to try to apply a value beyond an equal weight to various actions.

4.2.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Fires Suppressed Percentage of lightning-caused fires that are suppressed.

Why Is This Measure Important? Policy direction for the management of fire in wilderness found in FSM 2324.2, Manage- ment of Fire, clarifies what constitutes an important action. Objectives are as follows:

•• “2324.21— Objectives.

1. “Permit lightning-caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within wilderness.

2. “Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire within wilderness or escaping from wilderness.”

Fire is a critical agent of change in many wilderness ecosystems and an important component of the community of life as referenced in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. In contrast to human-caused fire, Forest Service policy allows lightning-caused fire to play its natural role in wilderness. Nevertheless, the suppression of lightning-caused fire is allowed by the Wilderness Act and subsequent policy for many reasons, including threat to life and property, and lightning-caused fire is commonly controlled or manipulated by managers. By tracking the percentage of lightning-caused fires that are suppressed, this measure shows the level of restraint in management and a willingness to allow fire to play its natural role in wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 63 What Are the Attributes of This Measure? This measure records the percentage of lightning-caused fires that are suppressed. In this measure, the term “suppressed” means the intention to suppress a lightning-caused fire with the full range of tactical options for suppression, including the use of confinement strategies. Because policies and guidelines for managing fire are complex and changing, the protocol described here will apply to a broad range of situations but not all. For those situations in which the protocol does not fit, local flexibility is acceptable because trends are assessed only relative to the wilderness. In these situations, local consistency over time is more important than adhering to an arbitrary standard, and detailed records should be entered into the appropriate notes section in the Infra-WILD application to ensure this consistency.

In reality, the range of fire-suppression strategies and tactics is huge. For example, a lightning-caused fire in an area not under any fire management plan would by default be categorized as a wildfire and suppressed, but, if firefighting resources are unavailable, the fire may in fact not receive any management action other than monitoring. Conversely, a variety of management actions, such as dropping water or building handline, may be used in a wildland fire use (WFU) fire (USDA/DOI 2005) to reduce risks to an inholding or structure or meet other management objectives.

Rather than try to make rules to account for this variety of situations and potential management responses (an impossible task), this monitoring takes a coarser approach based on the intent behind the categorization of a lightning-caused fire. Three different suppression situations will be tracked in this monitoring.

1. If an area (fire management unit) is not under an approved fire management plan that authorizes WFU, policy requires that all lightning-caused fires will be suppressed; therefore, they will be counted as suppressed in this monitoring.

2. If an area is under a fire management plan that does authorize WFU and the Stage I Wildland Fire Implementation Plan decision was to suppress the fire, it is counted as suppressed in this monitoring.

3. If the Stage I decision was to manage the fire as WFU but later this fire was converted to a wildfire with the intent to suppress it, the fire is counted as suppressed in this monitoring.

What is less clear is the situation described previously in which management actions are taken on a WFU fire to reduce specific risks. For this monitoring, as long as the fire management objective remains WFU (i.e., to allow lightning-caused fire to play as near a natural role as possible), the fire is not counted as suppressed even though more intensive

64 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character management actions may have been used. Table 16 describes the attributes for measuring actions related to the suppression of naturally ignited fires.

Table 16.—Attributes for measuring actions to suppress naturally ignited fires. Attribute Number of lightning-caused fires* Number of lightning-caused fires that were suppressed* Confidence level that all the records for this measure have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Field data stewards will be responsible for entering all the data on actions into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. The secondary data source would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities or the forest fire management officer. Consideration is being given to the development of a tracking system for these data within the Forest Service firetracking database. At this time, however, reporting this information is not required and data availability varies considerably among forests. Close coordination with local dispatch offices may facilitate the tracking and reporting of these data.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be input annually.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. This information is currently unavailable. This measure tracks activities on an annual basis. New data will need to be generated by local managers and reported annually through Infra-WILD.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. This measure does not include temporal or spatial subsets. Data gaps will be minimized by identifying a local lead data steward, providing funding, and requiring timely data entry. Communication with other resource programs is critical for minimizing data gaps.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be assessed by the attribute about the data stewards’ level of confidence that all actions have been captured for each component: high, moderate, or low. Data quality is not relevant for this measure and will not be assessed.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 65 How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? The percentage of lightning-caused fires that were suppressed will be calculated by add- ing together the number of fires not covered under a fire management plan, the number of fires that received a “no go” decision, and the number of WFU fires that were later converted to wildfire. The percentage of lighting-caused fires that were suppressed will be calculated by dividing the total number of suppressed fires by the total number of lightning-caused fires during the year.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, because these data will be collected yearly, regression analysis will be used to identify if the trend in the number of actions over the 5-year monitoring cycle is significantly increasing, stable, or decreasing.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Tracking the percentage of lightning-caused fires that were suppressed provides only a portion of the information needed to understand what types of trammeling take place within a wilderness. This information does not provide the manager with an understand- ing of the rationale behind fire suppressions; however, the wildland fire implementation plan does require documentation of this rationale and it is recommended that units track this information locally for improved management decisions at that level.

Manual direction should be referenced for further information on the management of fire (FSM 2323.04 and 2324.04).

4.2.1.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Fish Stocking Number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish.

Why Is This Measure Important? Stocking fish is typically conducted to create or enhance recreational fishing opportunities and, more recently, to restore native fish species. Despite these positive reasons, stocking fish, both indigenous and nonindigenous species, significantly affects aquatic systems in- side wilderness (Knapp and others 2001) and is a significant trammeling. For two reasons, this measure is monitored separately from the other actions that manage fish and wildlife populations. First, in wildernesses that have many lakes, the number of lakes stocked each year would completely swamp any trends in other actions taken to manage fish and wildlife populations. Second, it is important to track the effect State fish and game stock- ing programs have on wilderness character.

66 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character What Are the Attributes of This Measure? The total number of lakes and other water bodies such as ponds and streams within the wilderness that are stocked with either indigenous or nonindigenous fish in a given fiscal year is recorded. For example, if 322 lakes are stocked during the fiscal year, that is the number that is recorded. The percentage of lakes stocked within the wilderness was con- sidered for this measure, but, because the total number of lakes within the wilderness does not change, it is just as accurate to record the number of lakes stocked. For local purposes, wilderness managers may be interested in the percentage of lakes stocked within the wil- derness and it would be easy to calculate this percentage. Table 17 describes the attributes for measuring the number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish.

Table 17.—The attribute for measuring the number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish. Attribute Number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish* Source of data—select all that apply: • State agency records • District and forest records • Internet resources • Personal observation • Other (specify) Confidence level that all the records for this measure have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Field data stewards will be responsible for entering the number of stocked lakes and other water bodies into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. In most cases, this information will come from the staff fisheries biologist or wildlife biologist. The staff biologist may need to contact the appropriate State department for this information. The availability of stocking records varies from State to State, as does the relationship between Federal and State biologists, so a variety of information sources, such as State records, State fisheries, wildlife biologists, and/or private angling groups, may need to be consulted to acquire these data.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected annually at the wilderness level and assessed every 5 years at the national level. Fish stocking typically occurs on a 3- to 5-year rotational sequence, and the 5-year assessment period of this wilderness character monitoring should accommodate this range.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 67 How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. All wildernesses that have fish stocking programs should have these data or at least access to these data from the State fish and game department that generally maintains complete records on all lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Close communication between the Federal and State biologists will be needed to address any data gaps.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be assessed by the attribute about the data stewards’ level of confidence that all records have been captured for this measure: high, moderate, or low. Data quality will be assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: high data quality would be from records acquired from State agency; moderate data quality would be from district and forest records, Internet resources, or personal observation; and low data quality would be from observation from others.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? The data do not need to be processed because the total number of lakes or other water bodies stocked with fish will be reported.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, because these data will be collected yearly, regression analysis will be used to identify if the trend in the number of lakes and other water bodies stocked over the 5-year monitoring cycle is significantly increasing, stable, or decreasing.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? For several reasons, this measure may not fully assess the number of lakes and other water bodies that have been stocked. First, some lakes that had been stocked in the past now might have self-sustaining fish populations and are not currently being stocked. Second, private angling groups continue to stock fish and some of these actions would be difficult or impossible to monitor. Third, stocking typically occurs by dropping fish from helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, and sometimes a lake may be stocked that was not supposed to be and a lake that was supposed to be stocked may not be. Fourth, a lack of communication between the State fish and game department and the local Forest Service staff biologist may result in not identifying some lakes or other water bodies in wilderness as being stocked.

This measure monitors only the direct stocking action and not the effects of these actions on the lake or other water body. For example, past stocking actions may have significantly

68 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character affected lake biota long after the actions have stopped, but these long-term effects are not monitored under the natural quality because of the lack of capability to monitor such effects.

This measure does not distinguish between the stocking of indigenous versus nonindige- nous species because the act of stocking directly degrades the untrammeled quality. In this case, the species of fish is not directly related to the impact on the untrammeled quality.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 69 70 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 5. Natural Quality

5.0. Summary

Table 18 provides a summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, and measures for the natural quality.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 intended that ecological systems inside wilderness—the community of life in all its varied composition, structure, and function—be free from the effects of “an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization.” This natural quality of wilderness character strives to monitor the effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness. Although the untrammeled and natural qualities of wilderness character often are combined, they address distinctly different and important aspects of wilderness character (Landres and others 2005). The untrammeled quality monitors the actions that manipulate or control wilderness ecological systems, thereby tracking a vital symbolic ideal of wilderness character, while the natural quality tracks the effects of these and other actions on the community of life in wilderness.

Table 18.—A summary of the indicators and measures monitored in the natural quality. Quality of Monitoring Indicator Measure wilderness question Natural—wilderness What are the trends Pollutants that degrade air quality Ozone exposure statistic N100—episodic ozone ecological systems in human threats to and air-quality–related values such concentrations affecting sensitive plants are substantially free natural conditions? as plants, animals, soil, and water from the effects of Ozone exposure statistic W126—chronic ozone modern civilization concentrations affecting sensitive plants Concentration of sulfur in wet deposition

Concentration of nitrogen in wet deposition

Developments that degrade the Number of dams inside wilderness free-flowing condition of rivers and streams

Nonindigenous species that alter Percentage of wilderness acres (in categories) with the composition of natural plant invasive plant species that are not indigenous to the and animal communities wilderness

Number of nonplant species (e.g., stocked fish, livestock, invertebrates, fungi, or pathogens) of concern that are not indigenous to the wilderness

Number of acres of grazing allotments with authorized use

What are the Visual air quality Average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate trends in selected biophysical Average deciview conditions and Indigenous ecosystems, plant Number of indigenous plant and animal species that processes sensitive communities, and plant and animal have been extirpated to human threats? species that have been extirpated

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 71 The natural quality is divided into two monitoring questions. The first monitoring ques- tion asks about the trends of selected human-caused threats to ecological systems inside wilderness. Threats are important to monitor because they are known to be direct and significant threats to the composition, structure, and functioning of ecological systems in wilderness. In addition, in many cases, threats are easier and more reliably monitored than their myriad and sometimes subtle effects.

The second monitoring question asks about the trends of selected biophysical conditions and processes that are sensitive to human-caused threats. Ultimately, trends in these con- ditions and processes are what matter most to preserving the natural quality of wilderness character. Despite this focus, our present state of monitoring and understanding is gener- ally very poor with regard to ecological systems in large, remote areas; the indicators were chosen because they represent important aspects of ecological systems and data are available for them.

Many other indicators were identified for both monitoring questions, but the data are not yet available or the indicators were dropped for a variety of other practical and conceptual concerns (see appendixes C and D for desired and dropped indicators, respectively). Although the limitations of the indicators to be monitored are clearly recognized and discussed in the following text, as a set, these indicators are considered barely adequate at this time for monitoring the natural quality of wilderness character.

5.1. Introduction

Designated wilderness, the most protected of all land management designations in the United States, has always been associated with protecting and preserving ecological systems from the impacts of modern people (Sutter 2004). Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” In other words, wilderness ecological systems are to be substantially free from the adverse ecological effects of modern civilization. Although the untrammeled quality monitors the actions managers take, this natural quality monitors the intended and unintended effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness. Ideally, these effects would be monitored from the time the area was designated as wilderness. The national Framework (Landres and others 2005) provides a detailed discussion of the goals and concerns for monitoring this natural quality.

No new field data will be collected for monitoring this natural quality of wilderness character. Instead, existing data are used that fit the conceptual model of the natural quality of wilderness character described in the national Framework. Data from a variety of sources will be used, including the Forest Service Infrastructure (Infra) database and

72 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), national air-quality data stored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and interagency data stored on university Web sites, data stored by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and State-level data from State natural heritage programs and conservation data centers.

Trend in the natural quality will be assessed by synthesizing information from the indicators and the monitoring questions using the decision rules described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character.

5.2. Monitoring Question 1—Human Threats

What are the trends of human threats to natural conditions?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? This monitoring question focuses management attention on selected human-caused threats that affect or alter ecological systems inside wilderness. Whereas ecological systems are very complex and highly variable, and therefore difficult to monitor, threats generally are easier and more reliably monitored. In this case, threats are monitored as a surrogate for the variety of complex effects they likely have on the ecological systems inside wilder- ness. In addition, monitoring selected human-caused threats gives managers important information they may use to directly modify policies and practices to improve the natural quality of wilderness character. The greater the number of threats, the greater the adverse impact on the natural quality of wilderness character.

A wide range of human-caused threats affects wilderness ecosystems. These threats include management actions (e.g., the effects of suppressing natural fire ignitions); regional-scale threats that cross into a wilderness without regard to the wilderness boundary (e.g., air pollutants and nonnative invasive species); and global threats such as global climate change. This monitoring question addresses only selected threats that are known to or are likely to adversely affect the natural quality of wilderness character in at least 50 percent of Forest Service wildernesses and have credible data to assess trends over time within a wilderness.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? The indicators were chosen because they are known to be direct and significant threats to the composition, structure, and functioning of ecological systems in wilderness. Many threat indicators were considered but deemed unacceptable for a variety of reasons (see appendixes B, C, and D). Of all the different threats to wilderness, three were chosen as indicators because of their broad impacts on ecological systems and because data gener- ally are available for them.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 73 1. Pollutants that degrade air quality and air-quality–related values (AQRVs).

2. Developments that degrade the free-flowing conditions of rivers and streams.

3. Nonindigenous species that alter the composition of natural plant and animal communities.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends of the indi- vidual indicators will be synthesized to develop an overall trend estimate to answer this monitoring question. Table 19 shows possible combinations of trends in the indicators and the resulting trend to answer the monitoring question about human threats to natural con- ditions in the natural quality of wilderness character. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

Table 19.—The trend in the monitoring question about human threats is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators. Indicator Possible trends in the indicator Pollutants that degrade air quality         Developments that degrade rivers        

Nonnative species        

Resulting trend in the monitoring question        

What Are the Cautions About This Question? The term “threat” is clearly value laden because what is considered a threat in one place may not be considered a threat in a different place. In this technical guide, only threats that apply to at least 50 percent of Forest Service wildernesses nationwide are considered. In addition, many natural “agents of change” exist that may threaten certain natural condi- tions and processes in wilderness (e.g., a natural fire that threatens to eliminate the last stand of old-growth trees). In this technical guide, however, only human-caused threats are considered.

The three indicators chosen for use in this monitoring are not the full set of human-caused threats to ecological systems inside wilderness. The practical constraints of national ap- plicability, local relevance, and data availability resulted in using just these three threats. Users of this monitoring information should recognize that other threats may be more important to a local wilderness. In addition, the measure(s) for each of these indicators similarly reflect the same practical constraints, so trends in each indicator also need to be interpreted with caution because other (especially site-specific) measures may yield a dif- ferent result than the ones used in this monitoring protocol. Specific concerns about each of the indictors are discussed under the appropriate section for each indicator.

74 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 5.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Air Pollutants Pollutants that degrade air quality and air-quality–related values such as plants, animals, soil, and water.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Air quality and AQRVs, such as plants, animals, soil, and water, can be degraded by air pollution. The term ”air-quality–related value” and the unique AQRV protection responsibilities Federal land managers have within Class I areas originated in the Clean Air Amendments of 1977; the Forest Service has an affirmative responsibility to manage air pollutants in these areas. In the context of this technical guide, air pollution effects on plants, animal, soils, and water are important in any of the 407 wilderness areas regardless of whether the Clean Air Act designation of the wilderness is Class I or Class II.

By monitoring this indicator, wilderness and air-quality managers can track the status and trends in certain pollutants and then draw conclusions as to the likely effects of those pol- lutants on the natural condition of wilderness. Then, working with air-quality scientists, regulators, industry, and the public, Forest Service managers can present an effective case for reducing pollution emissions where current pollution levels or trends are affecting the natural condition of wilderness.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? Some forms of pollution are routinely measured across the country through a variety of large networks, sometimes in the immediate vicinity of wildernesses and sometimes in representative sites. The use of representative sites and networks enables air-quality mod- elers to provide broad estimates of pollution levels in cases in which onsite monitoring is not possible or feasible. Pollutant levels are a very feasible indicator given the combina- tion of data from numerous monitoring sites and carefully modeled values generated for wildernesses without nearby monitors. Whether monitored or modeled, pollutant levels generally are tracked as part of interagency networks, with rigorous and standardized methods of data collection, quality assurance, and interpretation ensuring a high degree of credibility of the information obtained.

Monitoring air pollution is vital because air pollution can affect virtually all aspects of the natural condition of wilderness (e.g., species composition, water chemistry, fire frequency, and soil fertility). Other indicators considered and rejected are discussed in appendix E.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Two statistics produced from ozone monitoring data, N100 and W126 (explained in the first and second measures in the following text), and wet deposition concentrations of

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 75 sulfur and nitrogen have been selected as core measures for assessing air pollution im- pacts on the natural condition of wilderness. These measures provide direct information about the levels of three of the major pollutants affecting sensitive plants, water, soils, and animals in wilderness across the country.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends in the indi- vidual measures will be synthesized to develop an overall estimate of the trend in this in- dicator. Table 20 shows possible combinations of trends in the measures and the resulting trend in this indicator. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

Table 20.—The trend in the indicator of pollutants that degrade air quality is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures. Measure Possible trends in the measure Ozone N100           Ozone W126           Sulfur wet deposition           Nitrogen wet deposition          

Resulting trend in the indicator          

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? By monitoring concentrations of pollutants rather than the impacts of those pollutants, it is difficult to make definitive statements about the actual effect of the pollutant on the natural condition of a given wilderness. For example, by monitoring the concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in wet deposition, we know that both elements contribute to the acidification of water and soils in a wilderness, but we cannot actually quantify the degree of acidification that might occur in any given wilderness without additional information such as bedrock geology, meteorology, and soil survey results.

A strong caution for the measures of the concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in wet depo- sition is that, although the concentration gives an excellent indication of temporal trends in pollutants, it can lead to a gross underestimation of the overall deposition of these pollutants. Atmospheric deposition occurs both during precipitation events (captured in wet deposition measurements) and at all other times, in dry or fog/cloud deposition. In many areas, especially in dry areas such as the Southwest, dry deposition may provide a much greater portion of atmospheric deposition than wet deposition, so using only wet deposition measurements can produce a gross underestimation of total deposition. Un- fortunately, deposition other than wet deposition is monitored in relatively few locations and cannot be used to provide estimates across the country, and its contribution to total atmospheric deposition varies widely because of differing precipitation levels.

76 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character The other major problem with tracking the concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in deposi- tion is that deposition is a function of both concentration and precipitation. A wilderness area may have a relatively low concentration of pollutants but a high level of precipitation, so the impact on the wilderness may be large even though the air is relatively clean. This scenario is especially true at upper elevations where precipitation levels are high. Yearly variations in precipitation make it difficult to determine trends in deposition; therefore, monitoring concentration provides a much better method of tracking temporal trends. The manager must use caution in interpreting these numbers because the total deposition is what determines the impacts on the wilderness resources.

In addition, because these measures will use extrapolated data for many wildernesses, managers should be cautious in how the measures are used; the pollutant levels are being modeled rather than measured at that particular wilderness.

The measures chosen (sulfur and nitrogen deposition and the ozone statistics) are by no means inclusive; many other pollutants can harm the natural condition of wilderness resources. For example, the issue of mercury deposition and its impacts on aquatic fish and wildlife is becoming more and more prominent. Unfortunately, mercury monitoring data are currently insufficient to include in this technical guide. Mercury, particulate matter, and carbon mon- oxide all are significant pollutants of concern but were rejected for this effort for a variety of reasons. Other indicators considered and rejected are discussed in appendix E.

5.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Ozone N100 Ozone exposure statistic N100—episodic ozone concentrations affecting sensitive plants.

Why Is This Measure Important? Ozone is the principal component of urban smog; however, ozone and its precursor

emissions—nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—can travel long distances, resulting in elevated ozone levels in wildernesses. Unlike most pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly from smokestacks or motor vehicles. Emissions of NOx and VOCs from these pollution sources react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone, which is one of the most phytotoxic air pollutants and causes considerable damage to vegetation throughout the world. Many native plants in natural ecosystems are reported to be sensi- tive to ozone. The effects of ozone range from visible injury to the leaves and needles of deciduous trees and conifers to premature leaf loss, reduced photosynthesis, and reduced growth in sensitive plant species.

Tracking trends in ozone concentration and exposure provides an indication of how air pollution may be affecting plants in wildernesses. The amount of ozone measured with an

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 77 ozone monitor is the concentration in the atmosphere; however, the amount of ozone that enters the leaf, called “dose,” depends on whether the plant’s stomata are open, which, in turn, depends on atmospheric conditions. The effective dose is the amount of ozone that enters the leaf during the growing season and has an impact on physiological processes or causes cell death.

The potential effects of ozone concentration on wilderness character will be described in this assessment using two vegetation exposure statistics termed N100 and W126. The N100 statistic is the number of hours accumulated when the measured ozone concentra- tion is greater than or equal to 100 parts per billion (ppb). Experimental trials have shown greater vegetation growth loss under conditions with ozone peaks of more than 100 ppb than under conditions without those peaks. The second statistic is the seasonal ozone exposure metric called “W126,” which summarizes the chronic ozone exposure of vegetation over the entire growing season. The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) has produced standardized guidelines for air-quality measures. FLAG recommends using both N100 and W126 together in interpreting ozone data because each statistic addresses different environmental conditions that potentially affect different sensitive plant species. Therefore, both metrics will be used in this assess- ment. An increase in N100 or W126 indicates an increase in the threat or impact of ozone on wilderness ecosystems.

Spatial extrapolations of the available ozone monitoring data for W126 and N100 have been developed for the lower 48 States. The spatial analysis used interpolates data from a known set of sample points to a continuous surface.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Ambient ozone monitoring data will be obtained to calculate W126 and N100. The results from a specific monitoring site will be used if the monitor is located within 25 mi of a wilderness; otherwise, ozone monitoring data within a region will be used to spatially extrapolate W126 and N100 across the landscape to provide estimates for a particular wilderness. N100 and W126 are annually derived statistics; one value will be generated for each wilderness for each year. Table 21 describes the attributes for measuring ozone N100.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The first-choice data for calculating the W126 and N100 metrics are from ambient monitoring of ground- level ozone. This monitoring occurs within and outside forest boundaries and a variety of locations nationwide. Hourly average ozone data are obtained by the air regulatory agencies and are stored in EPA’s database, Aerometric Information

78 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 21.—Attributes for measuring ozone N100. Attribute Ozone N100 ambient concentration* Source of data—select one: • EPA AIRS • CASTNET • Spatial interpolation Year of data Station number (optional) Distance to station (optional) * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. AIRS = Aerometric Information Retrieval System. CASTNET = Clean Air Status and Trends Network. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency.

Retrieval System. Typically, a contractor is hired to retrieve the data, perform a final quality assurance check, and format the data.

Any data obtained by the Forest Service are accessed at http://216.48.37.155/ calculator/ozone_state_years.htm. All Forest Service data should be stored at this site. These data should be used to represent each wilderness where monitoring stations are located within 25 mi of the wilderness boundary.

A wilderness located more than 25 mi from an ambient monitoring site should use the estimates of the ozone statistics performed by spatial analysis available at http://216.48.37.155/ozone/spatial/. Typically, the spatial analysis is provided for a 0.5-degree-latitude-x-0.5-degree-longitude grid for the lower 48 States. Only monitoring sites with greater than 75-percent data capture for each month from April through September are included in the analysis. Interpolation techniques are used to estimate the statistics as if the analysis included 100-percent data capture for each monitoring site. The results provide W126 and N100 estimates for each grid cell and the associated 95-percent confidence interval. Multiple grid cells within a wilderness should be averaged to develop a single W126 and N100 metric for each wilderness.

Each year, the selection of a representative monitoring site or, alternatively, the use of spatially interpolated data, should be confirmed with the zone or regional air- quality specialist or manager. Monitoring networks close and add sites periodically and the air-quality specialist/manager will be aware of any changes. In addition, local pollution sources and meteorology may influence the choice of sites located more than a short distance from the wilderness boundary.

•• Frequency of data collection. Monitoring occurs hourly and is accumulated annually. Data for a specific year (such as 2004) are not available until May of the

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 79 following year (2005, in this example). Typically, a 6-month delay occurs in the availability of data from a specific monitoring site, and a 12- to 18-month delay occurs in the availability of data that need to be spatially extrapolated.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. All wildernesses in the lower 48 States are covered either by local monitoring or by spatial extrapolation.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Spatial extrapolations of the available ozone monitoring data have been developed for the lower 48 States; the extrapolations address most spatial gaps. Wildernesses in Alaska can use ozone data from the Pacific Northwest, which are expected to be reasonably representative of background ozone values in Alaska. Where significant temporal gaps exist in local monitoring data, the extrapolated data covering that area could be used.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from a national data collection program that has been rigorously tested and refined over a long period time, and no other data exist that could be collected; therefore, data quantity is complete. Data quality is assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: EPA and Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) data are of high quality, and spatial interpolation is of moderate quality.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Hourly ozone monitoring data obtained by the Forest Service need to be formatted (in ASCII) to be compatible with the Ozone Calculator. The location of available monitoring data can be found at http://fhpr8.srs.fs.fed.us/ozone/ozone.html and the hourly average data are found at http://216.48.37.155/calculator/ozone_state_years.htm.

The results from the spatial analysis for wildernesses where no monitoring site within 25 mi exists are stored as raster files compatible with ArcMap® at http://216.48.37.155/ ozone/spatial/.

Data analysis methods are described for using the two approaches: (1) site-specific ozone data, and (2) spatially extrapolated ozone data.

No processing will be required if the hourly average data are downloaded from the Forest Service’s national Web site (http://216.48.37.155/calculator/intro.htm) or if the spatial analysis has been completed (http://216.48.7.155/ozone/spatial).

80 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Site specific. Site-specific analysis is performed using the Ozone Calculator, which will calculate the ozone statistics (Summary Statistics button). (The software and instructions can be downloaded at http:/216.48.37.155/calculator/calculator.htm.) A site is considered to have sufficient data capture when the value is 75 percent or greater for the months of April through September. Ten years of data should be used to assess trends in ozone exposures. Calculations of the number of times the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (0.085 parts per million [ppm]) are exceeded may also be desirable to give an indication of the health risks for wilderness visitors.

The Ozone Calculator can generate a report containing ancillary data that will be helpful for interpreting trends in the ozone statistics. The report should note whether any particu- lar year was abnormally hot and dry or cool and rainy. The report should also present the following information:

•• Whether the average ozone concentration for each hour of the day is showing a diurnal pattern (indicating urban influence).

•• A comparison of the ozone frequency distribution for the wilderness of interest with the San Bernardino Mountains in California (a forested site with the highest ozone exposures in the United States) and Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming (a forested site that has one of the lowest ozone exposures in the United States). Both the 1988 San Bernardino Mountains and Yellowstone National Park data are included with the Ozone Calculator and will be installed on the user’s computer.

•• The report may also include the number of days the 8-hour average ozone concentration was greater than or equal to 0.085 ppm (the national health standard for ozone) and at what hour(s) of day the greatest 8-hour averages occurred.

Spatial extrapolation. For each wilderness, an analysis can be performed using the Zonal Statistics option in Spatial Analyst®. The spatial data layers needed for the analysis include the following: •• Wilderness boundary (polygon). •• N100 (raster). •• N100 95-percent confidence interval (raster).

To conduct such a comparative analysis, the wilderness is selected using ArcMap. Then, for each year for which spatial analysis results exist, the Zonal Statistics option in Spatial Analyst will compute the average N100 values and the average 95-percent confidence interval for the exposure statistic. These results can be presented in tabular or graphical results. The ultimate goal is to have 10 years of data to describe the trends in ozone exposures the wilderness is receiving. Most eastern wildernesses will be located in only

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 81 one grid (raster) cell. In cases in which a wilderness area covers more than one cell, the results should be averaged to give one value for the wilderness.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, significant change in this measure will be assessed using regression analysis at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Hourly ozone concentrations vary across the landscape and usually are greater near large metropolitan areas compared with rural areas (fig. 5). Most of the ozone monitoring in the United States is conducted where a large number of people exists, but the number of rural monitoring sites has increased in the past 10 years. Many of the rural ozone monitoring sites were established because the area was suspected to have ozone levels that were unhealthy for people or was near a Class I area. Numerous wildernesses, especially in the western United States, are more than 25 mi away from the nearest ozone monitoring site, so extrapolated data will have to be used for those areas.

Figure 5.—Hourly differences in average ozone in two areas. Bent Creek shows a diurnal pattern typical of either low-elevation or urban sites. Shining Rock shows a linear pattern typical of either rural or high-elevation sites.

ppm = parts per million.

82 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Ozone exposures also vary by elevation. Lower elevation sites (lower than 3,500 ft, such as Bent Creek in figure 5) and those near urban areas have a diurnal pattern in the average ozone exposure for each hour of the day. Rural high-elevation or exposed ridgetops (such as Shining Rock in figure 5) have a flat pattern for the average ozone concentration for each hour of the day. Therefore, the cumulative ozone exposure is greater for high-elevation sites compared with many low-elevation sites. A wilderness with a wide range in elevation and topography (complex terrain) will have varying ozone exposures; however, if differing ozone statistics for the wilderness exist, they will be averaged.

Ozone exposures also differ among years because meteorological conditions can vary

from one year to the next. Ozone is formed when NOx and VOCs combine on warm, sunny days. Yearly changes in meteorological conditions will have an influence on the amount of the two primary pollutants released into the atmosphere and on whether atmo- spheric conditions are favorable for the formation of ground-level ozone. Trends data can be assessed when 5 years of data are available; however, accumulation of at least 10 years of data is preferable. For many sites, this assessment can be done immediately, because many years of past data are available.

Data capture rates also vary among sites and years. Although many sites achieve a 90- percent or greater data capture of the hourly averages, data can be missing occasionally if the equipment fails because of mechanical malfunction or loss of electrical power or if the building temperature falls outside what is recommended in the protocols.

The statistics chosen show the frequency and timing of levels of ozone in the atmosphere likely to affect the growth and health of sensitive plants. It is assumed that sites with higher ozone exposures are more likely to have an impact on the wilderness resource values than sites (or years) with lower ozone exposures. Caution should be used when discussing the trend in ozone exposures if fewer than 10 years of data are available. Growth losses due to ozone are likely to be minimal during periods of drought, even though exposures may be higher, because the stomates are likely to be closed.

The use of the results from a single monitor is always problematic depending on the distance of the monitor from the wilderness and on the elevation of the monitoring site. Wilderness locations above or below the monitoring site will probably have higher or lower ozone levels, respectively, than those at the monitoring site. Spatial extrapolation techniques, such as such as that used for this process, do not take elevation or landform features into consideration. The statistical techniques average the results of a number of monitors that are closest to the area (raster cell) of prediction. This practice has a tendency to “smooth” the data. For example, these results will typically overestimate ozone expo- sures when compared with monitoring results with a low value. Conversely, estimated

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 83 ozone exposures are lower when compared with sites in which the monitor measured a high ozone exposure.

To estimate direct impacts on vegetation, the Ozone Calculator provides estimates of bio- mass reductions for some species (mainly eastern) based on the ozone exposure statistics. Further research needs to be conducted on more vegetation species found in wildernesses throughout the United States. Research needs to focus on estimating the amount of bio- mass reduction compared with the effective dose of ozone. Effective dose estimates also must be presented in such a way as to relate back to hourly ozone concentrations. Relating back to ambient concentration will be essential when working with air-quality regulators to develop control strategies to protect sensitive vegetation from harmful effects of ozone.

5.2.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Ozone W126 Ozone exposure statistic W126—chronic ozone concentrations affecting sensitive plants.

Why Is This Measure Important? As mentioned in the previous section, both the N100 and W126 ozone exposure statistics need to be tracked to monitor ozone effects on an environment. N100 tracks peaks in exposure; W126 summarizes exposure over the growing season. The W126 metric was developed as a biologically meaningful way to summarize hourly average ozone data. The W126 metric places a greater weight on the measured values as the concentrations increase. Thus, it is possible for a high W126 value to occur with few to no hours above 0.100 ppm. Therefore, it is necessary to look at both statistics when estimating ozone impacts on vegetation. Because some plant species will be more affected by peaks in ozone concentration and others will be more affected by chronic exposure over the grow- ing season, both statistics are useful in assessing the range of ozone impacts to natural conditions of wilderness.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 22 describes attributes for measuring ozone W126.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. See the previous measure, ozone exposure statistic N100, for data collection sources.

•• Frequency of data collection. See the previous measure, ozone exposure statistic N100, for data collection sources.

84 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 22.—Attributes for measuring ozone W126. Attribute Ozone W126 ambient concentration* Source of data—select one: • EPA AIRS • CASTNET • Spatial interpolation Year of data Station number (optional) Distance to station (optional) * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. AIRS = Aerometric Information Retrieval System. CASTNET = Clean Air Status and Trends Network. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. All wildernesses in the lower 48 States are covered either by local monitoring or by spatial extrapolation.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Spatial extrapolations of the available ozone monitoring data have been developed for the lower 48 States; the extrapolations address most spatial gaps. Wildernesses in Alaska can use ozone data from the Pacific Northwest, which are expected to be reasonably representative of background ozone values in Alaska. Where significant temporal gaps exist in local monitoring data, the extrapolated data covering that area could be used.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from a national data collection program that has been rigorously tested and refined over a long period time, and no other data exist that could be collected; therefore, data quantity is complete. Data quality is assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: EPA and CASTNET data are of high quality and spatial interpolation is of moderate quality.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? See the previous measure, ozone exposure statistic N100, for information on this topic. In the step detailing spatial extrapolation, simply download the W126 and W126 95-percent confidence interval raster files instead of the N100 files. Wherever the Ozone Calculator produces N100 numbers, it will produce W126 numbers similarly. Both N100 and W126 values calculated for each wilderness can be compared with high and low values at bench- mark sites (e.g., San Bernardino Mountains for high values and Yellowstone National Park for low values). See the previous measure for additional details about how to do this

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 85 comparison. Trends over time for each wilderness will be the key benchmark for assess- ing changes in wilderness character.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, significant change in this measure will be assessed using regression analysis at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? See the previous measure, ozone exposure statistic N100, for cautions about this measure.

5.2.1.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Sulfur Wet Deposition Concentration of sulfur in wet deposition.

Why Is This Measure Important? Atmospheric deposition is the process by which airborne particles and gases are deposited to the earth’s surface. When these pollutants are deposited in rain, snow, clouds, or fog, they are known as wet deposition. Wet deposition is monitored routinely and extensively across the United States and is a factor of the amount of precipitation multiplied by the concentration of pollutants. Dry deposition occurs during periods without precipitation but it is not well monitored across the United States.

The measure selected for wet deposition is sulfur concentration. Although deposition gives a more direct link to ecosystem impacts than does concentration, concentration is a more consistent measure for tracking temporal trends in pollution and for the purpose of extrapolation or interpolation of data (from sites in which wet deposition is measured to locations where it is estimated). The annual amount of precipitation may vary widely among wildernesses and within a wilderness because slope, aspect, elevation, and other factors affect precipitation. The use of concentration rather than deposition thus provides a more consistent number to represent an entire wilderness and reduces uncertainties associated with temporal and spatial variability of precipitation within a wilderness.

An increase in concentration indicates an increase in the threat or impact of atmospheric pollutants to wilderness ecosystems. Wet deposition can contain acidic components (nitrogen and sulfur) that cause chemical changes to freshwater lakes, streams, ponds, and soils. These changes can then affect algae, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, fish, soil microorganisms, plants, and trees.

Spatially interpolated data maps use measured pollutant concentrations to estimate concentrations in areas without monitoring. Because not all wildernesses have a nearby National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN)

86 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character monitoring site, the spatially interpolated data maps will be used for this wilderness char- acter monitoring effort. This guide will focus on accessing and interpreting data provided in these spatially interpolated maps.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Although NADP/NTN measures a range of ions in precipitation samples, sulfate (calculated as S) and nitrate and ammonium (calculated and added together as N) will be used to approximate the impacts of acidic deposition and N fertilization on wilderness ecosystems. These values will be reported as total wet sulfur concentration and total wet nitrogen concentration for this analysis effort. NADP/NTN provides the data in two units of measure—as deposition estimates (kilograms per hectare per year) or as ionic concen- trations (milligrams per liter). The ionic concentration measurements will be used for this analysis effort because yearly variations in precipitation make it difficult to determine trends in deposition. Therefore, monitoring concentration provides a much better way to track temporal trends, and the concentrations of S and N will be used to track temporal trends in this assessment. The manager must use caution in interpreting these numbers, however, because the total deposition is what determines the impacts on wilderness resources. Table 23 describes the attributes for measuring sulfur in wet deposition.

Table 23.—Attributes for measuring sulfur in wet deposition. Attribute Wet sulfate concentration* Source of data—select one: • Single site • Averaged site • Raster data Year of data Station number (optional) Distance to station (optional) * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The NADP/NTN is a collaborative effort among many Federal agencies (including the Forest Service), universities, State government agencies, and private-sector entities. The primary data source is precipitation chemistry data collected by the network across the United States to establish long-term temporal and geographical trends. Precipitation samples are collected on a weekly basis and sent to the Central Analytical Laboratory in Champaign, IL, where they are analyzed for pH, sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride, and base cations (such as calcium, magnesium,

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 87 potassium, and sodium). To ensure accurate and precise data records, precipitation samples are collected and analyzed according to strict clean-handling procedures and a rigorous quality assurance program. (To view the NADP/NTN quality assurance/quality control information, go to http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/.) Centralized analysis also increases consistency in the data.

The first NADP/NTN sites began monitoring precipitation in 1978. Since then, the network has grown significantly from 22 sites to more than 200 sites in the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The current network for the lower 48 States is depicted in figure 6.

Chemical concentration data from each monitoring site are available in multiple forms, including tabular annual and seasonal precipitation weighted means, trend plots, and spatially interpolated data maps. The actual site data are used when the site is adjacent (within 25 mi) to a wilderness; otherwise, maps extrapolate measured ion concentration values to wildernesses lacking a nearby monitoring site. Because not all wildernesses have a nearby NADP/NTN monitoring site, the spatially interpolated data maps will be used frequently for this wilderness character monitoring effort. Although this technical guide focuses on accessing and interpreting data provided in the spatially interpolated maps, interpolation methods average data values among monitoring sites and the result has a “smoothing” effect on the data. Consequently, data collectors are encouraged to investigate the NADP network on line to determine where NADP/NTN monitoring sites are located relative to wildernesses of interest. For those wildernesses with a nearby NADP/NTN site, the site-specific data should be used to assess changes in S and N concentrations rather than the interpolated values. For example, the James

Figure 6.—National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network and wilderness boundaries.

NADP = National Atmospheric Deposition Program. NTN = National Trends Network.

88 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character River Face Wilderness in VA has an NADP site (VA99) located within 2 mi of the wilderness boundary. In this case, data collectors should use the VA99 site data rather than the interpolated data. Some wilderness areas may have two or more NADP sites nearby (within 25 mi); the site that best represents conditions inside the wilderness should be used. If both sites are equal in that regard, the site closest to the wilderness boundary should be used to represent the wilderness in this assessment.

The site-specific data available on line have been analyzed and trend plots have been developed. Using readily available data where applicable could save time in the analysis effort. For wildernesses for which site-specific data are not available, the spatially interpolated maps are a surrogate for assessing trends. The spatially interpolated maps are available as raster data sets for use in Geographic Information System (GIS) applications. Estimated values for 2.5-km grids are averaged over an entire wilderness to provide average concentration values for each wilderness.

No additional data are necessary for this indicator; however, if locally available, additional information, such as streamwater chemistry data, aquatic biota data, soil water chemistry data, and/or soil chemistry data, can provide a better picture of overall deposition trends and site-specific ecosystem effects. These data can also be used to interpret the significance of any trends. Although the wilderness character monitoring effort will not interpret or report on these ancillary data nationally, regional air specialists should be able to help interpret it on a regional, forestwide, or wilderness-specific basis.

Each year, the selection of a representative monitoring site or, alternatively, the use of spatially interpolated data, should be confirmed with the zone or regional air- quality specialist or manager. Monitoring networks close and add sites periodically and the air-quality specialist/manager will be aware of any changes. In addition, local pollution sources and meteorology may influence the choice of sites located more than a short distance from the wilderness boundary.

•• Frequency of data collection. To develop accurate trend plots, the NADP/NTN data will be analyzed for each year they are available. The analysis, however, does not need to be done on an annual basis; e.g., the data for 5 sampling years could be downloaded and analyzed simultaneously every 5 years.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Spatially interpolated data maps extrapolate measured pollutant concentrations to areas without monitoring in the lower 48 States. Because not all wildernesses have a

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 89 nearby NADP/NTN monitoring site, the spatially interpolated data maps will be used most frequently in this wilderness character monitoring effort. New sites are added infrequently, usually only where significant spatial gaps exist and when the hosting agency (in this case, the Forest Service) is willing to make a long- term commitment to fund installation and data analysis for a new site. Although this technical guide will focus on accessing and interpreting data provided in the spatially interpolated maps, interpolation methods average data values among monitoring sites and the result is a smoothing effect on the data.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Although the GIS raster files have no spatial or temporal gaps in the continental United States, they do not include interpolated data for Alaska or Puerto Rico. Four active NADP/NTN monitoring sites are in Alaska and one active site is in Puerto Rico. The NADP program began in 1978, and, consequently, some NADP/NTN monitoring sites have a lengthy historical data record. This record is beneficial to wildernesses with a nearby monitoring site. Temporal gaps may exist in the data record if the data collection did not meet minimum criteria established by NADP. In those years, interpolated data should be used. Wildernesses that must rely on interpolated data can assemble a historical record back to 1994.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from a national data collection program that has been rigorously tested and refined over a long period time, and no other data exist that could be collected; therefore, data quantity is complete. Data quality is assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: single and average data are of high quality, and raster data is of moderate quality.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? NADP/NTN data is stored on the NADP Web site. NADP/NTN data analyzed for this effort should be stored in a tabular format, such as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, in a project folder created for this specific indicator. All information relating to this indicator (including GIS projects and data sets) should be stored in the project folder.

Most data collected by the NADP/NTN can be downloaded from the Internet at http:// nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/. The following steps will take you through collecting site-specific data and downloading the interpolated GIS raster files.

To view the NADP monitoring network and monitoring site location data and access site- specific information, complete the following five steps:

90 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 1. Click on the NADP home page link (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/).

2. Click on the “Data Access” link (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/ntnmap.asp?).

3. Click on the appropriate State(s).

4. Choose the monitoring site(s) of interest from the list or from the map. If more than one site is within 25 mi of the wilderness boundary, the site that is most representative of conditions (e.g., elevation, ecosystem types) within the wilderness should be selected; otherwise, the site closest to the wilderness boundary should be selected.

5. The following text will provide monitoring site information and links to trend plots, annual data summaries, and tabular annual and seasonal data. (See the figures in the following text.) Note: a description of intended use must be entered to access tabular data. The trend plots and annual data summaries will be the most useful information for wilderness managers.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 91 92 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character To access the NADP/NTN interpolated raster files, complete the following seven steps:

1. Click on the NADP home page link (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/).

2. Click on the “Isopleth Maps” link (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/).

3. Click on the “Arcview grid files” link (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/grids.asp). (Note: The isopleth map animations are useful graphical tools for PowerPoint presentations.)

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 93 4. Raster files are currently available for 1994 through 2003. To establish a baseline trend, you should download and analyze data for all available years (selection of data for years before wilderness designation is acceptable in the rare cases that these data are available). To begin downloading files, click on the desired year.

5. From the maps download page, choose to download the “SulfateXXXX.zip” files (“XXXX” is the year you selected in the previous step).

6. After clicking on the maps download link, a file download box appears. Save the file to your computer and navigate to where the file is to be saved. (Create a project directory for this wet deposition indicator; i.e., create a folder titled “Wilderness_ Air_wetdep” where you store all information relating to this indicator.)

94 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 7. Once the download is complete, navigate to the downloaded Zip file and unzip the file into the project folder. When the files are unzipped into the project folder, a separate folder will automatically be created for each raster file you extract.

For wildernesses with an adjacent NADP/NTN monitoring site, trend plots can be down- loaded directly from the Internet and no further analysis is necessary. For wildernesses with multiple collocated monitoring sites, annual average concentration values from each site should be averaged to come up with one representative value.

For areas lacking an adjacent monitoring site, raster files will be used to obtain a con- centration estimate. Most of these analyses for all wildernesses will be completed by a wilderness data analyst at the national level, and the results will be housed in a central location.

To begin this analysis, load the following data layers into an ArcMap project:

•• NADP/NTN raster files for sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), and ammonium for the year(s) of interest. (Because of the size of the raster files, we recommend that you not load all years to be analyzed into one ArcMap project.)

•• The current official wilderness boundaries layer.

•• Any additional data layers, such as roads, trails, and streams, you would like to use in your analysis.

The NADP/NTN raster files have a pixel resolution of 2.5 x 2.5 km. The pixel values are the estimated means of the annual precipitation weighted ion concentrations at that given point. Because the grid resolution is relatively small, a given wilderness may have a range of ion concentration within its boundaries. To streamline the analysis process, the concen- tration values will be averaged over the entire wilderness. These averaged concentration values will be considered representative of the wilderness for a given year. Calculating the average value over each wilderness can be done using Spatial Analyst in ArcMap. In cases in which the wilderness coverage is broken into multiple polygons, the polygons should be merged if there is no geographic reason for the separation (such as an island in a river or lake) before calculating the average concentration value. In situations in which a geographical explanation for multiple polygons within the coverage exists, and the results supply multiple averaged concentration values for the wilderness, average these values together. Again, this step in the analysis should be completed by the wilderness program nationally to provide consistency in methodology.

The wilderness averaged concentration values for SO4 should be recorded for each sam- pling year in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet should also contain the wilderness name, the year, and a column for calculating the total S concentration.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 95 The total S concentration is the value that will be reported in the data trends for this

analysis. This value can be calculated from the SO4 concentration as follows:

Calculating total wet component S:

•• To convert SO4 to S, multiply the SO4 concentration by 0.3337. Example:

•• 1.93 mg/L SO4 x 0.33337 = 0.644 mg/L S. (Note: These multipliers are the ratios of the atomic weights; the atomic weight of S 32.06 is 32.06 and the atomic weight of SO4 is 96.06. The ratio of total S in SO4 is /96.06, or .3337.)

Summarizing the data. The final analysis step is to develop trend plots for the S component of wet deposition for each wilderness. This step enables wilderness managers to track wet deposition concentrations of S in each wilderness over time. The trend plots should include the sampling year on the x axis and the S concentrations on the y axis. (See figure 7 as an example of an ion trend plot. In the wilderness character assessment, a linear trend line, rather than the type illustrated in the figure, will be developed.)

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, significant change in this measure will be assessed using regression analysis at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle.

Figure 7.—An example of a total nitrogen ion trend plot.

Note: The figure displays an example only for National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network Site WV18; these data are not the correct total nitrogen values.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Several important aspects must be considered when interpreting the data provided in this analysis. Although in many regions of the country wet deposition is a serious problem leading to decline in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, the wet deposition component

96 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character does not reflect the total deposition load, which also includes dry and cloud or fog water deposition; these other components of deposition may contribute greatly to changes in the natural quality of wilderness character. In addition, it is difficult to quantify what percentage of the total deposition load is attributable to the wet component because wet deposition varies significantly on a regional basis. Wet deposition alone is not a sufficient metric to assess total deposition trends; however, it is used in this assessment because the spatial coverage of the wet deposition sites across the United States is very good, while dry deposition or cloud water measurement data are seldom available.

Furthermore, the NADP/NTN interpolated data are estimated for all regions of the country using the inverse distance weighting method. This method simply averages the data values between clusters of monitoring sites. This practice not only tends to smooth the data but it also fails to account for a variety of factors that influence wet deposition patterns. The amount of atmospheric input an area receives via wet deposition is highly dependent on the amount of precipitation as well as on the acidic ion concentrations in that precipitation. Factors such as geographic and topographic location, regional precipita- tion patterns, and regional pollution sources influence the levels of wet deposition. Higher elevations in a wilderness often receive much more deposition than lower sites because of higher levels of precipitation at higher elevations, even if the concentrations of pollut- ants are similar or even lower than those at lower elevations. Consequently, a significant amount of uncertainty is associated with the interpolated values. These values should be used not as the absolute value of the total deposition inputs a wilderness area receives but rather as indicators of the general trend in deposition.

Finally, knowing deposition levels for a specific wilderness does not necessarily translate into knowing what the effects of those levels are going to be. The effects of deposition inputs are highly dependent on the physical elements of an ecosystem. For example, bed- rock geology and soil type significantly influence the amount of acidic inputs that aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems can effectively “buffer” before harmful changes begin to occur. Streams flowing through bedrock geology with a very low buffering capacity, such as granite, will begin to acidify much faster than streams flowing through bedrock geology with a high buffering capacity, such as limestone, even with similar deposition levels. Information about the physical components of a wilderness and the deposition inputs can give managers a best guess as to whether a wilderness is at risk for harmful impacts. Although risk assessments are time and labor intensive, risk assessments that take these factors into account can be conducted for a wilderness to more accurately evaluate the potential for harmful impacts. Some of these risk assessments have been conducted by the Forest Service Air Program.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 97 5.2.1.4. Measure 4 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Nitrogen Wet Deposition Concentration of nitrogen in wet deposition.

Why Is This Measure Important? Both sulfur and nitrogen are the major components of acidic deposition, which causes chemical changes in freshwater lakes, streams, ponds, and soils that can affect aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. In addition, deposition of nutrient fertilizers (nitrogen and phosphorus) contributes to unnatural nutrient enrichment in coastal, estuarine, alpine, and grassland ecosystems, which can result in loss of plant and animal diversity and shifts in ecosystem processes. Most, but not all, ecosystems are nitrogen limited, making nitrogen the most important nutrient to monitor for unnatural fertilization effects.

See the text about sulfur concentration (measure 3) for more complete information.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 24 describes attributes for measuring nitrogen in wet deposition.

Table 24.—Attributes for measuring nitrogen in wet deposition. Attribute

Wet nitrate concentration* Wet ammonium concentration* Source of data—select one: • Single site • Averaged site • Raster data Year of data Station number (optional) Distance to station (optional)

* The asterisks denote the attributes used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. See the text about sulfur concentration for data collection sources.

•• Frequency of data collection. See the text about sulfur concentration for the frequency of collecting data.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. See the text about sulfur concentration.

98 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character •• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. See the text about sulfur concentration.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from a national data collection program that has been rigorously tested and refined over a long period of time, and no other data exist that could be collected; therefore, data quantity is complete. Data quality is assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: single and average data are of high quality and raster data is of moderate quality.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Follow the methods outlined in the text about sulfur concentration with the following

exceptions, using nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4) rather than sulfate. •• From the maps-download page, choose to download the “NitrateXXXX.zip” and “AmmoniumXXXX.zip” files, where XXXX is the year you selected in the previous step.

•• To begin this analysis, load the following data layers into an ArcMap project:

NADP/NTN raster files for NO3 and NH4 for the year(s) of interest. (Because of the size of the raster files, we recommend that you not load all years to be analyzed into one ArcMap project.)

The wilderness area’s averaged concentration values for NO3 and NH4 should be recorded for each sampling year in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet should also contain the wilder- ness name, the year, and columns for calculating total N concentrations.

The N concentration is the value to be reported in the data trends for this analysis. This value can be calculated from the NO3 and NH4 concentrations, as follows. Calculating total wet component N:

•• To convert NO3 to N, multiply the NO3 concentration by 0.2258.

•• To convert NH4 to N, multiply the NH4 concentration by 0.7778.

•• Add the N component of NO3 to the N component of NH4 to get the total wet component N concentration.

Examples:

•• mg/L NO3 x 0.2258 = 0.244 mg/L N.

•• 0.20 mg/L NH4 x 0.7778 = 0.156 mg/L N. •• 0.244 mg/L N + 0.156 mg/L N = 0.40 mg/L total N.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 99 The final analysis step is to develop trend plots of the N component of wet deposition for each wilderness. This step enables wilderness managers to track wet deposition concen- trations of N in each wilderness over time. The trend plots should include the sampling year on the x axis and the N concentrations on the y axis. (See figure 7 for an example.)

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, significant change in this measure will be assessed using regression analysis at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? See the text in the previous measure about sulfur concentration.

5.2.2. Indicator 2 for Question 1—River and Stream Developments Developments that degrade the free-flowing condition of rivers and streams in wilderness.

Why Is This Indicator Important? The desired condition for aquatic resources in all National Forest System wilderness riv- ers, streams, and lakes is to be essentially free of human-caused changes in streamflows and water quality and to meet the Clean Water Act and the needs of the designated benefi- cial uses. In other words, wilderness aquatic systems are to be substantially free from the effects of modern civilization (Landres and others 2005).

This indicator partially answers the question of how human actions have changed streamflows within wilderness areas by evaluating human threats in the form of dam construction. Where dams occur, they may significantly alter the aquatic environment. Dam construction or enlargement would result in a reduction in free-flowing condition. Dam removal or breaching would restore the free-flowing condition on a river or stream by returning the flow regime to one responding to natural processes.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator was chosen because dams directly impede and alter the free-flowing condi- tion of wilderness streams and lakes, which degrades the natural quality of wilderness character. This indicator will not change much over time.

A free-flowing condition indicator that was desirable but not included at this time was de- velopments that alter wilderness lakes (see Appendix D, Desired Indicators and Measures, for the reason why this indicator was not included). Other free-flowing condition indica- tors considered but dropped are found in Appendix E, Dropped Indicators and Measures.

100 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? The measure for this indicator is the number of dams that occur within the wilderness. Be- cause just one measure exists, any significant changes in this measure will directly affect this indicator. For example, a decrease in the number of dams would indicate that modern civilization has reduced the free-flowing condition of wilderness streams and rivers.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? The question of free-flowing condition in wilderness streams and rivers is only partially addressed. At this time, the Forest Service data set that tracks structures (Infrastructure [Infra]) is limited to larger dams, primarily those higher than 6 ft. Nationally, other wilderness water developments have not been consistently entered into Infra. As the Infra data set enlarges, it will be possible to add other wilderness water developments (e.g., fish barriers and weirs) to this indicator.

Only dams found within wilderness are considered. Dams upstream or downstream of wil- derness areas are not counted. Dams outside wilderness, both upstream and downstream, may affect free-flowing conditions within a wilderness. With this monitoring effort, however, it is not possible to identify which dams may be having an effect and which are not; thus, the decision was made to include only those dams found within the boundaries of the wilderness.

Only dams on perennial rivers or streams are counted. Dams on ephemeral or intermittent streams are not assessed because data are not be available in digital form for 50 percent of the wilderness areas.

5.2.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 1—Dams Number of dams inside wilderness.

Why Is This Measure Important? A change in the number of dams indicates a change to the free-flowing condition of rivers and the natural condition of stream and lake habitat. This measure will help wilderness and watershed managers assess impacts to the desired condition for wilderness aquatic resources by evaluating one aspect of human change to streamflows. This measure esti- mates impacts to the free-flowing condition of wilderness streams by monitoring human threats in the form of dam development.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? For the attributes of this measure, see the attributes for measuring Forest Service-owned dams under the undeveloped quality.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 101 How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The primary source will be data extracted from the Infra-Dams module, which is the primary repository for data relating to dams. In cases in which Infra data are not complete, local wilderness and watershed managers would have to provide the requested information as a secondary data source.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected for all dams every 5 years. Current business requirements mandate the updating of the data in the National Inventory of Dams (NID) on a biennial basis as required by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002. Data about dams that do not meet the NID criteria are maintained on a less frequent basis.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. It is expected that all the dams meeting the NID criteria are entered into the Infra-Dams module and it is anticipated that most of the required data fields will be complete. Dams that do not meet the criteria are entered in Infra on a less frequent basis and many of the required data fields may be missing.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Data gaps will need to be addressed through updating the Infra database and through review from local forest staff.

•• Data adequacy. The data for this measure are derived from a national data set; therefore, data quantity should be complete and data quality should be high.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Data currently in the Infra-DAMS database will be extracted for the particular wilderness. Any change in the number of dams over the 5-year monitoring cycle is deemed signifi- cant. For example, if the number of dams goes from four to five during the monitoring cycle, a significant degradation in this measure has occurred; if the number goes from four to three, a significant improvement has occurred.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Cautions are similar to those mentioned previously for the indicator and include the following:

•• The current Infra database for dams may not be complete.

•• The current Infra database for dams may not be consistent (e.g., data may not be of similar accuracy or may not have been collected using similar protocols and definitions).

102 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character •• This measure does not include the other structures described in the index of physical evidence of development under the undeveloped quality that may degrade the free-flowing condition of wilderness streams and rivers. These other structures, such as fish ladders, fish passes, fish barriers, weirs, and diversion ditches, are not included here because evaluating the significance of their impact would require detailed analysis of hydrologic flow regimes and is beyond the means of this monitoring protocol.

5.2.3. Indicator 3 for Question 1—Nonindigenous Species Nonindigenous species that alter natural plant and animal communities.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Natural plant and animal communities are an integral part of the natural quality of wilderness and are composed of indigenous species. These species are defined by the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2605, as “a species which originally inhabited a particular National Forest or National Grassland.” For the purposes of this technical guide, the term “indigenous” means a species that originally inhabited the wilderness and the term “nonindigenous” means a species that occurs inside the wilderness by human influence (Lodge and others 2006).

A species that is not indigenous (sometimes referred to as “alien species”) is not from the wilderness. These species may significantly alter the composition, structure, and function of natural communities, thereby degrading or eliminating habitat for native species and degrading the natural quality of wilderness character. Nonindigenous species, especially invasive species that quickly increase in population size and distribution once introduced, may directly compete with indigenous or native species for limited resources such as water, nutrients, food, and shelter (Corn and others 1999, Office of Technology Assessment 1993).

Invasive species are commonly defined as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (Clinton 1999). Examples of nonindigenous aquatic and terrestrial animal species include zebra mussels, balsam and hemlock woolly adelgid, and European starlings. Other species that are not indigenous, but not typically considered in this context, include domestic livestock such as cows, horses, and sheep that are present in wilderness by permit, or species that have become naturalized, such as mustangs and burros. For plants, this measure includes, but is not limited, to State-listed noxious weed species. In each case, such species were introduced, intentionally or unintentionally, by humans and are directly competing with or harming native species and altering ecological systems in wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 103 How Was This Indicator Chosen? Nonindigenous species, including aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species, are considered one of the greatest threats to the integrity and function of natural communities and ecosystems within wilderness (Tempel and others 2004). Although many nonindige- nous species are present throughout the United States, invasive nonindigenous species are a particular threat to wilderness character and are the focus of this monitoring protocol.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Three measures will be used to provide information about this indicator.

1. Percentage of area (in categories) of wilderness occupied by invasive plant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness.

2. Number of nonplant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness.

3. Number of acres of grazing allotment with authorized use.

Nonindigenous plant species are a separate measure from species that are not plants (including wildlife, invertebrates, fungi, and pathogens) because generally more and better informa- tion is available for plant species. For example, State agencies have a long tradition of managing noxious weeds and they maintain databases that may be useful for tracking species over time both within and adjacent to wilderness. Also, the geographic extent or number of acres of nonindigenous plants is a widely used tracking standard used by many agencies, although this information may not available for most wildernesses at this time.

These three measures will be used in combination to establish a baseline from which further monitoring will develop trends in the nonindigenous species indicator. As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends in the individual measures will be synthesized to develop an overall estimate of the trend in this indicator. Table 25 shows possible combinations of trends in the measures and the resulting trend in this indicator. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

Table 25.—The trend in the indicator of nonindigenous species is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures. Measure Possible trends in the measure Percentage of area (in categories) occupied by invasive         nonindigenous plants Number of nonplant nonindigenous species        

Number of acres of grazing allotment with authorized use        

Resulting trend in the indicator        

104 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species by human activity is an ongoing concern that requires periodic surveying to determine new introductions of species, range expansions or contractions of known species, and the severity of impact on native species and ecosystems.

Nonindigenous species, particularly invasive species, can spread into a wilderness from human-caused actions outside the wilderness. Therefore, an increase in the number of nonindigenous species over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilder- ness manager. This situation may be an especially severe problem in smaller wildernesses.

Some nonindigenous species that could be tracked over time are intentionally introduced within wilderness either by law or agreement with other Federal or State agencies. Examples of these introductions include livestock placed on active grazing allotments and stocked fish species placed in lakes and streams. Interpretations of trends over time for these species need to consider the legal framework that allows the continued presence of these species.

5.2.3.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 3, Question 1—Nonindigenous Invasive Plants Category of percentage of wilderness acres with invasive plant species that are not indig- enous to the wilderness.

Why Is This Measure Important? Probably the most simple and intuitively appealing measure is how much of the wilder- ness is covered by invasive plant species that are not indigenous. This measure involves estimating the total amount of area within the wilderness that is occupied by invasive nonindigenous plant species and using that estimate to compute the percentage of wilder- ness acreage occupied by these plants.

Nonindigenous invasive plants may spread into a wilderness by natural vectors (e.g., wind, water, animals) and by anthropogenic vectors (e.g., intentional planting, broadcasting seed following disturbance such as fire, unintentionally spreading seed lodged in clothes or the gut of stock animals). The intent of this measure is to track nonindigenous invasive plants that have spread into the wilderness by anthropogenic vectors. If it is known with certainty that natural vectors enabled a nonindigenous plant to become established in the wilderness, then that species would not be counted in this monitoring. On the other hand, if any uncertainty exists about whether the vector is natural or anthropogenic, then the species should be counted.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 105 Although some nonindigenous species spread slowly or occupy restricted habitats, others can spread very rapidly and occupy large areas once introduced and established. The greatest threat to the natural quality of wilderness character is from nonindigenous plants that are also invasive. Invasive nonindigenous plants tend to occur at lower elevations, along travel corridors, and in other areas of higher human or natural disturbance, such as campsites or fire, respectively. Nonindigenous invasive species may displace native veg- etation by occurring in pure stands or by slowly crowding and outcompeting indigenous plant species. Nonindigenous invasive plants may also cause significant changes to the animal community within an area (Ortega and others 2004).

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? This measure tracks the category of percentage of wilderness acres on which nonindig- enous plant species occur. Using broad categories is a crude measure. Although most wilderness do not have accurate information on the occurrence of nonindigenous plants, it should be possible to use field experience combined with professional judgment to assign these broad categories. Furthermore, this monitoring records the occurrence of only the nonindigenous plant species that are invasive. A plant species may be invasive in one locale but not in another; therefore, the local ecologist or botanist will need to decide which nonindigenous plant species are invasive to include in this monitoring.

Two general ways can be used to derive an estimate of the occurrence of invasive nonindigenous plants. The first is to sum the acres on which each of the individual plant species occur, and the second method is to count an acre only once regardless of how many nonnative plant species occur on it. This technical guide uses the second method for two reasons. First, because several different nonindigenous species may occur on a single acre of land, the first method may yield an acreage estimate greater than the total acres of wilderness. Second, many wildernesses may not have individual nonindigenous plant acreage data, so lumping species to derive a single estimate of acres, at least at this initial stage of monitoring, would enable some wildernesses to begin monitoring this measure. Table 26 describes the attributes for measures the percentage of area occupied by invasive plants that are not indigenous to the wilderness.

Inventory, as used in the previous attribute, means a field survey to document the oc- currence of all nonindigenous plants within the wilderness. In this context, a complete inventory means that all likely locations, including areas such as trails, campsites, outfit- ter camps, areas where livestock grazing is authorized, helispots, and fire camps, were surveyed based on the judgment of the local resource specialist. A partial inventory means that some but not all areas were surveyed. A casual estimate means that a field survey has not been conducted and the estimate of area occupied is based solely on the professional judgment of the resource specialist.

106 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 26.—Attributes for measuring the percentage of area occupied by invasive plants that are not indigenous to the wilderness. Attribute Category of percentage of area of wilderness on which invasive, nonindigenous plant species occur*— select one: • Trace = < 1% • Low = 1–5% • Moderate = 6–25% • High = > 25% (specify estimated percentage of area occupied) Source of data—select all that apply: • NRIS • District and forest records • Internet resources • Personal observation • Observation from others • Other (specify) Estimate of area occupied is based on—select one: • Complete field inventory within the past 10 years • Partial field inventory within the past 10 years • Casual estimate * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. NRIS = Natural Resource Information System.

Although nearly everyone is concerned about nonindigenous invasive plants in wilder- ness, data on the plants’ distribution is meager and this measure draws on a variety of sources for information. This variety of sources raises additional concerns about the reliability of the data, especially in assessing long-term trends. Reliability is a complex interaction of three factors: (1) whether the plant was actually observed in the area or a deduction was made that the plant is likely to be in the area, (2) the person’s knowledge about the plants in the area, and (3) the time since an area was last visited.

To provide a more reliable basis for interpreting change in this measure, local staff are encouraged to record a variety of information in the cuff notes for this measure. The information includes the following: •• Name (genus and species) of invasive nonindigenous plants used in this measure. •• Location of these species. •• Date of field inventories. •• Personnel who conducted these inventories. •• Estimate of acres occupied by each species. •• Estimate of density for each species. •• Likely effects of these species on other species or ecosystem processes (such as disturbance regimes, predation, competition, or soil nutrient availability).

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 107 How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The primary data source for this information is the NRIS, the Forest Service corporate application for storing, managing, and retrieving data on soils, geology, geomorphology, vegetation, and climate. NRIS also contains the Invasive Plant Inventory.

The secondary source of information is the Forest Service resource specialist, such as the forest botanist, ecologist, and/or invasive species coordinator, on the district or forest in which a wilderness is located. The resource specialist would likely have to develop his or her best professional estimate about the number of acres occupied by invasive nonindigenous plants and then, from this estimate, calculate the percentage category of wilderness acres. The resource specialist could use a variety of different sources for the data, including the following:

• District and forest records.

• Forest Service Web site on invasive species (http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/).

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda. gov). Administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, this resource is USDA’s single source of standardized information about plants. Although this database is not limited to invasive species, it does contain Federal and State lists of noxious weeds and a composite list of invasive plants in the United States Focusing on vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, hornworts, and lichens of the United States and its territories, the PLANTS Database includes scientific and common names, checklists, automated tools, identification information, species abstracts, distributional data, crop information, plant symbols, plant growth data, plant materials information, plant links, references, and other plant information.

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Global Invasives Species Team Web site (http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu). This Web site provides access to TNC’s weed management library with many resources for individual invasive species (including Elemental Stewardship Abstracts for specific plant species). In addition, TNC’s extensive Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas can be downloaded (in increments or in its entirety).

• TNC’s NatureServe Web site (http://www.natureserve.org/). This Web site provides central access to all the State natural heritage programs with extensive information on plant species, including distribution maps, life histories, conservation status, and conservation needs.

108 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Web sites. Several Web sites run by the USGS can be used for information on invasive species. The two primary Web sites are (1) the Invasive Species Information Node (http://invasivespecies.nbii.gov/), which serves as a central repository for information on the identification, description, management, and control of invasive species; and (2) the National Institute of Invasive Species Science (http://www.niiss.org/cwis438/websites/niiss/home. php?WebSiteID=1). The institute provides a hub for invasive species science collaboration, coordination, and integration across agencies and disciplines. The institute works with other partners to coordinate data and research from many sources to predict and reduce the effects of harmful nonnative plants, animals, and diseases in natural areas throughout the United States.

• The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute’s online invasive species resource center (http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/invasives/invas_resources. htm). This site provides numerous national and regional links for available invasive species databases that pay particular attention to species that occur in wilderness. The Wilderness Invaders database (http://leopold.wilderness. net/research/invasives/invaders.htm) provides access to a survey of wilderness managers and resource specialists conducted in 1997 and 1998 about nonnative and invasive species occurring in Forest Service wildernesses.

• National Invasive Species Information Center Web site (http://www. invasivespecies.gov/). This comprehensive site is the gateway to Federal efforts concerning invasive species. It includes information regarding the impacts of invasive species, the government’s response, profiles of selected species, news updates, and links to other agencies and organizations. The National Invasive Species Council, also accessed through this Web site, coordinates responses to the problems associated with invasive species. The site contains links to agency Web sites, Presidential Executive Order 13112 on invasive species, and the national invasive species management plan entitled Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.

• DigiTop, USDA’s Digital Desktop Library (http://www.nal.usda.gov/digitop/). This is online library for USDA employees provides access to scientific literature databases, online publications from hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific journals, and recent timely research on invasive species. Users can search to see if any publications describing a particular species within a wilderness are available.

• Regionwide or landscape planning documents.

• Personal observation.

• Observation from other knowledgeable sources.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 109 •• Frequency of data collection. After data are initially collected, periodic review and updates every 5 years would be sufficient to track changes over time.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. It is estimated that sufficient data are available for at least 50 percent of the wildernesses.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Initially, data gaps for this information will likely be filled from the estimates of local resource specialists. Inventorying nonindigenous invasive plants is a high priority for the Forest Service, so data gaps will be filled over time.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be assessed by the attribute about the estimate of the area occupied by nonindigenous invasive plants: a complete inventory yields complete data quantity, a partial inventory yields partial data quantity, and a casual estimate yields insufficient data quantity. Data quality will be assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: NRIS data would be high data quality; district and forest records, Internet resources, and personal observation would be moderate data quality; and observation from others would be low data quality unless those people were known to be competent at plant identification.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? The percentage of area of a wilderness on which invasive nonindigenous plant species occur will be categorized into one of four different groups. 1. Trace equals < 1 percent. 2. Low equals 1 to 5 percent. 3. Moderate equals 6 to 25 percent. 4. High equals > 26 percent.

A significant change over time in the percentage of area of the wilderness on which invasive nonindigenous plant species occur is defined as a change from one percentage category to another category. For example, a change from the trace to the low category is a significant degrading of this measure, while a change from the high to the moderate category is a significant improvement in this measure.

Depending on the data source, data may be downloaded from Web sites or other sources as tabular or spatial data. State or localized data may involve Geographic Information System shapefiles that can be compared spatially with GIS wilderness boundaries to determine which nonindigenous species occur within the wilderness boundary. A tabular display from State agencies may be organized by county, and county boundaries would

110 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character then need to be spatially matched with wilderness boundaries to determine which species occur within the wilderness. The initial data set will form the baseline from which trend information can be developed based on future downloads of similar data. Through time, field monitoring or surveys will contribute to our knowledge of species occurrence within the wilderness.

A wilderness managed by more than one administrative unit will require the resource specialists from each unit to discuss and agree on the assigned category for this measure.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? There are several cautions about this measure, including the following:

•• The large size and remoteness of some wildernesses may make it difficult or impossible to conduct a complete inventory of all locations within the wilderness.

•• New infestations of nonindigenous invasive plants may occur at any time, so the number reported in this monitoring effort at a given point in time may not be accurate.

•• Nonindigenous invasive plants do not occur uniformly within a wilderness but tend to occur within certain locations that may or may not have been inventoried or observed.

•• Relying on a variety of external data sources may introduce substantial but unknown variation in the quality of the data.

5.2.3.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 3, Question 1—Other Nonindigenous Species Number of nonplant species (i.e., wildlife, livestock, fish, insects, pathogens, or fungi) of concern that are not indigenous to the wilderness.

Why Is This Measure Important? The introduction or spread of nonindigenous aquatic and terrestrial animals, pathogens, and fungi (hereafter referred to as other nonindigenous species) can cause degrada- tion or loss of habitat for native species and directly compete with native species for finite resources such as shelter and food (Tempel and others 2004), thus degrading the natural quality of wilderness character. Examples include stocked nonindigenous fish, zebra mussels, hemlock woolly adelgid, gypsy moth, sudden oak death pathogen, and European starlings. In each case, nonindigenous species were introduced, intentionally or unintentionally, by modern people and are now directly competing with or harming native species and associated ecological systems. So many nonindigenous species (e.g., insects,

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 111 microscopic organisms) likely exist that it would be impossible or impractical to monitor them all; instead, the intent of this measure is to monitor only those species that are of concern to the local resource specialists.

A decrease in the number of other nonindigenous species over time in a wilderness indi- cates an increase in the natural quality of wilderness character. Conversely, an increase in other nonindigenous species over time indicates a reduction in the natural quality of wilderness character.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 27 describes attributes for measuring nonplant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness.

Table 27.—Attributes for measuring nonplant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness and are of concern. Attribute Scientific name (genus and species) of the other (nonplant) nonindigenous species* Source of data—select all that apply: • NRIS • District and forest records • Internet resources • Personal observation • Observation from others • Other (specify) Confidence level that all nonplant species that are not indigenous and are of concern have been accounted for—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. NRIS = Natural Resource Information System.

Other information that would affect the reliability of this measure and the interpretation of its change over time should be entered into the cuff notes associated with this measure. The information includes the following:

•• Location of these species.

•• Date and location of any field inventories.

•• Personnel who conducted these inventories.

•• Estimate of acres occupied or percentage of wilderness occupied by each species.

•• Likely effects of these species on other species or ecosystem processes (such as disturbance regimes, predation, competition, or soil nutrient availability).

112 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The primary data source for this information is NRIS, the Forest Service corporate application for storing, managing, and retrieving data on terrestrial vertebrate and invertebrate species, including nonindigenous animals.

The secondary data source is the Forest Service resource specialist, such as the forest wildlife biologist, ecologist, botanist, or invasive species coordinator, for nonindigenous animal, pathogen, and fungus species on the district or forest in which a wilderness is located. The resource specialist could use a variety of different sources for these data, including all the sources described under the measure for nonindigenous invasive plant species. It is not expected that the resource specialist would spend an exhaustive amount of time on this measure; it is more likely that this person would either know of other nonindigenous species that occur in the wilderness or would simply place a few phone calls to validate his or her judgment.

•• Frequency of data collection. Once data are collected initially, periodic data collection or review every 5 years would be sufficient to track changes over time.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. An estimated 90 percent of wilderness areas would have access to such data.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Initially, data gaps for this information will likely be filled from the professional judgment of local resource specialists. Inventorying other nonindigenous species is a high priority for the Forest Service, so data gaps will be filled over time.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be assessed by the attribute about the confidence level that all nonplant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness and of concern have been accounted for: high confidence yields complete data quantity, moderate confidence yields partial data quantity, and low confidence yields insufficient data quantity. Data quality will be assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: NRIS would be high data quality; district and forest records, Internet resources, and personal observations would be moderate data quality; and observations from others would be low data quality unless those people were known to be competent at identification.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 113 How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? The data do not need to be processed because a single number is reported. Similarly, no analysis is needed because any change in the number of nonplant species that are not indigenous to the wilderness is considered a significant change. For example, if the number of these species increases by one, this increase is considered a significant decline in this measure. Trends in the number of other nonindigenous species over time will enable assessment of how the natural quality of wilderness character is changing within a wilderness. New data will be used as they become available.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? The presence of other nonindigenous species is an ongoing problem that requires periodic surveying to determine new introductions of species, range expansions (or contractions), and the severity of impact on native species and ecosystems.

5.2.3.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 3, Question 1—Grazing Allotments Number of acres of grazing allotments with authorized use.

Why Is This Measure Important? Grazing allotments introduce large nonindigenous herbivores such as domestic cattle, horses, and sheep in a wilderness. By their grazing and trampling activities, these nonin- digenous herbivores may significantly diminish the natural quality of wilderness character by directly altering habitat for wildlife, reducing populations of rare or at-risk plants, introducing disease and other pathogens, increasing soil erosion, and altering hydrologic flow regimes (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, Belsky and others 1999, Fleischner 1994). A decrease over time in the number of acres of grazing allotments with authorized use in a wilderness would indicate an increase in the natural quality. Conversely, an increase over time of the number of acres of grazing allotments with authorized use would indicate a decrease in the natural quality.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Only allotments that are currently authorized for grazing use at any time of the year are recorded in this measure. Table 28 describes the attributes for measuring authorized graz- ing allotments.

Table 28.—Attributes for measuring the number of acres of grazing allotments with authorized use in wilderness. Attribute Number of acres in wilderness with authorized grazing use* Range Management Unit identification Range Management Unit name * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

114 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The primary data source for this information is Infra RANGE, the Forest Service database with a section for range management reporting and billing activities; this database has a section specifically for wilderness range use. To be counted under this measure, allotments must be authorized for use within the wilderness. The secondary data source is the Forest Service range specialist, such as the district or forest range manager, on the district or forest in which a wilderness is located. The wilderness manager may also know what allotments have authorized grazing use within the wilderness at any time during the year.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data would be collected yearly because billing occurs yearly and range allotments can vary yearly in activity (active or inactive) and in level of use (number of individuals grazing a particular allotment) from one year to the next.

•• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. If a forest has a range program, all allotments with authorized use (including those in wilderness) are required by regulation to be permitted and tracked by district and forest records and Infra RANGE (FSM 2230).

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Through the Forest Service Range Program, all allotments with authorized use should be entered into the data reporting system. No data gaps should occur.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from the Forest Service corporate database and it is assumed that data quantity is complete and data quality is high. This assumption was generally validated in the pilot test of this technical guide that was conducted during the summer of 2006.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, regression analysis will be used at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle to determine if a significant improv- ing or declining trend in this measure has occurred.

Notes on the number of allotments with authorized use, type(s) of animal grazed, whether the authorized use actually occurred, total number of individuals per allotment, and the number of livestock actually occurring inside the wilderness would help local staff keep track of how allotment uses are changing over time.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 115 What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Stock may be moved from one pasture to another, so it is important to verify that stock are actually authorized when the allotments are counted for this monitoring. Impacts from domestic livestock grazing on ecosystems can vary depending on several factors, such as the species of domestic livestock, the number of individuals permitted per grazing allotment, whether the allotment is fenced, and whether riparian areas are protected from livestock use. These impacts can vary widely across wildernesses that have active grazing and within an individual wilderness.

5.3. Monitoring Question 2—Conditions Sensitive to Threats

What are the trends in selected biophysical conditions and processes sensitive to human threats?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? This monitoring question is important to focus management attention on selected condi- tions and processes that are known to be caused by or sensitive to modern human-caused threats. Ultimately, the natural state of ecological conditions and processes in wilderness (the community of life as described in the Wilderness Act of 1964) enables evolution to occur unfettered by human desires. This natural state of ecological conditions and processes is the fundamental basis for the natural quality of wilderness character. This monitoring question is designed to show the effects of human-caused threats on selected conditions and processes that are surrogates for a broader set of effects on the ecological systems inside wilderness.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? From the myriad different indicators that could have been used to answer this monitoring question, two were chosen because they represented significant aspects of ecological systems, nationally consistent data were available for them, and they would be relevant locally. These indicators are visual air quality (usually referred to as visibility) and ecosystems, plant communities, and plant and animal species that have been extirpated. Many more indicators were considered but deemed unacceptable for a variety of reasons (see appendixes C and D).

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends in the indi- vidual indicators will be synthesized to develop an overall trend estimate to answer this monitoring question. Table 29 shows possible combinations of trends in the indicators and

116 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character the resulting trend to answer the monitoring question about human threats to natural con- ditions in the natural quality of wilderness character. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

Table 29.—The trend in the monitoring question about selected biophysical conditions is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators. Indicator Possible trends in the indicator Visual air quality          Indigenous ecosystems, plant communities, and plant          and animal species that have been extirpated

Resulting trend in the monitoring question         

What Are the Cautions About This Question? Many cautions exist about the interpretation of change based on this monitoring question. Ideally, the status of all natural conditions and processes in wilderness would be moni- tored. In reality, a general dearth of understanding about the composition, structure, and functioning of large, relatively natural ecosystems exists, and even less knowledge about how to cost-effectively monitor critical aspects of these systems is available. Compound- ing this lack of information, ecological systems are vastly complex, vary over time and from one place to another, and may be strongly affected by past circumstances.

Monitoring modern anthropogenic impacts on natural conditions and processes requires that there be sufficient understanding about how these conditions and processes naturally vary to distinguish human-caused change from natural change. In practice, this under- standing is lacking in general and specifically for nearly all wildernesses. This monitoring question therefore is not intended for understanding change over time in the following:

•• The full range of ecological complexity and variation.

•• Cause-and-effect relationships between specific threats and their effects on natural conditions and processes.

•• Natural conditions and processes that are not affected by modern anthropogenic threats.

Management actions may cause a variety of ecological impacts that will not be tracked under this natural quality because of insufficient understanding about the impacts. The suppression of naturally ignited fires, e.g., may directly change the species composition and spatial distribution of vegetation and cause many other indirect ecological impacts on wildlife and aquatic systems. Detailed, local understanding of prior vegetation conditions and how ecological succession in a specific area is affected by fire suppression would be

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 117 required to evaluate these ecological impacts. In general, understanding such impacts would require research that is beyond the scope of this monitoring protocol.

Because of all these constraints and cautions, trends in the indicators used to answer this monitoring question are only red flags that suggest the need for more intensive monitoring and possibly research to verify the change and understand its cause.

Although the baseline for determining human-caused change in biophysical conditions and processes ideally is the time of wilderness designation, it is more likely that baseline will be determined the first time this monitoring is conducted. This assessment does not assume or imply that current conditions are natural or in a desired condition; however, current conditions are the only practical baseline from which change can be evaluated.

The information from this monitoring question is not intended to maintain static or unchanging ecological conditions in wilderness as defined by some arbitrary point in time (such as pre-European settlement). All ecological systems change over time and from one location to another, and this variation is a critical and essential part of the natural quality of wilderness character.

5.3.1. Indicator 1 for Question 2—Visual Air Quality Visual air quality.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Visual air quality (visibility) measurements provide a direct link between the concentra- tion of pollutants in the atmosphere and degradation of the natural, physical condition of clean air in wilderness. Although air-quality managers often refer to visibility (or the lack thereof) in terms of its impacts on human perception, visibility is a general indicator of air quality that should be monitored for its inherent value, just as one would monitor the biophysical condition of water quality. In the context of sulfate and nitrate measurements, reduced visibility causes increased reflective power, which can affect local climate and photosynthetic activity. In addition, visibility directly affects many wildlife species, such as raptors, far more than it does humans because many species depend on clear, clean air for successful foraging.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? The natural condition of visibility can be described as air quality in the absence of any human-made pollutants. This natural condition has been estimated for all areas of the country as part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional haze tracking program. Natural conditions of visibility can be used as a reference point from which to assess change in wilderness character related to clean air.

118 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Visibility measurements are readily available through a national, interagency network and are already compiled and interpreted on a yearly basis by the Forest Service Air Program. The methodologies for data collection, quality assurance, and interpretation are standard- ized and well documented. Gathering and using these measures for wilderness monitoring is both feasible and highly credible.

Visibility is arguably the biophysical condition related to air quality most sensitive and responsive to changes in anthropogenic sources. Long before changes are detected in other resources or processes such as nutrient cycling, visibility measurements will show change, both improvements and degradation. Visibility is the “canary in the coal mine” of air-quality conditions, giving the earliest warning of problems.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Pollutants in air affect the transmission of light by both scattering and absorption; this ef- fect is called light extinction. The “deciview,” a unit of measure, is used to mathematically transform this extinction measurement to a convenient scale. Visibility in a wilderness depends on a complex interaction of natural and anthropogenic factors. For example, haze in a wilderness could be caused by a wildfire or natural soil dust, while a similar effect could be caused by power plant emissions or automobiles. The additional measure of the sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate enables the wilderness manager to determine what portion of the pollutants affecting visibility is from anthropogenic sources rather than natural causes. Table 30 shows how different combinations of hypothetical trends in two measures would be combined to yield a single trend in the indicator.

Table 30.—The trend in the indicator about visual air quality is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures. Measure Possible trends in the measure Average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate          Average deciview         

Resulting trend in the indicator         

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? The visibility measurements of deciview and the sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate are used in assessing regional haze. Regional haze encompasses a wide geographic extent, generally much greater than one wilderness area, so these measures, although applicable to a given wilderness, are not specific to that wilderness. Regional haze also implies long-range transport of pollutants, often interstate and sometimes international in nature, so the manager must consider the long-range aspect in deciding how to use the results for management and policy-related decisions.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 119 5.3.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Fine Nitrate and Sulfate Average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate.

Why Is This Measure Important? Pollution-induced haze that obscures good visibility is caused by small particles suspended in the atmosphere that absorb and scatter light. Particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter are called fine particles. Fine particles are routinely described by five distinct species cat- egories: (1) sulfates, (2) nitrates, (3) organics, (4) elemental carbon, and (5) soil. Of these categories, sulfates and nitrates are predominantly from anthropogenic sources. In many cases, sulfates and nitrates are also the predominant contributors to regional haze. Some of the nitrates and sulfates are natural in origin, so this measure subtracts estimated natural levels from current measured levels of sulfates and nitrates. The remaining concentrations provide a good surrogate for estimating anthropogenic contributions to regional haze and hence a measure of whether the natural condition of visibility is changing.

Increases in this measure directly indicate degradation of visibility conditions. Trend data showing changes in these measures can be used by Forest Service managers for public information purposes and for implementation of Clean Air Act mechanisms (such as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program and the air-quality regional planning or- ganizations) at district, forest, regional, and national levels. A clear indication of increase in the threat to visual air quality provides the scientific basis to approach air-quality regulators regarding pollution control strategies.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Information about changes in pollution emissions in counties surrounding each wilder- ness is available from EPA via the National Emissions Inventory. These data can be considered optional for local wilderness managers to use in interpreting changes in this indicator. In addition, information about emissions from wildfire and prescribed fire may aid in interpreting the visibility trends data. Table 31 describes the attributes for measur- ing fine nitrate and sulfate.

Table 31.—Attributes for measuring fine nitrate and sulfate. Attribute Average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate* Representative IMPROVE site Year of data * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. IMPROVE = Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments.

120 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Visibility data for the Forest Service come from a national interagency network, Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). IMPROVE data are available in a processed form from the Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/web/improve/summary_data.htm). No secondary sources of this type of data exist that have appropriate spatial extent. The representative sites have been determined in a legal process and must be used as they are listed. Each year, the representative monitoring site should be confirmed with the zone or regional air-quality specialist or manager. Monitoring networks close and add sites periodically and the air-quality specialist/manager will be aware of any changes to the site determined to be representative of the wilderness.

•• Frequency of data collection. Samples are collected every 3 days, and data are processed and ready for access on an annual basis.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. All wildernesses have representative data.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Data provided on the VIEWS Web site already have been quality checked, filtered, and processed. Sites that have years without annual mean values will have to be omitted from analysis for that year. After completing the table that cross-references wildernesses with IMPROVE sites (All wildernesses_viz.xls), it is apparent that the greatest spatial gaps are the central coast of Oregon and the Wasatch Range in Utah. Available data for Alaska wildernesses also are limited. Sites will be added and removed from the IMPROVE network in the future; when that happens, this list will have to be reevaluated. The standard rules for spatial representativeness may be violated in some cases.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from a national data collection program that has been rigorously tested and refined over a long period time; therefore, data quantity is complete and data quality is high.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Sulfate and nitrate measurements are added for each 3-day sample, and the annual mean of this sum is the metric used in this assessment. The data file for the monitoring site representative of the wilderness of interest should be downloaded to provide this informa- tion. Data files are currently offered as comma-separated variable files for import into any spreadsheet program. The necessary sulfate and nitrate averages can be easily extracted from this file.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 121 Group 50 values (those representing the mean of the median 20 percent of observations) can be taken directly from the VIEWS data file. Group 50 values are used because they represent median days closest to the annual mean value desired. Group 50 values are listed for each IMPROVE site for each sample year that meets data completeness require- ments. A lookup table could be developed that shows which IMPROVE site has been se- lected for every wilderness, and includes the Group 50 values assigned to that wilderness. Table 32 provides a lookup table for the State of Washington as an example.

Table 32.—Group 50 nitrate and sulfate example lookup values for wildernesses in the State of Washington. Representative Natural ammonium nitrate Wilderness IMPROVE site + ammonium sulfate (μg/m3) Alpine Lakes Wilderness SNPA1 0.2 Boulder River Wilderness NOCA1 0.2 Buckhorn Wilderness OLYM1 0.2 Clearwater Wilderness MORA1 0.2 Colonel Bob Wilderness OLYM1 0.2 Glacier Peak Wilderness NOCA1 0.2 Glacier View Wilderness MORA1 0.2 Goat Rocks Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 Henry M. Jackson Wilderness NOCA1 0.2 Indian Heaven Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness PASA1 0.2 Mount Adams Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 Mount Baker Wilderness NOCA1 0.2 Mount Skokomish Wilderness OLYM1 0.2 Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness NOCA1 0.2 Norse Peak Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 Pasayten Wilderness PASA1 0.2 Salmo-Priest Wilderness CABI1 0.2 Tatoosh Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 The Brothers Wilderness OLYM1 0.2 Trapper Creek Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness STAR1 0.2 William O. Douglas Wilderness WHPA1 0.2 Wonder Mountain Wilderness OLYM1 0.2

IMPROVE = Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments.

Unlike the natural estimates, the group 50 values do not precisely correspond to the annual mean value. For purposes of this analysis, the values are similar enough and the work involved in calculating true annual means is not justified. Trends will be virtually unaffected by the choice of group 50 values.

For each wilderness, add the ammonium sulfate (Amm_SO4) value to the ammonium

nitrate (Amm_NO3) value and subtract the provided natural estimate of Amm_SO4 +

Amm_NO3 for each year. (Note that the natural estimate of Amm_SO4+Amm_NO3 is constant for each wilderness.) Taken together, these values create a table of wildernesses showing deciview and anthropogenic (manmade) sulfate and nitrate by year.

122 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Time-series plots for each site can be generated, as shown in figure 8.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, significant change in this measure will be assessed using regression analysis at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle.

Figure 8.—An example of a possible time-series plot for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments data. 3 and Amm_NO 4 Deciview Sum of Amm_SO

IMPROVE = Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments.

What Are the Centralized Data Analysis Tasks? To download the data used for computing deciview, follow these steps:

1. Download the most current data from http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/web/ improve/summary_data.htm (in 2006, the most current data were from 2003).

2. From the data set, select group 50 (mean of means of the middle 20-percent visibility days) data.

3. From the group 50 data, compute the average sum of anthropogenic fine sulfate

and nitrate ([Amm_SO4]+[Amm_NO3]-[Env]) for each site and join this information with the site-wilderness crosswalk.

4. Note that this task can be done for all wildernesses at once each year. Deciview data should also be collected in the same way at the same time.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Although human perception of visibility conditions is not of primary interest to managers in this wilderness character assessment, visibility measurements are used in this assess-

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 123 ment because they provide a direct way to measure the clean air conditions in wilderness. Note that the actual physics of visibility are considerably more complex than can be captured by measurements of pollutant concentrations and deciview. Despite these limita- tions, these measures are appropriate and sufficient, especially in terms of capturing trend information.

These measures will not generally capture impacts from plume blight, which is a form of visibility impairment caused by coherent plumes of pollutants. In addition, these measures capture only one component of nighttime visibility. In many cases, nighttime visibility obscuration will be magnified by light sources, especially urban areas, outside the wilderness.

5.3.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Deciview Average deciview.

Why Is This Measure Important? Deciview is a haziness index used to express light extinction. Although the sulfate plus fine nitrate measure provides a good estimate of anthropogenic regional haze, it does not provide a cumulative measure of impact to visibility. For example, in some cases, a 50-percent reduction in sulfate and nitrate concentrations would yield a dramatic, easily perceptible improvement in visibility conditions. At other sites, with different fine particle concentrations and species composition, such a reduction would produce only a very slight improvement. The use of the deciview measurement addresses this issue.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Information about changes in pollution emissions in counties surrounding each wilder- ness is available from EPA via the National Emissions Inventory. These data can be considered optional for local wilderness managers to use in interpreting changes in this indicator. In addition, information about emissions from wildfire and prescribed fire may aid in interpreting the visibility trends data. Table 33 describes the attributes for measur- ing average deciview.

Table 33.—Attributes for measuring average deciview. Attribute Average deciview* Representative IMPROVE site Year of data * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. IMPROVE = Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments.

124 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. See the information under measure 1, average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfur.

•• Frequency of data collection. See the information under measure 1, average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfur.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. See the information under measure 1, average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfur.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. See the information under measure 1, average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfur.

•• Data adequacy. These data are derived from a national data collection program that has been rigorously tested and refined over a long period time; therefore, data quantity is complete and data quality is high.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? See the information under measure 1, average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and

sulfur. At the point at which the directions indicate adding the sums of Amm_SO4 to

Amm_NO3, etc., simply obtain the value for deciview directly from the group 50 “DV” column instead.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, significant change in this measure will be assessed using regression analysis at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle.

What Are the Centralized Data Analysis Tasks? To download the data, follow these steps:

1. Download the most current data from http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/web/ improve/summary_data.htm (in 2006, the most current data were from 2003).

2. From this data set, select group 50 (mean of means of the middle 20-percent visibility days) data.

3. Join the deciview data with the site-wilderness crosswalk.

4. Note that this task can be done for all wildernesses at once each year. The average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate data should also be collected in the same way at the same time.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 125 What Are the Cautions About This Measure? See the information under measure 1, average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfur.

5.3.2. Indicator 2 for Question 2—Extirpated Species Indigenous ecosystems, plant communities, and plant and animal species that have been extirpated.

Why Is This Indicator Important? To the American public, wilderness is a place in which indigenous plant and animal spe- cies can thrive and serve as symbols of the wildness and natural character of wilderness. Wilderness visitors expect the opportunity to observe and experience the plants and wild- life that originally inhabited an area, and protecting wildlife habitat and endangered spe- cies are two of the most important values the American public identifies with wilderness (Cordell and others 1998). Furthermore, as wildernesses become increasingly surrounded by development, they may increasingly become important areas for the survival of rare or at-risk indigenous species. If these species are extirpated from the wilderness (i.e., no longer occur there) the natural quality of wilderness character is diminished.

The loss or extirpation of indigenous species from a wilderness can profoundly affect public understanding and experience of that area. The wolf and grizzly bear, for example, have long been symbols for wilderness, and those areas that now lack these species are, in the view of most people, less wild and less of a wilderness. In the Eastern and Mid- western United States, examples of extirpated indigenous wildlife include timber wolves, ivory-billed woodpeckers, Bachman’s warblers, and Appalachian Berwick’s wrens. Many western wilderness now lack wolves, lynx, and grizzly bears.

The loss of individual species may profoundly affect wilderness ecosystems. Beaver, for example, function as ecological engineers by damming free-flowing streams to create sluggish ponds that provide habitat for many terrestrial, aquatic, and amphibian species. Beaver were extirpated from many areas and their loss has caused the decline of many habitats and species. The serious decline and loss of whitebark pine from some western wildernesses has removed nutritious seeds that were a major food source for grizzly bears during late summer and fall.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator was chosen to get at the role that wilderness plays in protecting and main- taining biological communities and species populations; indigenous species that were extirpated are a sign that this protective function of wilderness is diminished. The intent of this measure is to track only those species that are formally recognized as extirpated

126 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character or are reasonably known by resource specialists to have occurred in the wilderness in the past but no longer occur there.

Many other indicators were considered to get at this species and community protection role of wilderness but were dropped for a variety of different reasons (see Appendix E, Dropped Indicators and Measures).

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? The single measure—number of indigenous plant and animal species that have been extirpated from the wilderness—is a direct measure of this indicator.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? Concern about using this indicator exists because extirpation within a wilderness may be strongly affected by what has happened outside the wilderness. Landres and others (1998) describe in detail these external forces affecting species inside wilderness. Although the intent of this indicator is to track only those species that were extirpated due to wilderness management activities such as the introduction of nonindigenous plants or animal species, fire suppression, or physical damage to populations from human activity, in reality, isolat- ing or even discerning these causes is, in most cases, difficult or impossible.

Although our understanding of major plant and animal extirpations is fairly good, virtually no data are available for invertebrates, fungi, and all the other little organisms that we can not see without a microscope. Furthermore, even though a species no longer occurs within a wilderness, the species’ habitat may still occur within the wilderness, and individuals may continue to occur in geographic areas outside the wilderness.

5.3.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 2—Extirpated Plants and Animals Number of indigenous plant and animal species that have been extirpated.

Why Is This Measure Important? The number of species that were indigenous to a wilderness but are now extirpated from that area is a clear signal that the species composition of the wilderness is diminished from what it was in North America before European contact.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 34 describes the attributes for measuring extirpated plant and animal species known to be indigenous to the wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 127 Table 34.—Attributes for measuring the number of extirpated species. Attribute Scientific name (genus and species) of the species* Source of data—select all that apply: • NRIS • State Heritage Program • Scientific literature • Surveys or monitoring • Museum collections • Personal knowledge • Knowledge of others • Other (specify) Confidence level that all extirpated species have been accounted for—select one: • High • Moderate • Low Reason for extirpation (optional)—select all that apply: • Habitat loss • Direct human action (e.g., predator removal) • Invasive species • Pollutants • Other (specify) * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. NRIS = Natural Resource Information System.

Unlike the other measures in this monitoring protocol that assess the impacts of modern people from the time the wilderness was designated, this measure assesses impacts based on the known history of an area from the time of European contact in North America to the present day. For example, if wolves are known to have occurred in an area before it was designated wilderness and they are now extirpated, this extirpation would be counted under this measure. Going back to the time of European contact is necessary for this mea- sure for two reasons: (1) public perception of the natural quality of wilderness character is strongly associated with such species that were likely extirpated before wilderness designation, such as wolves and grizzly bears; and (2) if species that were extirpated before wilderness designation (e.g., wolves) were restored to a wilderness, most people would associate this restoration with an improvement in the natural quality of wilderness character.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The primary data source will be the NRIS. The data within NRIS on extirpated species largely come from monitoring programs established by The Nature Conservancy through a network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers based in all 50 States that track the conservation status of species at global and State levels. Extirpated species are listed in the Natural Heritage Database as GX (globally extirpated) or SX (State extirpated).

128 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character A secondary data source for this information will be botanists and ecologists with responsibilities for individual wildernesses or other resource specialists familiar with the general area. These professionals could use a variety of different sources for these data, including the following:

• Individual State natural heritage programs or conservation data centers, located in all 50 States. The Nature Conservancy’s NatureServe Web site (http:// www.natureserve.org/) provides central access to all the State natural heritage programs with extensive information on species, including distribution maps, life histories, conservation status, and conservation needs.

• University herbaria.

• Forest and district files.

• Regionwide or landscape planning documents.

• Personal observation.

• Observation from other knowledgeable sources.

It is not expected that that the resource specialist would spend an exhaustive amount of time on this measure; it is more likely that this person would either know of the extirpated species that had occurred in the wilderness or would make a few phone calls to validate his or her judgment.

•• Frequency of data collection. After data are collected initially, periodic review and updates every 5 years would be sufficient to track changes over time. The comparison between data collected at year 1 and year 5 will form the basis for documenting trends in this indicator.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. All wildernesses should have data available for extirpated species because these data are tracked in all 50 States through State natural heritage programs and conservation data centers. Additional information on extirpated species will be largely dependent on local data sources.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. New data coverage should be entered into NRIS as it becomes available because NRIS is the Forest Service repository for natural heritage program data. In addition, individual State natural heritage programs and conservation data centers will continue to serve as clearinghouses for information from various sources. Data gaps can also be addressed through scientific literature. DigiTop, an online scientific literature

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 129 database for USDA employees, is one source of current scientific literature. Using this resource, queries can be conducted for a variety of topics, including information on individual plant species, plant habitats, and habitat management.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity is assessed by the attribute about the confidence level that all extirpating species have been accounted for: a high level of confidence yields complete data quantity, a moderate level of confidence yields partial data quantity, and a low level of confidence yields insufficient data quantity. Data quality is assessed by the attribute about the source of the data: data from NRIS, State Heritage Program, scientific literature, surveys or monitoring, and museum collections are of high quality; data from personal knowledge is of moderate quality; and data from other people is of low quality unless these other people are known experts in the appropriate field.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Washington Office staff will download data from the various State natural heritage programs and conservation data centers as Geographic Information System shapefiles and then compare these shapefiles with GIS wilderness boundaries to determine which extirpated species occurred within the wilderness boundary. A tabular display can then be developed showing which species had occurrences (polygon coverage) within the wilder- ness boundaries.

To identify significant trends in this measure, any change in the number of species is deemed to be significant. For example, if one species is added (e.g., because new data shows that an indigenous species is now extirpated), this addition a significant degrada- tion in this measure. If one species is removed from this list (e.g., because new data shows that a species has expanded back into the wilderness) this removal is a significant im- provement in this measure. Similarly, if an extirpated indigenous species is reintroduced to the wilderness, this reintroduction is a significant improvement in this measure.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Most wildernesses lack information on the species that have been extirpated from the area or even on all the animal species that currently occur there. Natural variability in species abundance and distribution at the population level (metapopulation dynamics) must be taken into account during any periodic assessments of trend. For example, a known population of a species may disappear even though a new population appears elsewhere in the wilderness.

The professional review and advice of ecologists, botanists, and others who are knowl- edgeable about the species will be needed to determine the causes of changes to species

130 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character and their habitats. In some cases, a correlation between management threat and population decline may be as direct as a personal observation of physical damage to the species from human or livestock trampling. In such cases, direct management intervention will be possible. In many cases, however, it may be difficult or impossible to determine the exact cause of species or community decline.

All indigenous species that have been extirpated within a wilderness will never be fully known, and the intent of this indicator is to track only as many extirpations as are reason- ably known (see the data sources explained in the measure for this indicator). Periodic surveying and monitoring are also needed to determine newly extirpated species and range expansions (or contractions) of known extirpated species that may disperse back into a wilderness.

Reintroduction of species through Federal or State agency efforts would be one source of change in the presence of extirpated indigenous species within a wilderness. Natural reintroduction of species by migration would be another source of change.

In addition, new research or inventory and monitoring activities may change our knowledge about the presence or lack of presence of certain species within a wilderness. Therefore, caution is necessary in interpreting trends in this measure to ensure that trends are due to an increase or decrease in species numbers and not due to availability of new information.

Species may be extirpated from or reinhabit a wilderness for reasons that have nothing to do with wilderness designation and management. Species populations may be influenced, for example, by global climate change or habitat changes occurring outside the wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 131 132 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 6. Undeveloped Quality

6.0. Summary

Table 35 provides a summary of the monitoring question, indicator, and measures for the undeveloped quality.

Three monitoring questions have been identified to evaluate the status of the undeveloped quality of wilderness character. Each question addresses a fundamentally different aspect of the quality as defined in the Wilderness Act.

The first question evaluates the physical evidence of modern use and occupation: the permanent infrastructure. This evidence includes those items constructed to support recre- ation use, such as trails and bridges, as well as other infrastructure, such as buildings and dams. More commonly, these items existed at the time the area was designated as wilder- ness; however, other items have been added since that time after having been determined as necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness.

Development-level indexes will be developed for various types of physical infrastructure to address the first monitoring question. Each development-level index involves the calculation of a weighted index, relying on attributes of the various types of infrastructure that connote differing levels of development. The index has the advantage of tracking aspects of the infrastructure that might be more sensitive to change based on stewardship decisions and actions, although the index also introduces additional bias into the process.

The second question evaluates the effect of motorized equipment and mechanical trans- port use on the undeveloped quality of wilderness. This use also includes authorizations for emergency use (such as the use of chain saws during fire-suppression efforts or heli- copter access to extricate an injured hiker) and for administrative and other nonemergency

Table 35.—A summary of indicators and measures monitored in the undeveloped quality. Quality of wilderness Monitoring question Indicator Measure Undeveloped—wilderness What are the trends in physical Physical evidence of Index of physical development is essentially without evidence of modern human development permanent improvements occupation or modification? or modern human occupation What are the trends in the use Motorized equipment and Index of emergency motorized equipment of motorized equipment and mechanical transport use and mechanical transport use mechanical transport? authorizations Index of administrative and nonemergency motorized equipment and mechanical transport use

What are the trends in Inholdings Acres of inholdings inholdings?

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 133 purposes (such as the use of motorized equipment to maintain dams, utility infrastructure, and fixed instrumentation and to access State and private lands). The use of these devices, although authorized by the Wilderness Act under certain conditions, provides an indica- tion of a manager’s actions that diminish the undeveloped quality.

The third question evaluates the effects inholdings have on the surrounding wilderness lands. Inholdings interior to designated wilderness are not encumbered by the same constraints as wilderness and can have roads constructed, homes built, and forests logged. In addition, the Forest Service must provide right-of-way access to these lands. Although inholdings are not wilderness, they clearly can have an effect on the adjoining lands.

A fourth aspect was considered for inclusion under this quality but eventually not included. The physical presence of people inside a wilderness—whether the people are recreationists, wilderness rangers on foot patrol, or scientists conducting research—was considered an important component of the undeveloped quality. Ultimately, human pres- ence per se was not included because data would have been difficult to gather to support this monitoring question; furthermore, the other two questions relate to the physical presence of people and can serve as a surrogate. The intent of this protocol is to identify selected indicators of wilderness character, not to monitor all aspects concurrently.

6.1. Introduction

The opening sentence of Section 2(a) of the Wilderness Act states that “In order to assure than an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mecha- nization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States.” The Wilderness Act goes further in Section 2(c) to define wilderness as “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation” and “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

For many people, wilderness is defined by its lack of developments—most commonly, the absence of roads. As stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964, wilderness is intended to contrast “with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape” Of course, no wildernesses have escaped the physical evidence of modern human occupation and modification. Many developments were grandfathered by the authorizing legislation, meaning they predated the establishment of the wilderness. Although not typically allowed in designated wilderness, the presence of such developments did not preclude the formal designation of the area. These developments include buildings, roads, dams, power line and water pipe corridors, and mines. The overall trend in these developments is downward. As a particular piece of infrastructure outlives its intended purpose, it is often removed if the law allows for its removal: roads are put to bed, buildings torn down,

134 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character and dams decommissioned. In other situations, however, new infrastructure is sometimes put into wilderness, most commonly in the form of fixed instrumentation sites, such as volcanic activity sensors and snow water content monitoring stations.

One of the concerns with these kinds of physical evidence is the impact on a visitor’s experience of a “primitive” environment because wilderness is supposed to be a place in which the evidence of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. Some physical evidence of occupancy and use is acceptable because of special provisions in legislation or because it is considered the “minimum necessary for administration of the area for the purpose of the Act” (Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964). For example, historical structures and cultural artifacts are recognized in the Wilderness Act as part of the value of wilderness. A minimal system of trails and campsites is considered essential to manage the effects of recreation use while enabling people to use and enjoy wilderness. Because camp- sites, travel routes, and structures strongly influence people’s opportunity to experience wilderness, managers are to exercise restraint in fulfilling their administrative responsibilities so that a wilderness does not increasingly appear developed, occupied, and modified.

“Expanding settlement and growing mechanization” are identified within the Wilderness Act as forces that cause wild country to become occupied and modified. Legislative history underscores the close association among motorized use, mechanical transport, and people’s ability to develop, occupy, and modify wilderness. By monitoring the autho- rizations for administrative use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport, it is possible to capture a myriad of special provisions allowed by the Wilderness Act and other wilderness legislation as well as those Section 4(c) activities deemed by the agency to be the “minimum necessary.” By monitoring trends in the use of these authorizations over a relatively long period of time, managers can be aware of upward trends and respond to them with appropriate management decisions to reverse or stabilize these trends.

The use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport in wilderness features prominently in Forest Service regulation and policy directives. Part 293 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations disallows “the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, or other forms of mechanical transport; no landing of aircraft; no dropping of materials; supplies or persons from aircraft” (except as provided in the Wilderness Act or subsequent legislation).

National Forest Service policy sets forth the following objectives in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2326, Use of Motorized Equipment or Mechanical Transport in Wilderness:

“Accomplish management activities with non-motorized equipment and non-mechanical transport of supplies and personnel.”

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 135 “Exclude the sight, sound, and other tangible evidence of motorized equipment or mechanical transport within wilderness except where they are needed and justified.”

At the same time, this policy provides direction as to when and by whom use may be authorized, based on the special provisions outlined in the Wilderness Act.

6.2. Monitoring Question 1—Modern Human Occupation or Modification

What are the trends of physical evidence of modern human occupation or modification?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? Wilderness should essentially be without physical evidence of modern human occupation or modification; however, in reality, this is not always the case. Some level of infrastruc- ture, such as trails and trail bridges, are permitted to enable the “use and enjoyment of the area as wilderness.” Other types of structures, such as dams, predate the designation of wilderness and their use is allowed to continue. In limited cases, other types of improvements, such as snow gauging stations, have been added in some wildernesses since designation.

In general, the fewer developments inside a wilderness, the better. Wilderness character is evaluated as improving as the number of developments decreases. In addition to the number of developments, the type of developments is also important because not all developments are the same; this technical guide attempts to assign weights accordingly. Consequently, the measure used for this indicator should be responsive to stewardship decisions that influence wilderness character; e.g., the replacement of a primitive, log stringer bridge with a manufactured steel structure.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? Only one indicator for this monitoring question exists—the physical evidence of develop- ments—so a synthesis of different indicators to respond to the monitoring question is not required. If the evaluation of the measure suggests that the indicator is decreasing, stable, or increasing, then the corresponding answer will be provided for the monitoring question.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? This protocol is pragmatically constrained to focus on measures for which data occur in 50 percent or more of the wildernesses. Several other components of the measure that would have been useful for informing managers about trends in the physical evidence of developments were not included as core measures because of lack of data. For example, nonsystem trails, campsites, and commercial range developments are not included due to

136 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character data unavailability, although each component would be useful for evaluating trends in this quality. Despite these absences, the attention placed on agency accountability for inven- tory management and deferred maintenance reporting over the past decade has resulted in relatively reliable data sets for many of the components of the measure of this indicator.

Other measure components may also be important to the wilderness character of an individual area but they do not occur consistently enough for this national protocol. One example is wilderness landing strips. Where they occur, landing strips have the potential to significantly affect one’s sense of the undeveloped quality of a particular area, and they should be included in the identification of local core indicators. Nevertheless, because landing strips occur in only a handful of wildernesses, their use as a national core measure is limited and they are not included in this protocol.

6.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Physical Evidence Physical evidence of development.

Why Is This Indicator Important? The presence or absence of the physical evidence of development is a good indicator because of the direct link between the indicator and the monitoring question.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? Developments are a logical and obvious indicator for this monitoring question. When most people think about the undeveloped quality of wilderness, they envision an area without lasting signs of human use and occupation, free of inhabited structures, without dams impeding natural streamflow, without power lines crossing the landscape, and, most typically, without roads providing easy access for cars and other motorized vehicles.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? The measure involves the calculation of a development level index, which assesses the cumulative development level of each occurrence of a specific indicator (for a building, dam, trail, etc.). These indexes are calculated by evaluating selected attributes for each type of physical infrastructure and assigning differential weights based on perceived dif- ferences in the level of development.

Although not without weaknesses, this concept of calculating a development level index was widely supported during pilot testing.

The development level index for each of the individual measure components will be combined to determine an overall development index that can be used to inform managers

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 137 about trends in the indicator and to directly address the monitoring question. Not all measure components have the same development level associated with them; e.g., a small wooden trail bridge has a significantly different development level than a large concrete dam.

To account for these differences, an inherent weighting has been assigned to each measure component. Components with a relatively low level of development are assigned a value of 1, components with a moderate level of development are assigned a value of 2, and components with a high level of development are assigned a value of 3. Measure compo- nents were assigned a low inherent weight if they are typically small in geographic scale and/or often of a primitive nature. For example, fixed instrumentation sites are routinely quite small in size and were assigned an inherent weight of “1.” Other measures were assigned higher weights if they tended to be less primitive and/or have a typically greater level of impact on wilderness resources.

The measure components used under this monitoring question have been subjectively determined by a sampling of wilderness managers to have the inherent weights shown in table 36.

Table 36.—Inherent weighting of different types of physical evidence. Measure component Inherent weight System trails and features 1 Campsites 1 Buildings 2 Dams 3 Roads 3 Infrastructure 3 Mines 3

The overall development level will be calculated by adding each of the development indexes multiplied by the inherent weight of the development type:

Development level index equals— (Building development index x 2) + (System trail development index x 1) + (Campsite development index x 1) + (Dam development index x 3) + (Road development index x 3) + (Infrastructure development index x 3) + (Mine development index x 3)

The number produced from this calculation will be the development level index for the wilderness. The number will not be meaningful in an absolute sense; e.g., a value of 2X should not be interpreted as having twice the development level of a wilderness with a

138 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character development level of 1X. The use of a development level is useful in a relative sense, showing increasing or decreasing trends over time.

What amount of change is required in the overall development level index to result in a determination that the status and trends of physical evidence of modern human occupation or modification are either improving or degrading? To determine the direction of change, the overall development level must increase by 5 percent or more between time point 1 and time point 2 to result in a determination of degrading; conversely, a decrease of 5 percent or more will result in an improving score. All other results will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be determined to be beyond noise in the data and to be reflective of actual change in wilderness conditions.

What Are the Attributes of This Indicator? The attributes vary based on the type of infrastructure being evaluated as a measure com- ponent. For details, refer to the attribute text written for each of the measure components.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? The use of the development level index has a couple of obvious limitations. First, it is un- certain whether the attribute data needed to assign the relative weights will be available in all wildernesses. Second, bias is introduced into the process by the selection of the attributes upon which the relative weights are assigned and the specific relative and inherent weights.

The issue of how features of historical significance are addressed in this protocol needs to be explicitly addressed. Features of historical significance will not be evaluated any differ- ently in this protocol than other features. Although the Wilderness Act does acknowledge in Section 2(c) that wildernesses “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value” (emphasis added), it does not clearly state, or even imply, that these historical values should be interpreted as part of the wilderness character of the area. In fact, as previously stated, the Wilderness Act suggests that the ab- sence of permanent improvements constitutes an important aspect of wilderness character.

Further discussion of this issue is probably useful. The issue of historical significance most commonly relates to structures in wilderness. For example, the Moose Creek Ranger Station, which is in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and is on the National Register of Historic Places, would be evaluated as detrimental to wilderness character. The station provides a base for crews to work from and enables agency employees to occupy and use wilderness, which is what this indicator is attempting to measure. That is not to say that the Moose Creek Ranger Station does not contribute to the value of the area, because the

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 139 opposite is true. The station tells a compelling story about the earliest use and settlement of the area before its designation as wilderness, but the value it contributes to is not the wilderness character of the area, at least as defined in this protocol.

Other structures that have been determined to be of historical value may not be actively maintained. If they can no longer serve the purpose for which they were built, they will not be categorized as buildings and will not be considered as part of this protocol. For example, if all that remains of a settler’s cabin is a foundation and chimney, the site would be classified as a historic site and not a building. Other types of historic sites, such as or- chards, plane wreckage, and cemeteries, are not included in this protocol. Although these sites are visible evidence of prior occupation and modification, they are listed a dropped indicator for a couple of reasons. First, data relative to historic sites can be difficult to acquire because it is given a high level of security due to concerns about these sites being disturbed by unauthorized people. This issue is not insurmountable but it does contribute to the challenge and workload associated with acquiring data. Second,, and more impor- tantly, these data are not subject to change as a result of stewardship actions. Although the physical evidence associated with historic sites may diminish over time, this process can take place over many years. We do not want to even create the appearance of a conflict between wilderness character and historic sites by including these sites as a component of the physical evidence of development.

6.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Physical Development Index Index of physical development.

Why Is This Measure Important? This measure evaluates the relative contribution of individual occurrences of different types of physical developments inside wilderness, such as buildings, trails, and dams, and produces a cumulative index based on both the relative and inherent impacts each of these occurrences has on the level of development in a specific wilderness.

What Are the Components of This Measure? This measure has seven equally important components. 1. Index of building development. 2. Index of system trail development. 3. Index of campsite development. 4. Index of dam development.

140 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 5. Index of road development. 6. Index of infrastructure development. 7. Index of mine development.

Unlike other chapters in this technical guide, each of the different components under this measure requires its own description of data collection and processing, data completeness, and cautions about interpretation.

Index of building development The index of building development is calculated for each building inside a particular wil- derness based on key attributes, such as building type and length of resident occupancy, and then summed for the entire wilderness.

A building is defined as “a structure to support, shelter, or enclose persons, animals, or property of any kind” (Forest Service Handbook 6509.11k, sections 56.05 and 7309.11, section 05). A structure that can no longer serve the purpose for which it was constructed, such as an abandoned settler’s cabin, will not be considered a building under this protocol.

Why is this component important? Buildings that occur in wilderness may be of a broad range of types, including crew quarters, outfitter and guide lodges, toilet structures, lookouts, and recreational shelters and cabins. Buildings are important because they enable people to occupy and inhabit wilderness, and through this occupation people are further enabled to modify the environment around them. In short, buildings are the physical manifestation of human habitation referenced in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act.

This measure not only tracks the number of buildings, it also weights the relative influ- ence of an individual structure on the undeveloped quality by evaluating the amount of time that a building serves to house people. This inference is based on the logic that the more time people are housed at an individual structure, the greater the likelihood they will modify the surrounding environment, thereby increasing the associated development level.

What are the attributes of this component? Table 37 describes attributes used in calculating the index of building development.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 141 Table 37.—Attributes for calculating the index of building development. Attribute Category* Subcategory* Residence type*—select one: • Nonresidential • Part-time residential • Full-time residential Building identification Building name Status Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

All attributes are currently required for buildings entered into the Infra-Buildings module, with the exception of residence type, which will need to be entered as part of this protocol implementation.

How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Buildings that occur in wilderness are divided into two distinct categories: (1) those owned by the Forest Service, and (2) those owned by other entities but authorized through a special- use permit. This distinction is important because of the sources and types of data available for each of these categories.

Information about buildings that are owned by the Forest Service is stored in the Infra-Buildings module. Although for several years it has been required that all buildings owned by the Forest Service be entered into the corporate database, it has never been required that those buildings that are inside wilderness be identified as such. A link will need to be established between the constructed feature (the building) and the land unit (the wilderness), using either a spatial overlay or a manual linking process. All needed attributes, identified previously, currently are either mandatory or required, with the exception of residence types.

Information about buildings owned by other entities but authorized through a special-use permit is stored in the Infra-Special Uses Database System (SUDS).

142 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Although current policy directs forests to have a record in SUDS for all special- use permits, they are not required to also create a corresponding record in the Infra-Buildings module if the special-use permit authorizes use of a non-Forest Service building. The system will be able to initially identify those special uses that authorize buildings by focusing on the use code, which contains values such as “cabin” and “residence, privately owned building.” Corresponding records will also need to be entered in the Infra-Buildings module, although just for the mandatory data fields and entry of the residence type, because the building attributes are used to calculate the building development level index. This building record will also need to be linked to the wilderness of interest.

•• Frequency of data collection. The Infra-Building data will be retrieved for this protocol every 5 years. Real property maintenance requirements direct field units to update their inventory of buildings every 5 years and the records in SUDS are updated annually.

How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. All national forests should have all Forest Service-owned buildings and buildings authorized through special-use permits entered into the Building and Infra-SUDS modules, respectively. Those buildings that are authorized through special-use permits will need to have a corresponding record established in the Buildings module if it has not been done already. The links identifying which buildings are in which wilderness will need to be established in most cases. The “residence type” field for all buildings will be entered.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be required to view the data that currently reside in the Infrastructure (Infra) database and to make any necessary edits, including the following:

• Make corrections to existing data where needed.

• Complete missing mandatory attributes where missing, including residence type.

• Develop link records to the appropriate wilderness record, where needed.

• Enter missing buildings that had not been entered previously.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all structures that meet the definition of a building are included in the current inventory. Greatest attention will be placed on those buildings that are not Forest Service owned. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint on whether the attributes are accurate and complete.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 143 How will the data be processed and analyzed? Local forest staff will be required to validate the existing data in Infra and to make any needed edits. A building development index will then be calculated for each building in the wilderness, based on the amount of time a building was occupied, if at all.

Buildings have been determined to have three development level values.

1. Nonresidential. For buildings, such as toilets and storage sheds, that do not house people. Note: toilets are included in this assessment only if they include some form of structure and can be classified as a building.

2. Part-time (seasonal) residential. For buildings occupied by people for a cumulative total of 6 months or less each year. These buildings may include some lookouts as well as certain recreation shelters. Note: For this counting, buildings that only receive day use are included.

3. Full-time (year-round) residential. For buildings occupied by people for a cumulative total of more than 6 months each year. These buildings may include crew quarters, outfitter and guide lodges, and certain recreational cabins. Note: For this counting, buildings that receive only day use are included.

The development level value will be established for every building in the wilderness and these values will be added to produce a building development index for the entire wilder- ness. For example:

Building development index = (building number1 * relative weight) + (building number2 * relative weight) + and so on.

What are the cautions about this component? A caution about the values selected to evaluate the relative impact of an individual building on the development level of the wilderness exists. The concerns are of two types: (1) the arbitrariness of the values chosen, and (2) the implied relationship between different numeric values (e.g., that a building with inhabitants for more than 6 months per year has three times more impact than a storage shed). The only way these concerns can be addressed is to stress that the number produced is meaningless in and of itself in an absolute sense; what matters is change over time in an individual wilderness.

Index of system trail development The index of system trail development is an index that is calculated by combining the indexes assessed to both system trail miles and major trail features. These individual

144 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character indexes are determined using key attributes, such as the trail class of system trails and the materials used to construct major trail features.

Trails are defined as “A linear feature constructed for the purpose of allowing the free movement of people, stock, or OHV’s” (USDA Forest Service 2003a).

Trails can be subdivided into system trails and nonsystem trails; the latter are also referred to as user-developed trails or social trails. Other nonsystem trails may be authorized through special-use permits to access private or State inholdings. This protocol only evalu- ates changes in system trails that are actively maintained by the Forest Service. Although nonsystem trails are of great interest to wilderness managers, data are not routinely col- lected about them, which makes their use in this protocol impractical at a national level.

Major trail features may be defined as major constructed features associated with a system trail. Because this assessment is focused on the more significant, countable trail features, only trail bridges, stairways, boardwalks, docks, and puncheons are included. Other minor trail features, such as signs and drainage structures, are not.

Why is this component important? System trails and associated major trail features are relevant to this quality because, although sanctioned as a legitimate use by the Wilderness Act of 1964, they are physical evidence of human use and occupation. These features are among the most prevalent types of developments to be encountered in wilderness. The current inventory indicates more than 23,000 system trail mi exist in wilderness. These trails are important because they serve as the primary routes through which a wilderness is accessed, thereby providing the gateway for further use and occupation above and beyond the development associated with the system trails themselves.

Some wildernesses are currently without any system trail miles; however, this measure still is meaningful because any change in this status over time would have a potentially significant effect on the undeveloped quality of a wilderness.

What are the attributes of this component? Attributes for measuring system trails and major trail features are described in the following tables and text.

System trails. Table 38 describes attributes for measuring system trails.

Major trail features. Table 39 describes attributes for measuring major trail features.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 145 Table 38.—Attributes related to system trails for calculating the index of system trail development. Attribute

Trail class (linear event)*—beginning mile post (BMP) and ending mile post (EMP) Trail number Trail name Wilderness name (linear event)—BMP and EMP Trail status Trail type Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

Table 39.—Attributes related to major trail features for calculating the index of system trail development. Attribute

Type* Category* Material* Feature identification Feature beginning mile post Quantity Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The data will be pulled from the Infra-Trails module. All trails were to have been entered into the Infra-Trails module by September 30, 2004. This direction also included that each trail segment that resided in a wilderness be identified as such. The documentation of trail class for each trail segment is a requirement for annual deferred maintenance reporting purposes.

146 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character A secondary data source should not be needed. Local knowledge will supplement the information currently in the Infra-Trails module if the records in the corporate database are incomplete or inaccurate.

•• How frequently will these data be collected? Data will be collected every 5 years for all system trails and major trail features. Current trail program business requirements mandate all system trail miles and major trail features be inventoried every 5 years.

How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. The completeness of this data, as validated during pilot testing, is quite variable across the country despite the requirement that all wilderness trail segments be identified through linear events and all major trail features be mileposted. In most cases, the linear events were appropriately entered for those system trails in wilderness. The completeness of mileposting of major trail features was more problematic.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be presented with the pertinent information currently contained within the Infra-Trails module and will have the opportunity to make any edits or additions needed to complete or update the data set. Linear events for any wilderness trails or changes in trail class that are missing can be entered at the time the protocol is applied. If mileposting of major trail features has not yet been accomplished, and it is not reasonable to expect it to be completed as a part of the application of this protocol, forests will be given the opportunity to develop a consolidated listing of all features by type (bridge, boardwalk, etc.) within the wilderness of interest, with the number of each type of feature in each of the three weighted categories.

•• Data adequacy. The issue of data adequacy will be addressed in terms of both data quantity and quality. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all system trails and trail features have been included in the current inventory. This aspect of data adequacy will need to be closely scrutinized in those cases in which major trail features are consolidated in the absence of accurate mileposting. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint on whether the attributes are accurate and complete.

How will the data be processed and analyzed? Data currently in the Infra-Trails database will be extracted for the particular wilderness, along with the attributes of interest. Forest staff will be required to validate the existing data and make any necessary edits, including the following:

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 147 •• Make corrections to existing data where needed. •• Complete missing mandatory attributes where missing. •• Create linear events or develop link records to the appropriate wilderness record, where needed.

•• Enter missing major trail features that had not been entered previously.

A system trail development index will then be calculated for each wilderness based on the amount and type of system trails and major trail features that occur in that wilderness.

System trails. To assess a weighted value for different system trail segments, the trail class was selected to represent different development levels. “Trail class” is defined as “the prescribed scale of development, representing the intended design and management standards of the trail” (USDA Forest Service 2004b).

System trails have been determined to have three development level values.

1. Primitive. For system trails with an assigned trail class of 1.

2. Simple. For system trails with an assigned trail class of 2.

3. Moderate to highly developed. For system trails with assigned trail classes of 3 or 4. It is assumed that no trails with a trail class of 5 (fully developed) exist in wilderness, but, if they occur, they would be assigned this value.

It should be noted that the trail class for a particular trail can be quite different from the conditions found on the ground. Trail class is the level of development that is planned for a trail, whereas the actual (operational) maintenance level of the trail will determine such factors as the amount of brushing that takes place each season plus the dimensions of the actual trail tread—which changes from year to year, based on funding and local workload priorities. The operational maintenance level of systems trails, while perhaps a preferable attribute, is not routinely collected, and, therefore, not of use to this protocol.

Major trail features. Relative weights are assigned to each major trail feature based on selected attributes, such as construction style and building material. These attributes are used to assign three development level values.

1. Primitive. For major trail features built with raw, native materials, such as a log bridge.

2. Constructed with native materials. For major trail features built with native materials that have been processed to form dimensional materials, such as a log stringer bridge with decking.

148 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 3. Constructed with nonnative materials. For major trail features built using nonnative materials as a primary building component, such as a bridge with steel supports.

The system trail development index will be calculated by tallying the individual values for all trail segments and major constructed features. For example:

System trail development index = (x.x mi trail segment number 1 * relative weight) + (major trail feature number 1 * relative weight) + and so on.

What are the cautions about this component? This measure introduces bias by assigning subjective relative and inherent weights to system trails and major trail features. It also introduces other complexity by combining two related but dissimilar components (trails and features). As previously mentioned, concern also exists about relying on trail class, which may not be an accurate reflection of how the trail is currently managed. This last concern might be tracked by adding a checkbox to ask “Does the trail class accurately reflect how the trail is currently being managed?” Tracking this concern would be useful in the change management process.

Index of campsite development The index of campsite development is calculated for an entire wilderness by totaling the individual campsite impact scores for each campsite in the wilderness. This index increases as either the number of campsites or the magnitude of impact on campsites increases.

A wilderness campsite may be defined as an area demonstrating observable impacts from repeated overnight wilderness visitation.

Why is this component important? Campsites are the most common development that occurs in wilderness. Although campsites are generally necessary, too many campsites and too much campsite impact detracts from the undeveloped character of wilderness. As a result of their inclusion in the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge, both the number of wildernesses with campsite data and the quality of that data are improving.

What are the attributes of this component? Table 40 describes attributes for computing the index of campsite development.

The specific attributes collected as part of routine campsite monitoring vary across the country. In support of the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge, a national

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 149 Table 40.—Attributes for calculating the index of campsite development. Attribute

Status* Overall impact rating* Recreation site identification Recreation site name Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

minimum site monitoring protocol was developed to ensure a minimum standard for this element across the Nation. Local monitoring protocols must meet or exceed this national standard in order in order to claim credit for accomplishment under the challenge. In this protocol, campsites are assigned an overall impact rating with a score from 0 to 8. This rating is a composite of separate scores for ground cover disturbance of the central por- tion of the site, tree damage, and the size of the overall disturbed area.

Those wilderness staff using protocols with different attributes, especially those relying on detailed site measurements, will need to either develop a crosswalk to the national minimum site monitoring protocol or will need to develop their own scoring system that results in three levels of impact scores to which impact level ratings can be assigned. Consistency between the approaches used by different forests is not essential because this protocol does not compare one wilderness with another. What is important is that, whatever approach is used for an individual wilderness, the same approach be used in subsequent years so that trends can be evaluated.

How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The primary data source for campsite monitoring is the Recreation Site Impact Monitoring Module in Infra-WILD. Those wilderness staff relying on other databases or spreadsheets for managing their recreation site inventory data can enter their campsite impact scores directly into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module screens.

•• Frequency of data collection. These data will be collected every 5 years, while recognizing some sites may not have been visited since the last monitoring cycle. Typically, recreation site inventories are expected to be repeated on a maximum cycle of 10 years.

150 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. At the present time, it is estimated that 20 to 30 percent of wildernesses have a campsite inventory that meets the standard established in the national campsite monitoring protocol. Despite this estimate, because campsite monitoring is included in the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and the agency’s commitment to have all wildernesses meet a baseline level of wilderness stewardship within the decade, it is reasonable to assume that more than 50 percent of wildernesses will have reliable campsite inventories, including assessment of campsite condition, within the next several years.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be required to view the data that currently reside in Infra and to make any necessary edits, including the following:

1. Make corrections to existing data where needed.

2. Enter missing campsites that had not been entered previously.

•• Data adequacy. The issue of data adequacy will be addressed both in terms of data quantity and quality. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all campsites have been included in the current inventory. The national recreation site monitoring protocol requires the entire wilderness be censused in all likely locations. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint of whether the attributes are accurate and complete, with particular attention on the overall impact rating. The protocol was developed with the intent of selecting site parameters and values with a reasonable level of accuracy and that were repeatable by different crews over time.

How will the data be processed and analyzed? Local forest staff will be required to validate the existing data in Infra and to make any needed edits. A campsite impact index will then be calculated for each campsite, based on the overall impact rating.

Campsites have been determined to have three impact level values.

1. Light impact. Assign a value of 1 to campsites that had an overall impact rating of 1 to 3.

2. Moderate impact. Assign a value of 2 to campsites with an overall impact rating of 4 to 6.

3. Severe impact. Assign a value of 3 to campsites with an overall impact rating of 7 to 8.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 151 The impact level value will be established for every campsite in the wilderness and these values will be added to produce a campsite impact index for the entire wilderness. For example:

Campsite development index = campsite number 1 impact level value + campsite number 2 impact level value + and so on.

What are the cautions about this component? Campsite monitoring is perhaps the most common type of monitoring that takes place in wilderness, and it has been in place for a couple of decades in some wildernesses. No specific cautions about this component exist.

Index of dam development The index of dam development is an index that is calculated for each individual occur- rence of a dam or other instream structure that occurs inside a particular wilderness. The index is then summed for the entire wilderness. Different occurrences of dams are differentially weighted based on key attributes, such as dam size and building material.

Dams are defined as “any artificial barrier… which impounds or diverts water” (FSM 7505). Other instream structures include constructed features found within a river chan- nel, such as diversions, fish ladders, and weirs.

Why is this component important? Dams and other instream structures, where they occur, are strong visible evidence of modern human modification of resources inside wilderness. Some dams preexist the designation of the area as wilderness and are typically grandfathered in under the authoriz- ing legislation. The grandfather clause may include provisions for specific maintenance requirements, such as the use of motorized equipment.

Although the construction of a new dam inside a wilderness requires presidential action and is highly unlikely, the decommissioning and removal of dams is under consideration in some areas. Changes in this measure are not likely to be common but, where they do occur they can be quite significant, justifying being included in this protocol. The addi- tion of other instream structures, such as weirs to gauge streamflows and fish ladders to mitigate the passage of anadromous fish, is more likely to occur.

What are the attributes of this component? The attributes used for measuring dams and other instream structures are described in the following tables and text.

152 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Dams. Table 41 describes the attributes used to calculate the index of dam development.

Table 41.—Attributes related to dams for calculating the index of dam development. Attribute NID identification* Design style—select primary:* • RE—earth • ER—rockfill • PG—gravity • CB—buttress • VA—arch • MV—multiarch • CN—concrete • MS—masonry • ST—stone • TC—timber crib • OT—other Dam identification Dam name Administrative organization Year constructed Owner type—select one: • F—Federal • S—State • L—local government • U—public utility • P—private Administrative class—select one: • A—dams > 100 ft or impound 50,000 acre-ft or more • B—dams 40 to 100 ft or impound 1,000 to 50,000 acre-ft • C—dams 25 to 40 ft or impound 50 to 1,000 acre-ft • D—dams < 25 ft or impound < 50 acre-ft) Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. NID = National Inventory of Dams.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 153 Other instream structures. Table 42 describes attributes used to calculate the index of instream structures.

Table 42.—Attributes related to other instream structures for calculating the index of instream structures. Attribute Feature type—select:* • Other (nondam) instream structure Feature identification Feature name Feature category—select one: • Dike • Ditch • Diversion • Fish ladder • Weir Principal material Ownership Administrative organization Year constructed Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. The data will be extracted from two data sources. The National Inventory of Dams (NID), which is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is the national repository for all dams that meet certain size criteria based on potential risk to the general public. The NID includes all dams having a height greater than 6 ft and a maximum storage greater than 15 acre-ft, regardless of ownership.

The second data source, the Infra-Dams module, contains records for all dams owned by the Forest Service. This module is used to populate the NID with dams owned by the Forest Service and meeting the previously mentioned size criteria. Although all dams meeting these criteria must be entered for national reporting purposes, other dams of lesser size may also be entered.

Both data sets will be accessed for a full accounting of all dams in wilderness. The NID provides a complete listing of all larger dams regardless of ownership and the Infra-Dams module provides a listing of Forest Service-owned dams, potentially

154 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character including dams that do not meet the NID criteria but that are still of interest to this protocol.

The listing of dams from both of these sources will be used as the starting point for local staff to validate. Missing dams can be entered into the Infra-Dams module to provide a more complete listing.

Other instream structures, such as fish ladders and diversions, are generally not entered into Infra, although a record in the Infra-Special Uses Database System (SUDS) may exist when these features are not owned by the Forest Service. A record for each instream structure will need to be entered into the Infra-Features module, along with a limited set of required attributes.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected for all dams and other instream structures every 5 years. Current business requirements mandate the updating of the data in the NID on a biennial basis as required by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002. Data about dams that do not meet the NID criteria are maintained on a less frequent basis.

How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. It is expected that 100 percent of the dams meeting the NID criteria are entered into the NID and it is anticipated that most of the required data fields will be complete. Dams that do not meet the criteria are entered into Infra on a less frequent basis and many of the required data fields will likely be missing.

In most cases, records for the dams will exist in Infra, although they may not be referenced as being inside a wilderness. The current Dam Inventory form in the Infra-Dams module contains a field to identify those dams that are inside a wilderness but direction has never been issued from the Washington Office for the population of this data field. Effort will be required to accurately identify all dams inside a wilderness. Geographic Information System technology may be useful in this task because the coordinates of all dams are required for those structures meeting the NID criteria.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be presented with the pertinent information currently contained within the Infra-Dams and SUDS modules and will have the opportunity to make any edits or additions needed to complete or update the data set.

It is generally assumed that other instream features will not exist in Infra, but the wilderness manager, along with other resource specialists such as range conservationists, fishery biologists, hydrologists, and special-use coordinators, will Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 155 be able to establish new records in Infra-Features based on local knowledge and existing records in SUDS.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all dams and other instream structures have been included in the current inventory. Due to the reliability of NID, greatest attention will be placed on those dams that do not meet the NID criteria as well as the other instream structures. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint on whether the attributes are accurate and complete.

How will the data be processed and analyzed? Data currently in the Infra-DAMS database will be extracted for the particular wilderness, along with the attributes of interest. Forest staff will be expected to review the current data and make the following edits:

•• Make corrections to existing data where needed.

•• Complete missing mandatory attributes where missing.

•• Create link records to the appropriate wilderness record, where needed.

•• Enter missing dams or instream structures that had not been entered previously.

A dam development index will then be calculated for each dam in a wilderness, based on the size of the dam and related impoundment and the construction material used.

Dams and other instream structures have been determined to have three development level values.

1. Dams not meeting NID criteria or other instream structures. Those dams of a height less than 6 ft or a maximum storage less than 15 acre-ft, or other instream structures.

2. Dams meeting NID criteria constructed of native materials. Dams with a height greater than 6 ft and a maximum storage greater than 15 acre-ft that are constructed with native materials (such as earthen dams).

3. Dams meeting NID criteria constructed of nonnative materials. Dams with a height greater than 6 ft and a maximum storage greater than 15 acre-ft that are constructed with nonnative materials (such as concrete dams).

It should be noted that the operational maintenance associated with dams was also consid- ered but not included because of concerns about data availability.

The dam development level index will then be calculated for the entire wilderness by summing the scores of each individual occurrence of a dam. For example:

156 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Dam development index = (dam number 1 * relative weight) + (dam number 2 * relative weight) + and so on.

What are the cautions about this component? A general concern exists about the bias introduced in the protocol by assigning a subjec- tive weighting for each dam. Although few would argue that a simple earthen dam has a lower development level than a large concrete structure, the introduction of numeric weights to assess these differences raises questions about the values used and the relative weights assigned.

Index of road development The index of road development is an index that is calculated for each road segment inside a particular wilderness based on key attributes, such as operational maintenance level, and then summed for the entire wilderness.

A road is defined as “a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail” (36 C.F.R. 212.1).

Why is this component important? Although roads are not common inside wilderness, they are still important for assessing wilderness character because, for many people, wilderness is simply defined as an area without roads. Roads inside wilderness will be split into two categories: system roads and nonsystem roads; the latter category includes “ghost roads” and other user-developed roads.

System roads do exist in wilderness although they are few in number. These roads typically access private inholdings or active mining claims. Data on these roads are maintained in the Infra-Roads module.

Nonsystem roads also occur in wilderness. These roads are not actively managed as sys- tem roads but they are still visible to the visitor and are clearly distinguishable as having been constructed as a road. Some roads preexist wilderness designation, most commonly in the eastern regions, and have been allowed to fall into disrepair or may have been actively decommissioned. Other roads have been constructed by users to access private lands or areas of special interest, such as favorite hunting or fishing areas. These roads are typically quite crude and only support four-wheel drive use.

What are the attributes of this component? Table 43 describes the attributes used to calculate the index of road development.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 157 Table 43.—Attributes for calculating the index of road development. Attribute Operational maintenance level* Road identification Road name Wilderness name (linear event)—beginning mile post and ending mile post Route status Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Data will be extracted from the Infra-Roads module. This module is the primary repository for data relating to Forest Service roads and related infrastructure. Local staff will be required to review the data currently residing in Infra and make any edits, including the entry of missing records, if necessary.

Data on nonsystem roads are not currently managed in Infra. For this protocol, the wilderness manager, in consultation with the transportation engineers, will be required to estimate the number of miles of nonsystem roads. It will be suggested that these nonsystem roads be noted on a map to ensure repeatability the next time the protocol is applied.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected every 5 years for all roads in wilderness. Current business practices mandate that all roads in the national inventory be updated every 5 years.

How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. The completeness of this data is variable. Most system roads will be included in the Infra-Roads module, although this inclusion needs to be validated by forest staff. In almost all cases, the link record between the travel route (road) and the land unit (wilderness) will need to be established. Data on nonsystem roads are not presently stored in a corporate data system and an estimate of nonsystem road miles will need to be generated.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be presented with the pertinent information currently contained within the Infra-

158 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Roads module and will be required to make any edits or additions necessary to complete or update the data set.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all roads, both system and nonsystem, have been included in the current inventory. Greatest attention will be placed on the nonsystem roads because data are not routinely collected on them. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint on whether the attributes are accurate and complete.

How will the data be processed and analyzed? Data currently in the Infra-ROADS database will be extracted for the particular wilder- ness, along with the attributes of interest. Forest staff will be expected to review the current data and make the following edits:

•• Make corrections to existing data where needed.

•• Complete missing mandatory attributes where missing.

•• Create link records to the appropriate wilderness record, where needed.

•• Enter missing roads or road segments that had not been entered previously.

A road development index will then be calculated for each wilderness, based on the status, number of miles, and operational maintenance level of each road segment.

Roads are assigned to one of three development level values.

1. Nonsystem roads, decommissioned system roads, and existing system roads with operational maintenance level of 1. All nonsystem roads, roads that have been actively put to rest, and those that have been closed to vehicle traffic and are receiving only custodial care.

2. Existing system roads with operational maintenance level of 2. System roads that are actively being maintained to support high-clearance vehicles.

3. Existing system roads with operational maintenance levels 3 and higher. System roads that are actively being maintained to support passenger vehicles of varying user comfort levels.

The road development index will then be calculated for the entire wilderness by summing the scores of each individual road development level value. For example:

Road development index = (x.x mi road segment number 1 * relative weight) + (x.x miles of road segment number 2 * relative weight) + and so on.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 159 What are the cautions about this component? This measure attempts not only to count the number of road miles but also to assess the relative development level of each segment; however, by doing so, the measure introduces bias by assigning subjective values to the different road development level values. A suc- cinct definition will need to be provided for nonsystem roads to ensure repeatability from year to year.

Index of infrastructure development The infrastructure development index is an index that is calculated from two types of infrastructure found in wilderness: (1) utility corridors and sites and, (2) fixed instru- mentation sites. Each occurrence of infrastructure is differentially weighted based on key attributes and then summed for the entire wilderness.

Utility infrastructure is defined in this protocol as “the constructed features used to convey or support basic services such as electricity, telecommunication, gas, or water.” This measure consists of two main types: (1) point features (such as repeater sites and telecommunication facilities) and, (2) linear features (such as water pipelines and tele- phone lines).

Some utility infrastructure, such as repeaters installed to support fire management activi- ties for a specific incident, is only in place on a temporary basis. This measure component only includes the utility infrastructure that is in place on a more permanent basis—in this case, 1 year or longer.

Similarly, historic utility infrastructure, such as old polyvinyl chloride water pipes and phone lines that are no longer in service, will not be included in this measure component. These data are not routinely tracked in Infra and would be time consuming and costly to inventory for this protocol.

Fixed instrumentation sites are defined in this protocol as “unattended measurement de- vices left in place for at least 1 year for the purpose of recording environmental data, such as meteorology and seismic activity.” These sites typically contain measuring equipment, a data logger, and a power source. Some of these devices transmit data offsite for storage and analysis.

Why is this component important? Both aspects of this measure component are important, although for different reasons. Utility infrastructure, although not common in wilderness, can be a significant indicator for development in wilderness, particularly for linear features such as water pipelines, which can occupy a substantial acreage in wilderness and be substantially noticeable.

160 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character This type of infrastructure typically predates the designation of the area as wilderness, and future additions are unlikely.

Fixed instrumentation is typically used to record, store, and often transmit data recorded about environmental conditions, such as seismic activity and snow water content. Because of prohibitions against installations in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, fixed instrumentation typically is not placed in wilderness; however, other interests can over- ride this prohibition if instrumentation is determined to be “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area.” This aspect of the measure component is important to track trends over time because of increasing pressures to place additional installations inside wilderness boundaries for environmental monitoring.

What are the attributes of this component? Table 44 describes the attributes used to calculate the index of infrastructure development.

Table 44.—Attributes for calculating the index of infrastructure development. Attribute Feature type* Size* Feature identification Feature name Category Administrative organization Ownership Historical status Year constructed Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Data for this measure will be stored in the Infra-Features module. Utility infrastructure and fixed instrumentation sites owned by the Forest Service are required to be entered into the Infra- Features module for annual real property maintenance reporting. The feature types applicable to this component include the following:

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 161 • Communication system. • Ditch. • Miscellaneous. • Other utility. • Power system. • Recording site categories: . Air-quality monitoring site. . Meteorology monitoring site. . Seismic monitoring site. . Snow gauging station. . Water gauging station. • Utility along route. • Wastewater system. • Water system.

Infrastructure owned by another entity should have a record in the Infra-SUDS module and will need to have a corresponding record entered in the Features module, along with the required attributes. The Infra-SUDS module contains detailed information for special-use authorization but not for the use that is authorized. The special-use authorizations of interest to this measure component can be determined by the use code. The use codes applicable to this component include the following: • Irrigation water trans pipeline less than 12 in in diameter = 913. • Irrigation water trans pipeline greater than or equal to 12 in in diameter = 912. • Oil and gas pipeline = 631. • Oil and gas pipeline related facility = 632. • Oil and gas production and storage area = 633. • Other utility improvement = 644. • Other utility improvement, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) financed = 642. • Power line = 643. • Power line, REA financed = 641. • Resource monitoring site = 814. • Sewage transmission line = 343. • Stream gauging station = 941. • Telephone and telegraph line = 821.

162 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character • Telephone line, REA financed = 822. • Water trans pipeline less than 12 in in diameter = 915. • Water trans pipeline greater than or equal to 12 in in diameter = 914. • Weather station = 423.

The feature length and/or acreage may need to be estimated for this protocol if it is not contained in the Infra-SUDS or Infra-Constructed Feature database.

•• Frequency of data collection. Current business practices require all active special- use permit records be updated annually; however, because utility permits do not vary much from year to year, they will be retrieved for this protocol only every 5 years.

How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Those wildernesses that contain utility infrastructure or fixed instrumentation sites owned by the Forest Service should have records in the Infra-Features module because of real property and deferred maintenance reporting requirements. Infrastructure owned by other entities should have records in the Infra-SUDS module, but few will have corresponding records in the Features module, which is required to calculate the index.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be presented with the pertinent information currently contained within the Infra- Features and Infra-SUDS modules and will be required to make any edits or additions needed to complete or update the data set.

•• Data adequacy. The issue of data adequacy will be addressed both in terms of data quantity and quality. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all utility corridors and sites and fixed instrumentation sites have been included in the current inventory. Greatest attention will be placed on those features not owned by the Forest Service where data records may not exist. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint on whether the attributes are accurate and complete.

How will the data be processed and analyzed? Data currently in the Infra-SUDS database will be extracted based on the specific use codes identified previously for the particular wilderness, along with the attributes of inter- est. Similarly, data will be extracted for Forest Service-owned utility infrastructure based on the feature types listed previously. Forest staff will be expected to review the current data and make the following edits:

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 163 •• Make corrections to existing data where needed.

•• Complete missing mandatory attributes where missing.

•• Develop link records to the appropriate wilderness record, where needed.

•• Enter missing utility infrastructure that had not been entered previously.

Utility infrastructure and fixed equipment sites have been determined to have three development level values.

1. Small scale. For fixed instrumentation sites and for utility infrastructure that consists of an individual site, such as a repeater site, occupying less than 1 acre in total size.

2. Moderate scale. For utility infrastructure that either consists of an individual site that exceeds 1 acre in size or requires corridors but is of a generally small scale, typically less than 1 mi in length.

3. Large scale. For utility infrastructure that requires corridors but is of a generally large scale, typically greater than 1 mi in length.

The numeric value for each occurrence of utility infrastructure will be summed to gener- ate a utility development index for the entire wilderness. For example:

Utility development index = (utility infrastructure number 1 * relative weight) + (fixed equipment site number 1 * relative weight) + and so on.

What are the cautions about this component? This measure attempts not only to count the number of occurrences of utility infrastruc- ture and fixed instrumentation sites but also to assess the relative development level of each facility; however, by doing so, the measure introduces bias by assigning subjective values to the different types of infrastructure. It is unclear how consistently utility infra- structure owned by the Forest Service is entered into a corporate database. An additional concern exists about fixed instrumentation sites that have been placed inside wilderness areas without the Forest Service’s knowledge. Anecdotal evidence suggests State govern- ment agencies, academic institutions, and even other Federal agencies have placed instal- lations inside wilderness without Forest Service knowledge and involvement.

Index of mine development The index of mine development is an index that is calculated for each individual occur- rence of a mine inside a particular wilderness based on key attributes, such as the type of mine and the area involved, and then summed for the entire wilderness.

164 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Why is this component important? For the purposes of this protocol, mines can be divided into three general categories.

1. Active, under development.

2. Abandoned, under reclamation.

3. Abandoned, historical.

Although limited in number, mines can be a significant intrusive commodity use of wilderness. Mines in the first category (active) are uncommon today. “Reported mineral extraction from any wilderness is limited to nonexistent.” (Hendee and Dawson 2002) Abandoned mines, however, whether actively under reclamation or merely identified as a historic resource, are more common.

What are the attributes of this component? Table 45 describes the attributes used to calculate the index of mine development.

Table 45.—Attributes for calculating the index of mine development. Attribute Status*—select one: • Abandoned, historic • Abandoned, not historic and not under reclamation • Abandoned, under reclamation • Active Size*—select one: • Small (< or = 1 acre in size) • Large (> 1 acre in size) Mine identification Mine name Mine type Source of data—select all that apply: • BLM’s LR2000 database • EPA’s AML program • Forest Service’s AML program • Infra-Heritage • Professional knowledge • Other Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. AML = Abandoned Mine Land. BLM = Bureau of Land Management. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency. LR2000 = Land & Mineral Legacy Rehost 2000 System.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 165 How will the data be collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Data about mines are not currently tracked in a corporate database, with the exception of the Mineral Materials module in Infra. As a result, new records will need to be entered into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module to track wilderness mines. This workload is not expected to be onerous because mines are not common in wilderness and the required attribute set is small.

Local resource managers, including mining engineers, geologists, archaeologists, and wilderness managers, are generally aware of locations in which mining activity has taken place in a particular wilderness. Other sources can also be referenced based on the general category and status of the mine, such as the following:

• For active mines currently under development, the national data source is the Bureau of Land Management’s Land & Mineral Legacy Rehost 2000 System database (http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/).

• For abandoned mines currently under reclamation, the national data source is the Environmental Protection Agency’s Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program. (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/aml/amlsite/nonnpl.htm).

• For abandoned mines that have historical value, the national data source is the Infra-Heritage module. In addition, some historic mine sites may be known in wilderness, either to wilderness or Heritage Program staff, although a record does not yet exist in Infra because a site inventory has not been conducted.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected every 5 years on mines of all three types within each wilderness.

How complete are these data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. The percentage of wilderness having data on mines varies depending on the category of mines. The inventory of current mining claims and mines enrolled in the AML program are well known and documented. The data are also quite complete for historical mines, although clearly the more significant the mine, the more likely it has been inventoried and entered into the corporate database.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Local forest staff will be presented with the pertinent information currently contained in all three data sources and will have the opportunity to make any edits or additions needed to complete or update the data sets.

166 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character •• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all mines have been included in the current inventory. Due to the reliability of NID, greatest attention will be placed on those dams that do not meet the NID criteria as well as the other instream structures. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint on whether the attributes are accurate and complete.

How will the data be processed and analyzed? Data currently in all three data sources will be extracted for the particular wilderness, along with the attributes of interest. Forest staff will be expected to review the current data and make the following edits:

•• Make corrections to existing data where needed.

•• Complete missing mandatory attributes where missing.

•• Develop link records to the appropriate wilderness record, where needed.

•• Enter missing mines that had not been entered previously.

Mines will be assigned one of three development level values.

1. Inactive. For mines that are no longer actively being worked, including abandoned historical mines as well as those that have previously been reclaimed.

2. Active, small-scale. For mines that are either currently under development or abandoned but under reclamation and are less than or equal to 1 acre in size.

3. Active, moderate to large-scale. For mines that are either currently under development or abandoned but under reclamation and greater than 1 acre in size.

It should be noted the acreage values are for the actual disturbed areas and not the total size of the mining claim.

Each mine will be assessed separately, assigned the appropriate development level value, and then summed to generate a total value for the wilderness. For example:

Mine development index = (mine number 1 * relative weight) + (mine number 2 * relative weight) + and so on.

What are the cautions about this component? This measure attempts not only to count the number of mines in a particular wilderness but also to assess the relative development level of each occurrence; however, by doing so, the measure introduces bias by assigning subjective values to the different mine develop- ment level values.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 167 This measure attempts to assess the development level associated with each mine and not its ecological effect. Clearly, small mines may have the potential for greater ecological effects than large mines, but such an assessment is not the intent behind this measure.

6.3. Monitoring Question 2—Motorized Equipment and Mechanical Transport

What are the trends of the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? This monitoring question assesses the effect of motorized equipment and mechanical transport use on the undeveloped quality of wilderness. This monitoring question covers uses for emergency and for administrative and other nonemergency purposes. Although authorized by the Wilderness Act under certain conditions, the use of these devices dimin- ishes the undeveloped quality. Monitoring motorized equipment and mechanical transport can be used to compare and contrast equipment and transport use over time and to help make well-considered management decisions grounded within the Wilderness Act.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? The single indicator—motorized equipment and mechanical transport use—directly tracks the status and trends of such use. If the evaluation of the measures suggests that the indicator is decreasing, stable, or increasing, then the corresponding answer will be provided for the monitoring question.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? The decision to include this question under the undeveloped quality of wilderness charac- ter was based on the close and historical association between motorized use, mechanical transport, and people’s ability to develop, occupy, and modify wilderness. At the same time, the impact from the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transportation on opportunities for solitude is undeniable. Although this monitoring question is not intended to analyze the effects of the use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport on the experience of visitors or on the environment, the selected measures and their attributes do reflect this relationship.

6.3.1. Indicator 1 for Question 2—Motorized/Mechanized Use Use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport.

168 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Why Is This Indicator Important? Agency regulations and policy for all national forest wildernesses restrict the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport, requiring authorizations for such use at various levels of the agency when it is deemed necessary. This indicator tracks the actual use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport for emergency, administrative, and other nonemergency purposes (including mineral rights, special provisions, and State and private land access), reflecting the status and trends of such use.

Forest Service policy for the authorization and use of motorized equipment and mechani- cal transport is given in FSM 2326, Use of Motorized Equipment or Mechanical Transport in Wilderness. Key definitions are found in FSM 2320.5, as follows:

“3. Mechanical Transport. Any contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, or air, having moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user, and that is powered by a living or nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary medical appliances. It also does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or similar primitive devices without moving parts.

“4. Motorized Equipment. Machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power sources. This includes, but is not limited to, such machines as chain saws, aircraft, snowmobiles, generators, motorboats, and motor vehicles. It does not include small battery or gas powered handcarried devices such as shavers, wristwatches, flashlights, cameras, stoves, or other similar small equipment.”

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator was selected to assess the status and trends of the use of motorized equip- ment and mechanical transport because of the availability of data currently being collected through Infra-WILD. These data are considered credible and complete, responsive to change by management, and, because they are already being collected, these data place little additional burden on managers.

Mechanical transport and motorized equipment use authorizations was initially selected as an indicator. Pilot testing, however, exposed the difficulty in obtaining emergency use data on authorizations. Another concern with tracking use authorizations was that this indicator would not take into account those actions that are authorized but do not actually take place.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Two measures respond to the indicator “use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport.”

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 169 1. Index of emergency motorized equipment and mechanized transport use.

2. Index of administrative and nonemergency motorized equipment and mechanized transport use.

Both measures involve the calculation of a use level index, which assesses the cumulative impact level of each use of a specific equipment type. These indexes are calculated by evaluating each type of use, assigning weights based on perceived differences in the level of impact, and then multiplying this weighted use by the amount of use or its assigned inherent weight.

The index for each of the individual measures will be combined to determine an overall index that can be used to inform managers about trends in the indicator and to directly address the monitoring question. Not all equipment types have the same impact level as- sociated with them. For example, a wheelbarrow has a significantly different impact level than a bulldozer has.

To account for these differences, an inherent weighting has been assigned to each equip- ment type based on its perceived impact to social and biophysical resources, as shown in table 46. Mechanized equipment and motorized equipment with a relatively low level of impact are assigned a value of 1, motorized equipment with a moderate level of impact is assigned a value of 2, motorized equipment with a high level of impact is assigned a 3, and motorized equipment with a very high level of impact is assigned a 4. Equipment types were assigned a low inherent weight if typically they cause a small impact to the

Table 46.—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness. Equipment type Inherent weight Air compressor 2 Air tanker 3 All-terrain vehicle 3 Battery-powered tool 1 Bicycle 1 Chain saw 3 Concrete equipment 3 Fixed-wing aircraft 3 Float plane 3 Generator 2 Heavy equipment 4 Helicopter 3 Motorcycle 3 Motorized watercraft 3 Motorized winch 2 Portable pump 2 Rock drill 3 Snowmachine 3 Truck 3 Wheelbarrow 1 Wheeled litter 1

170 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character social environment and little to no impact to the biophysical environment. For example, handheld motorized equipment and mechanized transport devices that are relatively quiet and have little impact on the wilderness resource were assigned an inherent weight of 1. Other uses were assigned higher weights if they tended to be larger with more presence and noise associated with them or have a typically greater level of impact on wilderness re- sources. These weights were subjectively determined by a sampling of wilderness managers.

The overall use level will be calculated for each authorization by multiplying the number of pieces of equipment by its inherent weight by the amount of use (either by weight assigned to use categories for the emergency use measure or actual use days for the administrative and nonemergency use measure). At the end of each fiscal year, these values will be added together to cumulatively provide a single total use level index for each measure.

This use level index is useful in a relative sense for showing increasing or decreasing trends over time within a wilderness. This index is not meaningful, however, in an abso- lute sense for comparing two different wildernesses: a wilderness with a value of 2X does not have twice the use level of a wilderness with a value of 1X.

What amount of change is required in the overall development level index to result in a determination that the trends in the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport are either improving or degrading? To determine the direction of change, the overall use level must increase by 5 percent or more between time point 1 and time point 2 to result in a determination of degrading; conversely, a decrease of 5 percent or more will result in an improving score. All other results will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be deter- mined to be beyond noise in the data and to reflect actual change in wilderness conditions.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends of the individual measures will be synthesized to develop an overall trend estimate to provide information about the indicator. Table 47 shows possible combinations of trends in the measures and the resulting trend to provide information about motorized equipment and mechanical transport use. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-

Table 47.—The trend in the indicator of use authorization actions is derived from adding across the trends in its component measures. Measure Possible trends in the measure Index of emergency motorized equipment and          mechanized transport use Index of administrative and nonemergency motorized          equipment and mechanized transport use

Resulting trend in the indicator         

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 171 pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? It should not be assumed that the measures for this indicator capture all mechanical trans- port and motorized equipment use. Although it is recognized that motorized equipment or mechanical transport use occurs without being authorized, this monitoring protocol does not attempt to track such uses. Examples of such uses include illegal uses or places in which the private use of motorboats or fixed-wing aircraft is allowed by special provision, such as under the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 or the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. To track such types of use is not feasible and would not present an accurate accounting of activities because data on unauthorized use may just represent the level of law enforcement. Local units may consider monitoring these uses for information at a local level (see “Undeveloped Quality” in Appendix F, Local Indicators and Measures).

6.3.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Emergency Motorized/Mechanized Use Index Index of emergency motorized equipment and mechanical transport use.

Why Is This Measure Important? The emergency use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport is explicitly authorized by the Wilderness Act under certain conditions; these uses nonetheless diminish the undeveloped quality. This measure captures such uses, including the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport for fire and law enforcement purposes and for search and rescue. It also evaluates the types of equipment used, categorizes and weighs the extent of such use, and produces a cumulative index based on both the relative and inherent impacts each of these uses has on the overall use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport.

The index of emergency motorized equipment and mechanical transport use is calculated for each individual use of motorized equipment or mechanized transportation inside a particular wilderness based on key attributes and then summed for the entire wilderness.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 48 describes the attributes used for measuring emergency use authorizations.

172 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 48.—Attributes for measuring emergency use authorizations. Attribute

Equipment type* Amount of actual use—select one:* • One piece, 1 day • Multiple pieces, 1 day • One piece, more than 1 day • Multiple pieces, more than 1 day Name of authorization Authorization type—select one: • Emergency, fire • Emergency, law enforcement • Emergency, search and rescue • Emergency, other Confidence level that all the records for this measure have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Field data stewards will be responsible for entering all uses into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. The secondary source would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be input annually at the wilderness level and assessed every 5 years at the national level.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Although information is currently collected annually on motorized equipment and mechanical transport uses, it is not collected in a consistent way that supports the analysis of trends over time. The requirements for this reporting will necessitate different data entry protocols in Infra-WILD.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. This measure does not include temporal or spatial subsets. Data gaps will be minimized by identifying a local lead data steward, providing funding, and requiring timely data entry.

•• Data adequacy. Data quality and quantity are not easily split for this measure. A single attribute will be used to assess data adequacy based on the data stewards’ level of confidence that all actions have been captured for each component: high, moderate, or low. This attribute will be reported under data quantity.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 173 How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Data reported in the Infra-WILD database will be extracted for the particular wilderness, along with the attributes of interest.

A use level value will be calculated for each authorization by multiplying the inherent weight of each type of equipment by the inherent weight of the amount of actual use, as shown in table 49. All pieces of equipment that are actually used will be calculated as described and summed for a value for that authorization. At the end of each fiscal year, these values assigned to individual authorizations will be added together to cumulatively provide an annual use index for the wilderness.

For example, fire crews working on the Hot Creek Fire are authorized to use two helicopters, several chain saws, and one pump. The actual use of each piece of equipment is as follows: •• Helicopter one used 1 day. •• Helicopter two used more than 1 day. •• Chain saws used more than 1 day. •• Pump used 1 day.

Table 50 shows how to calculate the use level value for this example Hot Creek Fire authorization.

Table 49.—Inherent weights for the actual uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport. Amount of actual use Actual use weight One piece, 1 day 1 Multiple pieces, 1 day 2 One piece, multiple days 2 Multiple pieces, multiple days 3

Table 50.—A hypothetical example showing the calculation of the use level value for emergency uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport.

Type of equipment Inherent weight Amount of actual use Actual use weight Equipment use value

Helicopter one 3 1 day 1 3 Helicopter two 3 More than 1 day 2 6 Chain saws 3 More than 1 day 3 9 Pump 2 1 day 1 2 Use level value 20

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Two types of concerns about the values that weight the relative impact of an individual type of equipment on the use level of the wilderness exist: (1) the arbitrariness of the values chosen, and (2) the implied relationship between different numeric values (e.g.,

174 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character that multiple chain saws used for multiple days has three times more impact than a single helicopter used for 1 day). The only way these concerns can be addressed is to stress that the number produced is meaningless in and of itself in an absolute sense; what matters is change over time in an individual wilderness.

6.3.1.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Administrative and Nonemergency Motorized/Mechanized Use Index Index of administrative and nonemergency motorized equipment and mechanical trans- port use.

Why Is This Measure Important? Administrative and other nonemergency uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport are explicitly authorized by the Wilderness Act and some subsequent legisla- tion (such as ANILCA) under certain conditions; the use of these devices nonetheless diminishes the undeveloped quality. This measure attempts to capture such use, including motorized equipment and mechanical transport to maintain dams, utility infrastructure, and fixed instrumentation for administering mineral rights, special provisions, and State and private land access. As described for the previous measure, this measure evaluates the types of equipment used and weighs the extent of such use, producing a cumulative index based on both the relative and inherent impacts each of these uses has on the overall use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport. The difference between measure 1 and measure 2 is that the use level value for measure 2 (administrative and nonemergency use) is based on the actual number of pieces of equipment and the number of days of actual use rather than the broader actual amount of use categories applied in measure 1 (emergency use). This refinement is possible because administrative use data is more readily available and reliable than data for emergency use.

The index of administrative and nonemergency motorized equipment and mechanical transport use is calculated for each individual occurrence of an authorization for the use of motorized equipment or mechanized transportation inside a particular wilderness based on key attributes and then summed for the entire wilderness.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 51 describes the attributes used to calculate the index of administrative and non- emergency use days.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 175 Table 51.—Attributes for measuring administrative and nonemergency use days. Attribute

Equipment type* Number of pieces of equipment* Number of days actual use* Name of authorization Confidence level that all the records for this measure have been captured—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Field data stewards will be responsible for entering all uses into the Infra-WILD Wilderness Character module. The secondary source would be the district or forest manager with wilderness responsibilities.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be input annually at the wilderness level and assessed every 5 years at the national level.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Although information is currently collected annually on motorized equipment and mechanical transport uses, it is not collected in a consistent way that supports the analysis of trends over time. The requirements for this reporting will necessitate different data entry protocols in Infra-WILD.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. This measure does not include temporal or spatial subsets. Data gaps will be minimized by identifying a local lead data steward, providing funding, and requiring timely data entry.

•• Data adequacy. Data quality and quantity are not easily split for this measure. A single attribute will be used to assess data adequacy based on the data stewards’ level of confidence that all actions have been captured for each component: High, moderate, or low. This attribute will be reported under data quantity.

176 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Data reported in the Infra-WILD database will be extracted for the particular wilderness, along with the attributes of interest.

A use level value will be calculated for each authorization by multiplying the inherent weight of each type of equipment by the number of days of actual use. All pieces of equipment that are actually used will be calculated and summed to yield a total value for that authorization. At the end of each fiscal year, these values assigned to individual authorizations will be added together to cumulatively provide a single annual use index for the wilderness.

For example, an authorization is made for the Alpine Way Trail Reconstruction Project to use a helicopter, two chain saws, and one power auger. The actual use of each piece of equipment is as follows: •• Helicopter used 3 days. •• Chain saws used 6 days each. •• Power auger used 1 day.

Table 52 shows how to calculate the use level value for this example Alpine Way Trail Reconstruction Project authorization.

Table 52.—A hypothetical example showing calculation of the use level value for administrative and nonemergency uses of motorized equipment and mechanical transport.

Type of equipment Inherent weight Days of actual use Equipment use value

Helicopter one 3 3 9 Chain saw one 3 6 18 Chain saw two 3 6 18 Power auger 2 1 2 Use level value 47

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Two types of concerns about the values that weight the relative impact of an individual type of equipment on the use level of the wilderness exist: (1) the arbitrariness of the values chosen, and (2) the implied relationship between different numeric values (e.g., that multiple chain saws used for multiple days has more impact than a single helicopter). The only way these concerns can be addressed is to stress that the number produced is meaningless in and of itself in an absolute sense; what matters is change over time in an individual wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 177 6.4. Monitoring Question 3—Inholdings

What are the trends of inholdings?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? Because inholdings interior to designated wilderness are not given the same protections as the wilderness lands around them, these lands can be developed for various purposes at the discretion of the landowner. These lands can be roaded and logged or, more com- monly, developed with recreational lodges, facilities, or private residences. Ironically, in many cases it is the proximity to protected lands around them that gives the inholdings value and makes them susceptible to development.

Due to the vulnerability of these lands to development, and the adverse effect this devel- opment would have on the surrounding wilderness values, inholdings are afforded a high priority for acquisition or exchange by the Forest Service. Unfortunately, the consumma- tion of this transaction typically requires a willing seller, which is often difficult to find.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? The sole indicator for this question is inholdings.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? Although inholdings clearly have a potential effect on the wilderness lands around them, this effect arguably is no different than private or State lands outside of although adjacent to the wilderness boundary. Inholdings are the focus of this question because their poten- tial effect is amplified due to the fact they are surrounded by wilderness, and adequate access must be granted to the owner if requested, thereby further increasing the level of development inside of wilderness.

6.4.1. Indicator 1 for Question 3—Inholdings Inholdings.

Why Is This Indicator Important? This indicator is the logical choice to respond to the monitoring question.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator is the only meaningful choice that directly answers the monitoring question.

178 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? The number of acres of inholdings was selected to represent changes to the indicator over time. Although it is unlikely that the acreage will ever increase, the number of acres may decrease over the years as inholdings are acquired through purchase or exchange. As the number of acres of inholdings decrease, it will be interpreted as improving the wilderness character of the surrounding lands.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? No specific cautions have been identified at this time.

6.4.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 3—Inholding Acres Acres of inholdings.

Why Is This Measure Important? The acres of inholdings are viewed as the most meaningful way to track changes over time for this indicator. Although unlikely to increase, this number may decrease over the years due to successes by the Forest Service lands program. The number of inholding parcels was also considered as a measure but not included due to the perception that the number of parcels was less meaningful to wilderness character than the number of acres.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 53 describes the attributes used to calculate the index of inholdings.

Table 53.—Attributes for measuring inholdings. Attribute Parcel acres* Parcel owner name Parcel number Land status disposal method (if applicable)—select one: • Purchase • Exchange • Donation Threat assessment Data quantity—select one: • Complete • Partial • Insufficient Data quality—select one: • High • Moderate • Low * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 179 How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Data for most of the attributes for this measure are currently stored and maintained in the Automated Lands Project (ALP) database. The data will be requested annually for the wildernesses within the coming year’s monitoring cycle. The threat assessment is a narrative describing the likelihood that an individual parcel may be developed. This attribute is not currently collected in ALP but will be entered by the local wilderness manager into Infra-WILD upon consultation with the Forest Lands staff.

•• Frequency of data collection. The data will be collected on 5-year intervals because changes to this measure are infrequent.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. The presence or absence of inholdings is known for every wilderness. About half of all wildernesses have inholdings of some type, either State or privately owned land.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Data gaps are not of concern in this measure. It is assumed that the data in ALP is current and complete.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be evaluated from the standpoint of whether all inholdings have been included in the current inventory. Data quality will be assessed from the standpoint of whether the attributes are accurate and complete, with particular attention on the number of acres of inholding parcels. Due to the reliability of the data in the ALP, both the quantity and quality of data are assumed to be high.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? The acres of inholdings, along with the ancillary attributes, will be requested annually from the ALP for the wildernesses in the upcoming monitoring cycle. These data will be input centrally into Infra-WILD and then presented to the forest staff for validation. The wilderness manager will also be requested to enter narrative on the potential threat of these lands to wilderness as well as any supporting notes.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? The current measure only tracks the number of acres of inholdings and does not at- tempt to weight the potential effect of these lands based on different levels of perceived development risk. The measure also does not consider the different effects access has on the surrounding wilderness, although it is assumed this impact would be evaluated by the measure components contributing to the development index, particularly roads and trails.

180 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Chapter 7. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality 7.0. Summary

Table 54 provides a summary of the monitoring question, indicator, and measures for the outstanding opportunity for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation quality.

The outstanding opportunities quality of wilderness character has three monitoring ques- tions and five indicators. Each question addresses a specific aspect of wilderness experi- ence as described in the Wilderness Act: solitude, primitive recreation, and unconfined recreation. The three dimensions can change independently of each other, which makes it necessary to monitor all three to understand change in the quality. A conservative decision rule is used to evaluate change, so that if one of the dimensions deteriorates over time, the conclusion will be that a decline has occurred in outstanding opportunities.

This protocol develops valid indicators and adequate measures to assess changes in op- portunities for primitive and unconfined recreation; i.e., to answer two of the monitoring questions. Data for these measures are readily obtainable through existing or planned corporate databases, and they should be adequately reliable and accurate.

The other monitoring question that addresses solitude has two indicators, both of which are necessary. The remote, trailless wilderness indicator can easily be measured for all wildernesses, but, for indicator 2 (wilderness visitation), data for measure number 1 are not available for most wildernesses. For these wildernesses, two surrogate measures (num- ber of parties visiting during the primary use season and National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Program annual wilderness visits) will be reported. Serious questions about the

Table 54.—A summary of the indicators and measures monitored in the outstanding opportunities quality. Quality of wilderness Monitoring question Indicator Measure Outstanding opportunities What are the trends in Remote, trailless wilderness Number of acres of wilderness away for solitude or a primitive outstanding opportunities for from access or travel routes and unconfined type of solitude? recreation—wilderness Wilderness visitation Number of parties visiting a wilderness provides outstanding during the primary use season opportunities for people Number of adult wilderness users to experience solitude or residing in the service area primitive and unconfined recreation, including NVUM annual wilderness visits the values of inspiration What are the trends in Recreation facilities Index of recreation facilities and physical and mental outstanding opportunities for challenge primitive recreation? Trail development level Number of trail miles in developed condition classes (classes 3 to 5)

What are the trends in Management restrictions on Index of restrictions on visitor behavior outstanding opportunities for visitor behavior unconfined recreation? NVUM = National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 181 validity of these two measures exist. Therefore, if the measures provide conflicting infor- mation about trends in a given wilderness, it will be concluded that the monitoring question cannot be answered for that wilderness. Despite the lack of data for the indicator, the monitoring question is critical to wilderness character; therefore, the indicator is retained.

7.1. Introduction

To a large extent, the natural, untrammeled, and undeveloped qualities address wilderness conditions or stewardship actions related to the biophysical environment. The outstand- ing opportunities quality, on the other hand, was developed to address Wilderness Act direction regarding the experiences available to people in wilderness. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act states that wilderness “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Wilderness is the only public land classification with this provision. This quality is concerned with conditions that affect the opportunity for people who are visiting wilderness to experience solitude, primitive recreation, and/or unconfined recreation.

The objective of monitoring the outstanding opportunities quality is to track, over time, how conditions likely to promote such opportunities are changing across all National Forest System (NFS) wildernesses as well as within individual wildernesses. These conditions include management actions as well as aspects of the physical and social environment. If managers are to fulfill the requirements of the Wilderness Act, they must understand how their actions (or inaction) and changes in the physical and social environment may affect the opportunity for specific types of visitor experiences over time. This quality of wilderness character may change because of land management as well as changes in visitation that result from factors such as population growth.

The protocol does not monitor opportunities for types of experiences other than solitude, primitive recreation, and lack of confinement, even if visitors desire other experiences. Consideration was given to the development of a monitoring question surrounding the opportunity for challenge or the opportunity to experience inspiration because these experiences are also important in wilderness. Ultimately, it was determined that such op- portunities were adequately addressed by the three primary questions because factors that affect solitude or primitiveness also influence opportunities for challenge or inspiration.

Three monitoring questions were developed for the outstanding opportunities quality. Each question addresses a different dimension of the outstanding opportunities quality that is explicitly named in the Wilderness Act. Each dimension taps into a slightly different opportunity, and each dimension can change independently of the others. For example, use limits would detract from the unconfined dimension but would protect op-

182 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character portunities for solitude. Similarly, the removal of toilets would increase opportunities for primitive recreation but would probably not have an impact on solitude.

For each monitoring question, a range of indicators was carefully considered. The Key Concepts section in this technical guide sets out the criteria used for selecting indicators. In the case of the outstanding opportunities quality, preference was given to indicators and measures that could be subject to management influence; however, in one case, a measure was selected that is independent of management control: a measure of wilderness visita- tion derived from estimates of population growth in the region.

Solitude has two indicators: (1) remote, trailless wilderness; and (2) wilderness visitation. For the first indicator, a single measure will be computed through Geographic Information System analysis using existing data layers for each wilderness. For the second indicator, three alternative measures are described, one of which—number of parties visiting during the primary use season—is necessary to make a determination about solitude and answer monitoring question 1 at the individual wilderness level. Currently, it is not expected that data for this measure will be available for each NFS wilderness; however, this measure still is included because it is so central to the experience of solitude.

Although the preferred measure usually cannot be monitored, data can be obtained for two surrogate measures of visitation at the wilderness level: (1) the number of wilderness us- ers residing in the service area, and (2) the number of visits based on NVUM data. These two measures will be combined to assess change in wilderness visitation where data for measure 1 are not available.

For primitive and unconfined recreation, the strategy to monitor change over time depends largely on analysis of spatial data and the synthesis of data from the Infra-WILD and Infra-Trails databases. Although Infra-WILD provides information on selected facilities that affect the primitiveness dimension, which will be used to measure an indicator of “recreation facilities,” some data must be supplied by wilderness managers because these data are not currently reported in established protocols. Infra-WILD also provides information on selected rules and regulations that will be used to measure management restrictions on behavior for the unconfined dimension. Because all NFS wildernesses are required to update this information annually, the data already exist in one centralized location. For both indicators, the specific items or rules that constitute the measures are combined to generate single measures, as explained later. The final indicator is trail devel- opment level, an indicator of primitive recreation. Analysis of measures for this indicator will be made using the Infra-Trails database.

Care is needed when interpreting data from the three monitoring questions to make infer- ences about the outstanding opportunities quality. For example, a tension exists between

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 183 providing opportunities for solitude and ensuring opportunities for unconfined recreation. As recreation demand increases, actions such as use limits that are taken to improve op- portunities for solitude necessarily place constraints on visitors and are thus confining. A similar tension may exist between protecting naturalness and opportunities for unconfined recreation: actions taken to protect naturalness (such as designated site camping require- ments) impinge on visitor freedom. On the other hand, a synergy generally exists between the undeveloped quality and the opportunity for primitive recreation; i.e., developments that detract from the undeveloped quality also detract from opportunities for primitive recreation.

7.2. Monitoring Question 1—Solitude

What are the trends of outstanding opportunities for solitude?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? The Wilderness Act explicitly states that wilderness must provide outstanding opportuni- ties for solitude. Solitude is understood to refer to escape from civilization and the increasing demands and pressures of everyday life. Thus, solitude includes a connotation of remoteness from society and its trappings (Hollenhorst and Jones 2001, Marshall 1930). Solitude also refers to an individual psychological state that researchers agree is multidimensional (Hammitt and Madden 1989). Some of the important dimensions include peace and tranquility, a feeling of inspiration or awe, connection with nature that can occur when one is focused on the external environment rather than on social interac- tion, and a sense of timelessness and lack of competing obligations for one’s attention (Borrie and Roggenbuck 1998). Importantly, solitude has been considered dependent both on undeveloped features of the natural environment and on the absence of other people, particularly those outside one’s immediate group. Opportunities for solitude are most outstanding where the environment is undeveloped and appears natural, visitors can determine when and where they wish to go, and few other people are present.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? This monitoring question has two indicators: (1) remote, trailless wilderness; and (2) wil- derness visitation. The two indicators work together to get at two very different aspects: (1) the opportunity to get away from people by going off trail and to get away from the noise and sights of civilization by being away from roads and other travel corridors; and (2) the density of people in the wilderness, which affects opportunities for those going to places where they may encounter other people. The first aspect captures the availability of places for solitude seekers; the second aspect captures the likelihood that the typical

184 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character visitor will encounter other visitors. The two indicators can vary independently, and most change over time is likely to occur with indicator 2. Indicator 2 also is the most relevant to the solitude opportunities of most people on most trips because most people stay on trails and use is highly concentrated.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends of the individual indicators will be synthesized to develop an overall trend estimate to answer this monitoring question. Table 55 shows possible combinations of trends in the indicators and the resulting trend to answer the monitoring question about outstanding opportunities for solitude. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

Table 55.—The trend in the monitoring question about solitude is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators. Measure Possible trends in the measure Remote, trailless wilderness          Wilderness visitation         

Resulting trend in the monitoring question          Note: An improving trend in wilderness visitation means less, not more, visitation.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? An important issue for this monitoring question is whether the focus should be on the op- portunities provided to visitors or their actual experience. The two indicators can generate very different pictures. For example, visitors may have the opportunity to use low-density trails but choose instead to go to heavily used destinations. Thus, they might not experi- ence solitude, even though opportunities exist. The team responsible for developing this monitoring protocol took a middle ground on this issue: the first indicator clearly addresses opportunities that are available (whether people avail themselves of them). The second indicator acknowledges that people tend to congregate in attractive places; therefore, the opportunities for solitude at those places may be impaired.

Although the two indicators selected for this monitoring question do a reasonably good job of addressing outstanding opportunities for solitude, data for the necessary measure of wilderness visits are not available for most wildernesses. In other words, the indicator of wilderness visitation is valid and important but we are unable to measure it well and, in many cases, we cannot confidently answer this monitoring question at the level of the entire wilderness.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 185 7.2.1. Indicator 1 for Question 1—Remote, Trailless Wilderness Remote, trailless wilderness.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Remoteness, meaning distance from the sights and sounds of civilization, is important for achieving a sense of solitude (Dawson 2004). In addition, research shows that most wil- derness visitors stay on developed trails and that a large proportion of use is concentrated within a few miles of trailheads or access points, especially where day use makes up much of the visitation. Therefore, remote locations within a wilderness that are away from trails provide opportunities for solitude-seekers to find solitude.

All other things being equal, a decrease in remote, trailless wilderness is considered deterioration in opportunities for solitude. An increase in remote, trailless wilderness is considered an improvement in the opportunity for solitude.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator can be measured with adequate levels of reliability and accuracy because, for the most part, the locations of trails and roads are known and Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis can generate accurate, reliable information. In addition, data are widely available for the selected measures through existing corporate databases. This indicator has high credibility and significance. Most wilderness acres are away from roads and trails; people who choose to go to these places will likely find high quality opportuni- ties for solitude. Thus, the indicator is faithful to the phrase “outstanding opportunities for solitude” in the Wilderness Act.

The major limitation to this indicator is that it is unlikely to change, especially in the direction of improvement. Nevertheless, large-scale changes might occur as a result of recreational or other development, both in and outside of a wilderness, and the addition or deletion of wilderness acres. Management decisions to build or decommission roads or trails will be reflected in this indicator as well.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Only one measure exists for this indicator: the number of wilderness acres away from access and travel routes. Ideally, one would want to restrict the scope of this indicator to those areas that provide reasonable opportunities for off-trail travel. For example, one could argue that trailless areas in subalpine areas that can be traversed with only moderate effort provide for higher quality opportunities for solitude than trailless acres in a virtually

186 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character inaccessible swamp. This point is debatable, however, and it was deemed too difficult to be able to consistently define different qualities of off-trail acres. Even if this task could be done, it would be quite difficult and subjective to compute the area “suitable” for off-trail travel. Thus, the percentage of all wilderness acres away from roads or trails was considered a reasonable compromise. Because analysis focuses on change within each wilderness individually and does not compare across wildernesses, this measure should be adequate for tracking change.

As the number of acres for this measure increases, the conclusion would be that an increase in remote, trailless wilderness has occurred.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? One concern about this indicator is its ability to reflect change in the actual opportunities for solitude. If new roads are built near wilderness boundaries, this ability will be picked up immediately through analysis. Similarly, if trails are decommissioned, this ability will be readily captured. On the other hand, in places where the presence of roads and trails is quite stable, the indicator may not change from year to year, even if use density on exist- ing access routes or trails is increasing (or decreasing) dramatically. For wildernesses with shorelines used by motor vessels, this lack of ability to detect change is also a problem. In addition, this indicator does not involve the measurement of user-created trails, which can be one of the more important changes occurring in wilderness. Unfortunately, no data are available to assess user-created trails.

Overall, this indicator is a crude and rather inaccurate proxy for the opportunities for soli- tude that people who travel on trails may experience. Actual opportunities are much more directly affected by the distribution of recreational use in the wilderness. Such use has been shown to be highly variable, with only a few trails receiving most visitation (Lucas 1980). Thus, probably a very weak relationship exists between remote, trailless wilderness and actual onsite use density. For the few who travel off trail, however, this indicator is a reasonable choice.

7.2.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 1—Area Away From Access and Travel Routes Number of acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes.

Why Is This Measure Important? Open maintained roads, motorized trails, railways, and shorelines used as travel ways sur- rounding a wilderness as well as system trails and aircraft landing sites within a wilder- ness are included in this measure. Outstanding opportunities for solitude are considered

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 187 diminished within a specific distance (buffer) assigned to each of these features (Carver and others 2002, Fritz and others 2000).

System trails within the wilderness are included in this measure because most visitation occurs on trails. Aircraft landing sites (e.g., landing strips in certain wildernesses or an entire lake in Alaskan wildernesses) are included because the motorized incursion, although allowed, may severely diminish the outstanding opportunity for solitude. Open maintained roads, motorized trails, railways, and shorelines surrounding wilderness islands outside the designated wilderness are included in this measure because they have the following attributes:

•• They provide access to wilderness and, therefore, have some relationship to use levels. (It is recognized, however, that many access points receive very little use, and the relationship with solitude is weak.)

•• They have an impact (via sight and sound) on wilderness visitors’ experiences.

•• They reflect other developments that could affect the feeling of remoteness, such as city lights that reduce night sky visibility or timber harvest activities that can be seen or heard from inside a wilderness.

The following distances away from access and travel routes were subjectively chosen as likely to be meaningful in most wildernesses:

•• Nonmotorized system trails within a wilderness and nonmotorized boat travel routes—1/4 mi.

•• Open roads, motorized trails, shoreline travel routes used by motor vessels, and railroads—1/2 mi.

•• Aircraft landing sites—1 mi.

The actual distances at which these features affect outstanding opportunities for solitude would vary from site to site given factors such as vegetation density and surrounding topography. For the purposes of monitoring change, the precise distance is less important than accurately and consistently tracking changes that occur over time in these features within each wilderness independently.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 56 describes the attributes for calculating the total area that is away from access routes and travel corridors.

The total number of acres is reported rather than the percentage of wilderness acres. This practice will enable changes that might occur because of the addition or deletion of lands

188 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 56.—The attribute for measuring the total area that is away from access routes and travel corridors. Attribute

Acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes* Year of most recent travel layer update Road types included in the travel layer—select all that apply: • Active maintained • Closed roads • Private roads • Decommissioned roads * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

from a wilderness. Moreover, reporting percentages might promote comparisons among wildernesses and such comparison is not the intent of this monitoring protocol.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Data on roads and trails will come from corporate Forest Service Infrastructure (Infra) databases. For aircraft landing sites, railroads, and shorelines, new GIS data layers may need to be created. For each wilderness, GIS analysis will be used to compute the number of acres that are more than ¼ mi from any system trail (management constructed) or nonmotorized sections of shoreline, ½ mi from open (“active management”) system road and motorized sections of shorelines, and 1 mi from aircraft landing sites. Trails open to motorized use outside the wilderness will be considered open system roads.

Although existing trail layers are presumed to be adequately complete, wilderness managers or forest engineers will need to provide information about the coverage of road layers. Specifically, they will report on which road types (active maintained, closed, private, or decommissioned) are included. They also will report whether and which roads are open or closed to traffic during the primary wilderness use season.

•• Frequency of data collection. Because change is unlikely to occur rapidly, data will be collected at 5-year intervals. This practice will consist of updating the travel route layer in Infra.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Although existing system trails and active, maintained roads should be well represented in existing GIS databases, decommissioned and private roads may be variably represented, and ghost roads are unlikely to be digitized. Furthermore, it is

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 189 unknown at this time if wilderness-specific GIS layers exist for aircraft landing sites and shorelines used for access or travel.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Wilderness managers will be queried about the coverage of their road layers. This information will be reported along with the value for measure 1.

•• Data adequacy. There should be no problems related to data quantity for this measure because all wildernesses have travel layers and all wildernesses will be able to supply additional information about the locations of features not present in existing corporate databases (i.e., shoreline travel routes, railroads, and aircraft landing sites). Therefore, this protocol assumes that data are complete for all wildernesses. Despite this assumption, pilot testing of the protocol showed some problems with the quality of data. In particular, cases occurred in which roads and trails were still present in GIS layers even though they had been closed or obliterated. Data quality will be assessed by asking wilderness managers to indicate when the travel layers were last updated and which types of roads are included. High-quality data would be travel layers updated within the last 5 years on which types of roads are shown.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Analysis will be done in the Forest Service Washington Office (WO), using data supplied via Infra. The travel route layer will be overlaid with wilderness boundaries, and simple analysis will generate the number of acres.

Significant trends in this measure are defined as a change of 5 percent or more over the 5-year monitoring cycle in the number of acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes. For example, if the initial reporting is 10,000 acres away from access and travel routes, and at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 9,800 acres are reported (because a new trail was built), this 2-percent decrease in acreage is not a significant change. Or, if at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 10,600 acres are reported (because a trail was closed), this 6-percent increase is a significant improvement in the measure. This 6-percent decline would be a significant degradation in the measure.

Results that represent less than a 5-percent increase or decrease in the data value over the monitoring cycle will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be determined to be beyond noise in the data and to be reflective of actual change in wilderness conditions.

190 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character What Are the Centralized Data Analysis Tasks? Data processing that could be accomplished by a centralized data analyst includes the following:

1. Acquiring GIS layers for all travel routes—one for trails, one for roads, and one for aircraft landing sites.

2. Creating a buffer of appropriate size around each travel route.

3. Subtracting the buffers from the wilderness polygon using the erase tool.

4. Calculating the area of the remaining wilderness polygon after all the travel route buffers have been erased from it.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? The measure provides a reasonably good assessment of the indicator. For example, where no roads exist, generally no vehicles and no population centers exist and where no trails exist, visitor density (and, therefore, encounters) generally is quite low. Despite this attri- bute, the measure does not capture other important aspects of remoteness, such as proxim- ity to urban centers, which may indirectly have substantial impacts on opportunities for solitude such as city lights, distant sounds of traffic, or airplane overflights. Furthermore, military overflights were excluded from this measure, although they may significantly degrade outstanding opportunities of solitude, because of the difficulty of capturing data on these overflights.

Remoteness also is affected by user-created trails, which encourage the use of off-trail areas; user-created trails are not monitored in this measure because data are not available for most wildernesses and cannot easily be generated. The measure also does not account for the configuration of remote areas—whether they occur in large blocks or in areas dissected by trails. The measure combines acres away from roads with acres away from trails, thereby considering the nature of the influence of roads and trails to be equivalent, although they may not be. Finally, this measure is unlikely to change much because road and trail systems and shorelines are (at least at present) relatively stable.

7.2.2. Indicator 2 for Question 1—Wilderness Visitation Wilderness visitation.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Indicators of opportunities for solitude should relate to the amount of recreational use oc- curring within a wilderness. Use density affects encounters among groups, which, in turn,

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 191 has an influence on opportunities for solitude (Hammitt and Rutlin 1995). Use density also may affect feelings of peace, quiet, and mental calm, which are associated with solitude. Thus, use density (wilderness visitation) is a reasonable indicator for solitude (Dawson 2004).

Because of the central importance of the solitude dimension of the outstanding opportu- nity quality, this indicator was considered necessary. An increase in wilderness visitation is interpreted as a decline in the opportunity for solitude.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator was selected primarily because of its significance and the absence of any other known, measurable indicator that adequately captures the outstanding opportunity for solitude. The indicator also is responsive to management in that managers are capable of affecting wilderness visitation. The primary drawback is a lack of feasibility in obtain- ing information on the necessary measure.

The number of encounters was considered as an indicator because it is a more valid assessment of opportunities for solitude than use density (Hammitt and Rutlin 1995). Total visitation may not correspond as well to solitude as would the number of encounters among groups (Hammitt and others 1984). Because of lack of standard protocols and the very high level of effort required to reliably measure encounters, that indicator was dropped. Wildernesses that do conduct encounter monitoring are strongly encouraged to use those data to make local judgments about trends in the opportunity for solitude.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? This indicator has one primary and two surrogate measures. The intention is not to com- bine them to assess the indicator. Rather, either data for measure 1 will be used or data for measures 2 and 3 will be combined to make a determination about trends.

At the wilderness level, if data are available for the number of parties visiting during the primary use season (measure 1 in the following text), the indicator is deemed adequately addressed and no other data are required to make a determination of change at the wilderness level. As the number of parties visiting increases, the opportunity for solitude declines. Most wildernesses will not have data for this primary measure, and for these areas the monitoring question cannot be answered fully.

Lacking data on the primary measure, the two fallback measures will be the number of wilderness users residing in the service area (measure 2 in the following text) and the estimate of wilderness visits based on NVUM (measure 3 in the following text). These

192 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character two measures have several weaknesses, as explained in the following text; hence. they must both indicate a trend in the same direction for a conclusion to be drawn about trends in the indicator.

In general, if wilderness visitation is increasing, opportunities for solitude are declining.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? Use density has been shown to have a variable, often weak, relationship to encounters, and encounters usually do not show a strong relationship to achievement of solitude (Stewart and Cole 2001). Nevertheless, use density is probably the most consistent measurable fac- tor affecting opportunities for solitude (Johnson and others 2005). Solitude is a complex, subjective experience, and science has not been able to identify a well-accepted indicator for it.

Interpretation of this indicator will require special attention in analysis Conclusions will depend on which of the measures is used, as discussed previously.

7.2.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 1—Visiting Parties Number of parties visiting a wilderness during the primary use season.

Why Is This Measure Important? This measure relates most directly to solitude far more so than does measure 2. Although data on encounters would be preferable, total group visits have been shown to have a re- lationship (albeit weak) to encounters. An increase in party visits will be interpreted as an increase in wilderness visitation, and, therefore, as a decline in opportunities for solitude.

This measure uses the group or party as the unit rather than the number of individual people. This decision was made because there appears to be some evidence in research that people pay attention more to the number of groups they see than the specific number of people. In addition, many wilderness monitoring systems use the group as the base measure (e.g., self-issuing wilderness permits).

The measure is restricted to the primary use season for two reasons. First, most wilderness use occurs during a small portion of the year. Second, most wildernesses do not monitor use year round. The primary use season is determined by the wilderness manager. Ideally, the primary use season should be defined to encompass at least 80 percent of the use, but the decision will be made locally. It is less important that the time span capture 80 percent of the use than that the period be clearly defined so that monitoring can be done consistently over time.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 193 What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 57 describes the attributes used to calculate the number of visiting parties.

Although data are not currently reported for most wildernesses, Infra modules have been developed to track wilderness use. For example, a module for reporting self-issue permit data exists. Because different wildernesses may use different techniques to arrive at their estimates of group visits, various attributes of the data and data collection systems will need to be reported. For the attribute of the number of parties visiting, some wildernesses may track use by individuals rather than groups (e.g., through traffic counters); if this prac- tice is done, data will need to be converted to groups by adjusting for average party size.

At the wilderness level, it is strongly recommended that managers track data individually by trailhead or portal. Use typically is uneven across wildernesses, and long-term data show that increases at one trailhead may not correspond to changes at nearby trailheads.

Table 57.—Attributes for measuring the number of visiting parties. Attribute

Number of parties visiting* Data source—select all that apply: • Office-issued permit • Self-issued permit • Trailhead register • Trail counter • Other (specify) Geographic area monitored—select one: • Selected trails • All trails Method used to validate data—select all that apply: • Compliance check • Observation • None • Other (specify) How data gaps are treated—select one: • Ignored • Statistically interpolated • Estimated * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Wildernesses will need to develop a reliable, valid system for measuring use. Examples include permit systems and trailhead registrations (with checks for compliance), car counts (adjusted for the number of people per vehicle), or trail counters (see Hollenhorst and others 1992, Watson and others 2000, Yuan and others 1995). For this protocol, it is recognized that most wildernesses will not have such systems in place and

194 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character data cannot be reported for this measure. Wilderness managers’ estimates of wilderness visitation were deemed insufficiently reliable and accurate for use as a secondary data source.

•• Frequency of data collection. Ideally, data will be reported annually. For some systems, such as self-issue permits in popular wildernesses, the burden of entering data annually may be quite high. Therefore, the data collection interval is set at 5 years. This interval is short enough to permit tracking of changes, which might occur rapidly in some areas, but long enough to enable wilderness managers to plan for the extra effort required to collect and report field data.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Although precise numbers are not available, it seems highly unlikely that more than a small percentage of wildernesses currently collect data on visitation.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Use data often contain gaps. Sometimes data are collected for only selected trails or locations. Other times, temporal gaps occur because of missing observations, vandalized trailhead registers, or other factors. These issues will be handled by collecting additional information from wilderness managers.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be evaluated based on the information supplied about the geographical area monitored. Data will be deemed complete if the entire wilderness is monitored, partial if only some trails/access routes are monitored, and insufficient if no data are collected.

Data quality will be assessed via information supplied by wilderness managers. Data will be considered to be of high quality if based on office-issued permits or on self-issue permits in cases in which estimates have been adjusted for compliance rates (where appropriate) and in cases in which data gaps are interpolated. Data will be judged to be of moderate quality if they are based on self-issue permits without adjustment for compliance. Trail counter data are also judged to be of moderate quality. Data will be judged to be of poor quality if they are based on trailhead registers without adjustment for compliance or attention to data gaps.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Wildernesses will report use through existing Infra modules where feasible. If this report- ing is not feasible, estimated annual use—along with the information from managers— will be reported. The numbers generated will be total parties visiting the wilderness during the primary use season.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 195 Wilderness visitation can be highly variable year to year, depending on various factors such as the cost of gasoline, the nature of winter snowpack, the intensity of wildfires, and publicity. Therefore, it will be necessary to have multiple years of data to draw firm conclusions about trends in visitation.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, because these data on the number of visiting parties will be collected at 5-year intervals, regression analysis will be used to determine if the trend in the number of visiting parties over the 5-year monitoring cycle is significantly increasing, decreasing, or stable.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? This measure, if available, would provide adequate information about the indicator, but it would not capture the geographic variation in use. It might be important, for example, to know whether all the increases in use were occurring at one or two places or across all wilderness destinations.

The measure does not capture use during the off-peak times of year. In some years, de- pending on weather and snow, this use may amount to significant visitation. Nevertheless, trends in the peak season, when opportunities for solitude are by definition most limited, would give a sufficient indication of what is occurring wilderness-wide over time.

As currently proposed, this measure can be used to report visitation to an entire wilder- ness or to a subset of areas or trails. If a wilderness has data for only selected places, the determination of change in the indicator may be less accurate than for wildernesses with complete data.

7.2.2.2. Measure 2 for Indicator 2, Question 1—Users Residing in Service Area Number of adult wilderness users residing in the service area.

Measure 2 represents the number of adults (age 16 and older) residing in the primary service area of a wilderness who say that they have made at least one visit to a wilderness in the past year. The measure is derived from combining population estimates in the area identified as the primary service area with estimates of the adult wilderness participation rate available for each State from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). When this measure is used (because measure 1 is not available), it will always be combined with measure 3 to draw conclusions about trends in the indicator.

196 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Why Is This Measure Important? Although this measure is a large step removed from actual visits to an individual wilder- ness, it may serve as an early warning system for managers. Measuring adult wilderness users residing in the service area is insufficient to make a confident conclusion about trends in the opportunities for solitude; however, if such use is increasing, it may give an indication that managers need to examine their local conditions more closely. In addition, the measure has the advantage of being able to be used in a proactive way; i.e., future population projections are available and managers may be able to anticipate whether use will be changing in the future by using those projections for the service area of a wilderness.

This measure clearly is not subject to managerial control but it has some advantages. First, population estimate data required for the measure generally are quite accurate. They also are available in tables or spatially (maps) from the U.S. Census Bureau as well as in electronic spreadsheets. The measure should identify and capture significant differences in trends across NFS wildernesses as a whole because, in some regions, population is increasing dramatically while in other areas, population is stable or even declining. Wil- dernesses in different regions thus face very different levels of threat to the outstanding opportunities quality.

When interpreting change in this measure, it will be important to note whether a wilder- ness has regulatory limits on visitation because such limits would protect opportunities for solitude in spite of rising populations. For most wildernesses, if the measure is increasing over time, this increase should be interpreted as a clue to investigate actual wilderness visitation further. The lack of specificity of the measure means that it cannot be defini- tively known whether visitation to a specific wilderness is actually increasing.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 58 describes the attributes used in calculating the number of adult users residing in the service area.

For the first attribute, different wildernesses have different service areas. For example, a wilderness whose use consists primarily of day visitors probably has most of its use coming from within about 100 mi. For such wildernesses, the local counties or cities probably en- compass the major service area. Other wildernesses—especially flagship areas with high levels of overnight use, such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness or Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness—have larger service areas. Therefore, this attribute specifically requires identification of the primary service area for each wilderness. Careful documentation of the geographical areas used is critical so that they do not change over time, or, if they are changed for some reason, that the change is well documented.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 197 Table 58.—Attributes for measuring the number of adult users residing in the service area. Attribute

Adult (16 years and older) population of each geographical unit in the service area, derived from U.S. Census Bureau data* Wilderness participation rate adopted from NSRE* Counties, cities, or standard metropolitan service areas that constitute the service area, determined by the wilderness manager Basis for determination about geographical area—select primary: • Professional judgment • NVUM • Other data Presence of use limits (yes or no) Type of use limits Geographical extent of use limits * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. NSRE = National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. NVUM = National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.

The primary service area is defined as the geographical region(s) in which 75 percent or more of the wilderness visitors live. The 75-percent cutoff is arbitrary; however, for each wilderness, analysis will assess the amount of change within the same region(s) over time, so whether one wilderness has a narrower service area than another should not present a major confound.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Ranger district or forest staff will have to identify the service area for each wilderness. In doing so, they may identify counties, cities, or standard metropolitan service areas. (It is undesirable to use a combination of counties and cities because city populations are included within county populations.) This practice may require some effort initially; however, unless population distributions change dramatically over time, the service area is likely to remain stable. If the primary service area cannot be confidently identified or is not supplied, the default will be all counties within which the wilderness is located. In this case, Forest Service WO staff will overlay a GIS layer of wilderness boundaries with a GIS layer of county boundaries and identify all intersections. This procedure will generate the names of counties within which each wilderness falls.

Estimates of per capita wilderness visitation are available for the different States from the NSRE, which is conducted at regular intervals by the Forest Service’s Southern Research Station. Estimates of county-level population (age 16 and older) are available every 10 years from the U.S. Census Bureau, with projected changes provided for every year. Assuming per capita wilderness participation

198 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character remains relatively stable across time, the number of wilderness users will increase or decrease according to total population changes.

•• Frequency of data collection. This measure relies on data collected at 10-year intervals (U.S. Census Bureau data and NSRE projections). Although census data also provide projected population numbers for all years between actual censusing, NSRE projections are usually not interpolated between one survey period and the next. The data will be collected using the collection interval of NSRE (approximately 10 years), but reported annually. That is, when new NSRE estimates become available, they and the census data will be accessed for each wilderness. Estimates reported annually for each subsequent year will be interpolated using the most recent NSRE participation rate and census projections.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Currently, although a service area is not reported for any wilderness, the task of identifying the service area requires minimal effort in many cases and can be established through professional expertise. (Managers may wish to consult NVUM data on visitor origins.) If no information is available, the default area will be used as described previously. Thus, information is available for all wildernesses. Census data and NSRE data are complete.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. There should be no gaps in data. If a wilderness does not supply a primary service area, the default will be used. No spatial gaps occur in the NSRE or census data.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity is deemed to be complete for all wildernesses. The primary threat to data quality is in misspecification of the service area, which will be assessed via information provided by wilderness managers about the basis for defining the service area. No effort to evaluate the quality of census or NSRE data will be made. If the service area is determined from NVUM or other measured data, data quality is judged to be high. If the service area is based on professional judgment, the data quality is judged to be moderate. No cases exist in which data quality will be judged to be poor.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Data from the U.S. Census Bureau will be obtained for every county or city determined to form part of the primary service area. Wilderness managers or Forest Service WO staff will access the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web site and obtain population estimates for residents aged 16 years and older for each county. In addition, they will identify projected

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 199 populations aged 16 years and older for each county for each upcoming year. These population estimates will be multiplied by the most recent per capita participation rate estimated by the NSRE for the geographical area within which the county falls. Currently, Cordell (2004) provides estimates at the State level for visiting a wilderness or primitive area; this is the item to be used. The computation will generate an estimated number of adult wilderness users in the primary service area.

During analysis and interpretation of change over time, the first step will be to determine which wildernesses have use limits. In wildernesses with use limits, it will be concluded that wilderness visitation is stable, regardless of changes in the number of wilderness us- ers in the primary service area based on measure 2. For all other wildernesses, an increase in measure 2 suggests that wilderness visitation may be increasing. The conclusion about trends in the indicator depends on measure 3 as well; only if the two measures show change in the same direction will a conclusion about the indicator be drawn. Otherwise, it will be reported that adequate data are not available.

In reports to the regions, change over time will be reported for each county or city for each wilderness. (Table 59 shows a hypothetical case.) In the National Report, only total change in the number of wilderness users in the primary service area will be reported.

Significant trends in this measure are defined as a change of 5 percent or more over the 5-year monitoring cycle in the number of adult users residing in the service area. For example, if the initial reporting is 30,000 adult users, and at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 32,700 adult users are reported (because of net movement of people into the service area), this 9-percent increase is a significant degradation in the measure. Conversely, a 9-percent decline would be a significant improvement in the measure. Or, if at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 31,200 adult users are reported, this 4-percent increase is not a significant change.

Table 59.—Hypothetical change over time in the number of adult wilderness users residing in the service area of one wilderness. County Attribute Year 1 Year 2 Percent change Leopold Total population 58,000 62,000 6.9 Estimated wilderness users1 29,464 31,496 6.9 Marshall Total population 17,500 23,000 31.4 Estimated wilderness users 8,890 11,684 31.4 Olson Total population 19,500 18,750 – 3.8 Estimated wilderness users 9,906 9,525 – 3.8 Totals Total population 95,000 103,750 9.2 Estimated wilderness users 48,260 52,705 9.2 1 Estimated wilderness users residing in the primary service area, based on National Survey on Recreation and the Environment estimate of 50.8 percent of respondents from Idaho indicating they had visited a wilderness or primitive area in the past 12 months.

200 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Results that represent less than a 5-percent increase or decrease in the data value over the monitoring cycle will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be determined to be beyond noise in the data and to be reflective of actual change in wilderness conditions. The conclusion drawn from this measure will be compared with the conclusion drawn based on measure 3, as described previously.

What Are the Centralized Data Analysis Tasks? Data processing that could be accomplished by a centralized data analyst includes the following:

1. Determining the service area for each wilderness (typically the neighboring counties).

2. Looking for population data at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/.

3. Determining the growth rate for the entire population and applying this rate to people aged 16 years and older to project the portion of the population composed of people aged 16 years and older for the current year. The U.S. Census Bureau will have population data for all people for the date of the last census and typically a more recent extrapolated value that may not be for the current year. The census will only have population data for people aged 16 years and older for the date of the last census.

4. Looking up NSRE per capita participation wilderness visitation rate for the State of each county in the service area. Multiply visitation rates by the projected county population of people aged 16 years and older to calculate the number of users residing in the service area.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? This measure can reliably be computed over time. Data exist and are of acceptable accu- racy, and computations are straightforward. Therefore, this measure is a reliable measure of the indicator.

Despite these qualities, this measure is an insufficient for assessing opportunities for solitude and is not deemed adequate by itself to generate information needed to answer monitoring question 1. As a result, this measure must be used in conjunction with measure 3 if data for measure 1 are not available. At best, a weak relationship exists between the number of wilderness users living in the primary service area and the number of people concentrated in particular wilderness locations at any given time. The per capita participation rates from NSRE do not provide any information about which particular wildernesses people

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 201 visit or how often they visit them. In reality, use is likely to be concentrated in certain wildernesses and certain places within those wildernesses. This measure treats all wilder- nesses served by a given market area as identical in use.

Another concern is the validity of the NSRE participation estimates. NSRE studies ask about wilderness or primitive area visitation, but it is unclear whether citizens actually know what wildernesses are. Even if they do know and accurately report whether they have visited a wilderness, the question does not ask about which wildernesses were visited or when, and data do not indicate anything about frequency of participation. Such information is crucial for understanding actual use patterns within specific wildernesses.

Moreover, even if using the number of wilderness users in a service area were an accurate measure of wilderness visitation, the problem of correctly identifying the primary service area exists. If most visitors come from a small area, and if this area is well described, then the estimates will be more accurate. If users come from diverse geographic areas, then measures will be less likely to relate to actual use of the wilderness. In addition, this mea- sure assumes that managers know enough about their visitors to identify the service area.

Although census data are quite accurate, using data for entire counties may add noise to the assessment. For example, with very large counties, it is probably the case that differ- ent portions of each county contribute differently to recreational use pressure.

7.2.2.3. Measure 3 for Indicator 2, Question 1—NVUM Visits NVUM annual wilderness visits.

Measure 3 uses NVUM data to estimate the number of visits to wilderness, where a visit is defined as one entry by an individual. Unlike measure 2, this measure reflects frequency of visitation. In addition, data are collected on site at wilderness trailheads, so it is certain (unlike with measure 2) that people actually visited a wilderness.

Why Is This Measure Important? The NVUM Program has become the standard Forest Service way to report recreational use of NFS lands. Through a stratified sample of types of areas—one of which is wilderness— the program generates estimates and 80-percent confidence intervals for wilderness visits, reported as the number of individual visits to a wilderness per year for each national for- est. The program collects data from a sample of wilderness access points on each forest that have wilderness. The sampling protocol does not permit individual wilderness-level estimates because only a small number of access points are sampled for a small number of days. Wilderness use is extremely uneven, both spatially and temporally, so it is not possible to use data to interpolate estimates for areas that are not sampled; however,

202 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character NVUM does provide an estimate of the total number of wilderness visits for each national forest. The measure relies on the judgment of wilderness managers to determine what percentage of the forest’s wilderness use occurs in each wilderness on the forest.

To monitor wilderness character, it is essential to be able to assess solitude to make a determination about trends in the outstanding opportunities quality. Although NVUM data have many drawbacks, they can be used in conjunction with measure 2 to draw tentative conclusions about trends in this indicator of opportunities for solitude.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 60 describes the attributes used in calculating NVUM annual wilderness visits.

Table 60.—Attributes for measuring the National Visitor Use Monitoring annual wilderness visits. Attribute Number of wilderness visits* Estimated percentage of a national forest’s wilderness use that occurs in this wilderness* * The asterisks denote the attributes used to compute this measure.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Forest-level data are derived from the NVUM databases (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/), but local wilderness managers must provide an estimate of the proportion of that use that occurs in each wilderness.

•• Frequency of data collection. Data will be collected every 5 years. This timeframe is also the data collection interval for NVUM.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Although in some cases, samples of wilderness visitors for a given wilderness are quite small, all NFS wildernesses are represented in the NVUM data.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Any data gaps are dealt with by NVUM before reporting.

•• Data adequacy. In one respect, serious concerns about data quantity exist because NVUM estimates are often based on very small samples. Nonetheless, it is outside the scope of this protocol to address this issue. Therefore, data quality will be judged to be complete for wildernesses in which NVUM has provided a forest- wide estimate of wilderness visitation.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 203 Data quality may be poor, particularly if managers’ estimates of the percentage of use that occurs in each wilderness are inaccurate. At present, it is not possible to assess this limitation directly. The issue is acknowledged by requiring that trends in both measure 2 and measure 3 converge before conclusions are drawn about trends in the indicator.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Estimates of the percentage of wilderness use that occurs on each wilderness within a forest will be supplied by wilderness managers. NVUM data for the forest will be acquired by staff in the WO and apportioned to each wilderness based on the information provided by managers.

Significant trends in this measure are defined as a change of 5 percent or more over the 5-year monitoring cycle in the number of NVUM visits. For example, if the initial report- ing is 20,000 NVUM visits and at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 21,400 NVUM visits have been reported, this 7-percent increase is a significant degradation of this measure. Conversely, a 7-percent decrease is a significant improvement in the measure. Or, if at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 19,200 NVUM visits have been reported, this is a 4-percent decrease and is not a significant change.

Results that represent less than a 5-percent increase or decrease in the data value over the monitoring cycle will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be determined to be beyond noise in the data and to be reflective of actual change in wilderness conditions.

The conclusions drawn from this measure will be compared with conclusions based on measure 2. Only if both measures indicate a trend in the same direction will a conclusion be drawn about change in the indicator.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? NVUM data are based on small samples and generate wide confidence intervals. Therefore, if local data are available from observations, permits, or other systematic measures of use, those measures should be used to make local-level determinations about the indicator of wilderness visitation. NVUM data have the potential to be skewed by selecting especially high- or low-use trailheads, by weather, or by other factors. To date, no effort has been made to validate estimates based on other tested measurement systems. Anecdotal information suggests that, in some cases, the estimates diverge considerably. In addition, different trails may be sampled in different cycles, raising questions about the comparability of the data over time. Information on the NVUM methods can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/index.shtml.

204 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Estimates of the percentage of a forest’s total wilderness use that occurs within each wilderness are based on professional judgment, and their accuracy is unknown.

7.3. Monitoring Question 2—Primitive Recreation

What are the trends of outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? The Wilderness Act explicitly calls for the protection of opportunities for “primitive and unconfined recreation.” In this monitoring, this statement from the Wilderness Act is interpreted as two distinct dimensions and two separate monitoring questions are generated for primitive recreation and unconfined recreation. Primitive recreation is conceptualized more narrowly than solitude, referring to types of recreation that require primitive travel and living in an environment with minimal facilities (Johnson and others 2005, Roggenbuck 2004). The founders of the wilderness idea referred to primitive travel, such as canoeing, horse packing, and hiking, as exemplifying appropriate activities in wilderness. Primitiveness also entails a sense of self-reliance; one must be responsible for one’s own safety and decisions (Borrie and Roggenbuck 1998, Borrie 2004) and, as such, the experience of primitive wilderness recreation may be more likely on multiday trips. Opportunities for primitive recreation are most outstanding in wildernesses in which few facilities (other than trails, perhaps) exist and in which visitors must use their skills to navigate, travel, and live in wilderness conditions.

Primitive recreation consists of activities that require self-reliance and no modern conveniences. Although developments are specifically tracked under the undeveloped quality, they also have an independent effect on the opportunities for visitors to experience primitive recreation if the developments are located in parts of the wilderness area visited by recreationists and if the developments are facilities that make the experience more comfortable. Even if visitors appreciate such comforts, they identify them as reducing the feeling of primitiveness (Johnson and others 2005). Therefore, an indicator of recreation facilities was developed. Primitive recreation also relates to the nature of travel in the wil- derness (Roggenbuck 2004) and the type of trail is important to this aspect (Hall 2001). Thus, a second indicator for this monitoring question addressed trail development level.

Although it is likely that many other modern developments or structures (such as dams and scientific installations) also affect the opportunities for primitive recreation, those developments are captured under the undeveloped quality and are not tracked under this monitoring question. Thus, this indicator focuses specifically on recreation facilities.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 205 Some people question whether the use of modern equipment, such as gas-burning stoves, high-tech gear, and Global Positioning System (GPS) units, detracts from the experience of primitive recreation in wilderness (e.g., discussed in Pohl [2006]). Because this debate is unresolved, and because it would be impractical to attempt to monitor individual choices about equipment, an indicator related to modern equipment was not developed. In addition, one can argue that it is an individual choice whether to bring modern equipment, and as long as managers provide an environment free of facilities and equipped with primitive trails, visitors have the opportunity to experience primitive recreation.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? The two indicators together do a reasonably accurate job of addressing the monitoring question. Primitive recreation is narrowly defined and aspects of facilities and trails encompass many of its dimensions.

The measures for each indicator—recreation facilities index and developed trail miles— are in different metrics. Thus, combining them will require a qualitative assessment of whether each has changed and in what direction. As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, trends of the individual indicators will be synthesized to develop an overall trend estimate to answer this monitoring question. Table 61 shows possible combinations of trends in the indicators and the resulting trend to answer the monitoring question about outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation. The resulting arrows show the trend as improving (upward-pointing arrow), offsetting stable (double-headed vertical arrow), stable (double-headed horizontal arrow), or degrading (downward-pointing arrow).

Table 61.—The trend in the monitoring question about primitive recreation is derived from adding across the trends in its component indicators. Measure Possible trends in the measure Recreation facilities index          Developed trail miles         

Resulting trend in the monitoring question          Note: An improving trend in developed trail miles is fewer, not more, developed trail miles.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? In discussions with the technical team, and based on a review of the literature, there seems to be relatively little disagreement about the value of this monitoring question. The indicators selected are deemed to provide a useful indication about trends in primitive recreation. Nevertheless, some dimensions of primitive recreation are not captured here, the most important of which is the risk factor. Ideally, an additional indicator of primitive

206 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character recreation would monitor opportunities for personally challenging experiences, such as coping with the possibility of encounters with dangerous wildlife or crossing large streams where no bridges exist. It was not considered possible to develop such an indica- tor at this time.

Another aspect of primitive recreation that is not captured with the selected indicators is the opportunity to practice primitive skills, such as firebuilding, or subsistence activities, such as hunting or berry picking. If regulations such as fire bans or restrictions on hunting or fishing are in place, some people argue that this scenario restricts opportunities for primitive recreation.

7.3.1. Indicator 1 for Question 2—Recreation Facilities Recreation facilities.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Indicator 1 captures durable or permanent facilities provided by managers for the use of visitors. Regardless of whether they are provided for resource protection or visitor convenience, these facilities affect the sense of primitiveness. If an increase in recreation facilities occurs, the opportunity for primitive recreation will be said to have declined.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator meets many of the criteria for indicator selection. It is feasible to measure using data already reported or easily obtained, it is significant, it is responsive to manage- ment actions, and it is credible.

Other related indicators were considered but ultimately dropped. For example, discussions occurred about whether outfitted use should be monitored under this indicator because outfitted trips generally provide a high level of conveniences that detract from the primi- tive experience. No such indicator was developed because it could be argued that all visitors have the ability to outfit themselves with conveniences and modern equipment.

How Will the Measures Provide Information About This Indicator? Only one measure for the indicator exists: recreation facilities index. This index is a measure of the total number of facilities. If the number increases over time, it will be concluded that recreation facilities have increased and the indicator is trending in a nega- tive direction.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 207 What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? Recreation facilities are a useful indicator of opportunities for primitive recreation. Ide- ally, an indicator that monitors challenging opportunities that are intentionally preserved in the environment, such as large streams that must be forded because no bridges exist, also would be present. Existing databases track only facilities themselves, however, not situations in which facilities might be but are not placed. Therefore, this indicator is based only on the presence of facilities.

7.3.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 2—Recreation Facilities Index Recreation facilities index.

Why Is This Measure Important? Recreation facilities provided by management that reduce the feeling of primitive recreation are monitored. These include shelters, developed water sources, toilets, and other facilities that make the experience more comfortable or easy. Even though visitors may enjoy such facilities, and in some cases they may be authorized by law, they are inconsistent with primitive recreation. Physical location (spatial) information is not prescribed for this indica- tor because it is assumed that most recreational facilities are located where visitors travel.

This measure is accurate, reliable, and sensitive to change. Several facilities are tracked through Infra, and the definition of each facility is clear and precise. Managers can easily and accurately report the presence of most facilities that are not currently reported. If man- agement actions add or remove facilities, the impact on the indicator and the outstanding opportunity quality is immediate and direct. A decrease in the number of recreation facili- ties indicates an improvement in the opportunities for primitive recreation. An increase in recreation facilities indicates deterioration in the opportunities for primitive recreation.

This index includes nearly all recreation facilities and developments in wilderness and, therefore, is a good measure of the indicator. Other developments unrelated to the imme- diate recreation experience (such as scientific installations or dams) are monitored under the undeveloped quality.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 62 describes attributes used in calculating the index of recreation facilities.

Each structure is weighted equally. All recreation facilities at a site are counted separately; e.g., a toilet and a fire ring at one site are counted separately, as would be a bear box that is attached to a shelter. The team could not develop a plausible rationale for weighting the different structures differently.

208 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 62.—Attributes for measuring the index of recreation facilities. Attribute Number of toilets* Number of constructed tent pads or sleeping platforms (those dug out of the earth with no constructed elements are not included)* Number of picnic tables* Number of bear poles or other food storage structures* Number of developed (permanent) fire rings/grates* Number of shelters* Number of developed water sources* Number of corrals* Number of large bridges*

* The asterisks denote the attributes used to compute this measure.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Currently, data on several of these elements are not reported. Nevertheless, local wilderness managers can accurately report these features with minimal effort and without the need for field data collection. In addition, information on toilets, tables, and fire rings are part of the national campsite monitoring protocol currently under development. Corrals are not tracked in that effort and are not currently tracked elsewhere, but they are retained in this protocol because managers probably know where corrals are located and how many exist. Information on bridges will be obtained through the Infra-Trails database. Information on developed water sources is tracked in the Infra-Water Sources module, and shelters are tracked in the Infra-Constructed Features module.

Airstrips were explicitly discussed and dropped from the measure because very few airstrips exist in NFS wildernesses. Their effect appears primarily to be on the opportunity for solitude, and they are included in measures for that monitoring question.

•• Frequency of data collection. These features are unlikely to change over the short term. Therefore, data will be collected and reported at 5-year intervals.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Most Forest Service wildernesses provide information on some of these elements. The remaining information is not currently reported but is easily obtained without additional fieldwork.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 209 •• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Information for all elements in the index must be provided to generate a score. If information is not available for any one or more elements, reporting will note that data are not available for that wilderness.

•• Data adequacy. Data will be judged to be complete for all wildernesses as long as data have been entered in Infra. Data quality will be ensured by the process of review and certification. That is, data generated centrally will be validated by field managers. Therefore, data quality will be judged to be high for all wildernesses.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? As discussed previously, some data will need to be provided by local wilderness manag- ers. Analysis will take place at the Forest Service WO for this measure. A summative index will be computed for each wilderness. Although different facilities probably have different influences on the feeling of primitiveness, it was not deemed possible to develop a defensible weighting system. Therefore, each structure or feature is weighted equally, and the index is thus a simple total. Data will be reported for each type of feature in each wilderness, however, because knowledge about specific types of features may be locally important. Each year after baseline, the change from the previous year will be reported as the simple (absolute) change.

Significant trends in this measure are defined as a change of 5 percent or more over the 5-year monitoring cycle in the index of recreation facilities. For example, if the initial reporting for this index is 20, and at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle the index is 23 (because two shelters and one bear pole were added), this 15-percent increase is a significant degradation of this measure. Conversely, a 15-percent decrease would be a significant improvement in this measure. Or, if at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle the index is 19 (because one bear pole was removed), this is a 5-percent decrease and is a significant change. In a case in which a wilderness has no recreation facilities and one is added, this decrease represents a significant change and, even though it does not meet the 5-percent criterion discussed previously, this change is deemed a significant degradation.

Results that represent less than a 5-percent increase or decrease in the data value over the monitoring cycle will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be determined to be beyond noise in the data and to be reflective of actual change in wilderness conditions.

210 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character What Are the Cautions About This Measure? The measure provides a reliable assessment of this indicator. Recent research (Johnson and others 2005) suggests that visitors associate facilities closely with the concept of primitiveness. Most of the facilities that would influence the opportunity for primitive recreation are or will be tracked in Infra, and little ambiguity about them exists.

Overall, as a measure of opportunities for primitive recreation, this measure captures many of the influences on the feeling of primitiveness. Nevertheless, several scholars think that the experience of primitiveness is as much or more influenced by the types of equipment visitors bring with them than the environment they encounter (Roggenbuck 2004). Such factors are not captured with this measure.

No differential weights are assigned to the different elements in the index. Therefore, the actual impacts on opportunities for primitive recreation could be different among wilder- nesses that receive the same score on the measure. For example, one that has 10 toilets would receive the same score as one that has 10 shelters. This scenario reinforces the need to avoid comparisons among wildernesses.

7.3.2. Indicator 2 for Question 2—Trail Development Level Trail development level.

Why Is This Indicator Important? A significant influence on visitors’ experiences is the quality of the trail they travel. Traveling on a narrow, rocky path creates a more primitive feeling than traveling on a wide, groomed surface (Hall 2001). The term “trail development” can be defined reliably using existing reporting categories that are well defined in Forest Service direction. This indicator is sensitive to change and able to show both improvement and deterioration in opportunities for primitive recreation. Definitions and measures are objective and clear. In practice, if the information reported by management units is not based on field surveys, it may be less reliable or accurate than desired.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator was selected because it addresses the travel aspects of wilderness recre- ation, while the recreation facilities indicator addressed primarily campsite features. This indicator is feasible to measure and appears to be significant. In principle, it is responsive to management, although changes in trail condition class are not likely to occur often, and, when they do, change may be gradual (such as when a trail gradually disappears because of a lack of maintenance).

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 211 How Will the Measure Provide Information About This Indicator? Only one measure for this indicator exists. An increase in the number of trail miles in developed condition classes represents a decline in opportunities for primitive recreation. A decrease in the overall developed character of trails represents an improvement in op- portunities for primitive recreation.

What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? Although trail condition has been shown to be an important influence on the feeling of primitiveness, it captures only one aspect of the quality. Thus, the other indicator of primitive recreation is also required to answer the monitoring question. As mentioned previously, changes in this indicator are likely to be slow. In addition, different users may have different perceptions or feelings about how trail development level affects their opportunities for primitive recreation. For example, hikers may feel that a developed trail restricts their opportunities for primitive recreation, whereas a person riding a horse may feel that the same level of developed trail is necessary for their recreation in wilderness.

7.3.2.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 2, Question 2—Developed Trail Miles Number of trail miles in developed condition classes (classes 3 to 5).

Why Is This Measure Important? This measure is a direct, strong measure of the indicator. An increase in trail miles would represent an increase in trail development level and a decline in the opportunity for primi- tive recreation.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 63 describes attributes used in calculating the number of trail miles in developed condition classes.

Table 63.—Attributes for measuring the number of trail miles in developed condition classes. Attribute Miles of trail in each condition class (classes 3 to 5)* Method used to determine mileage—select all that apply: • Trail wheel • Planimeter used on map • GIS • Other (specify) Year of most recent trail inventory * The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results. GIS = Geographic Information System.

212 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Wildernesses without trails will be assigned a value of 0. The measure does not track primitive trails (condition classes 1 and 2) because those levels are consistent with primi- tive recreation. If more primitive trails are constructed over time, this scenario would not be interpreted as adversely affecting opportunities for primitive recreation. It would, however, signal a decline in the undeveloped quality; therefore, all trail miles are tracked under that quality instead of under this measure.

Wilderness managers will be asked to report the method used to determine mileages. This information is important for interpreting change over time. For example, mileages deter- mined with a measuring wheel are more accurate, and apparent change over time based on data obtained this way is more likely to reflect real changes.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Currently, the Infra-Trails database requires reporting current trail standard by condition class.

•• Frequency of data collection. Because changes are likely to be slow, data will be collected and reported at 5-year intervals.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Data are complete for most wildernesses.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. All wildernesses are likely to have trail information, so data quantity is not an issue. The quality of these data, however, may be a problem in some cases. It is possible that trails that no longer exist still show up on trail maps. In addition, trails may be maintained to a standard higher or lower than that indicated on maps.

•• Data adequacy. Data quantity will be judged to be complete because all wildernesses have Geographic Information System travel layers. In some cases, however, inconsistencies occur between this GIS layer and what is actually on the ground. Data quality will be evaluated based on additional information provided by wilderness managers about the basis for mileage estimates and the year of the most recent inventory.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? The measure is a simple total number of miles. Change over time will be reported as a percentage of change from the baseline.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 213 Significant trends in this measure are defined as a change of 5 percent or more over the 5-year monitoring cycle in the number of developed trail miles. For example, if the initial reporting for this number of trail miles is 200, and at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle the number of trail miles is 220 (because a new section of developed trail was built), this 10-percent increase is a significant degradation of this measure. Conversely, a 10-percent decrease would be a significant improvement in this measure. Or, if at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle 192 developed trail mi are reported (because one section of trail was not maintained), this percent decrease is not a significant change.

Results that represent less than a 5-percent increase or decrease in the data value over the monitoring cycle will be categorized as stable. This relatively broad band of 10-percent allowed change acknowledges the low level of precision and accuracy associated with the data used in this protocol. Any change above this 10-percent band will be determined to be beyond noise in the data and to be reflective of actual change in wilderness conditions.

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Obtaining accurate initial information on the number of miles of trail in each condition class may be quite time consuming if wilderness managers do not already have this infor- mation, and estimates may be rather inaccurate. Some concern exists about the accuracy of the mileage and condition estimates, which may be provided by GPS mapping, estima- tion via GIS, or professional judgment. Therefore, for each wilderness, the technique used to generate mileage estimates will be reported. Once initial baseline data are obtained, updating the information at 5-year intervals should not be difficult.

7.4. Monitoring Question 3—Unconfined Recreation

What are the trends of outstanding opportunities for unconfined recreation?

Why Is This Monitoring Question Important? The Wilderness Act stipulates that wilderness should be managed to protect opportuni- ties for primitive and unconfined recreation. Thus, this question directly addresses the statutory language of the act. Unconfined recreation refers to types of recreation in which visitors experience a high degree of freedom over their own actions and decisions (Dustin and McAvoy 2000, Hendee and Dawson 2002). In this sense, unconfined recreation is largely affected by the types of rules and regulations imposed by management, although it is also likely to be affected to some extent by the presence and behavior of other visi- tors, because worrying about how others affect one’s peace of mind and behavior can be considered confining. Unconfined recreation also encompasses the sense of discovery,

214 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character adventure, and mental challenge presented by large wildernesses in which one can travel widely and explore unique and unknown environments on one’s own. Outstanding op- portunities for unconfined recreation thus are most likely to occur in wildernesses that are large, have many acres suitable for off-trail exploration, have relatively low levels of use, and are free from management restrictions over visitors’ activities.

How Will the Indicators Be Used To Answer This Question? Although the single indicator—management restriction of behavior—addresses a central aspect of the monitoring question, other aspects that might be considered confining (such as individual or social factors) are not addressed (McCool 2004). An increase in manage- ment restriction would indicate a decline in opportunities for unconfined recreation.

What Are the Cautions About This Question? Direct regulatory actions taken to increase opportunities for solitude will be defined as confining (McCool 2004); i.e., in certain respects, improvements in one opportunity necessarily entail declines in the other. This tradeoff should be explicitly noted where rel- evant, and additional information from managers track the reasons that actions are taken.

7.4.1. Indicator 1 for Question 3—Management Restrictions Management restrictions on visitor behavior.

Why Is This Indicator Important? Visitors’ opportunities to experience freedom from management are significantly affected by the number and type of regulations in place (McCool 2004). Although some regula- tions are not considered specifically detrimental to feeling unconfined (e.g., prohibitions on littering), other regulations have considerable effect.

How Was This Indicator Chosen? This indicator is highly accurate, reliable, sensitive to change, and meaningful to the unconfined dimension of the outstanding opportunities quality.

How Will the Measure Provide Information About This Indicator? Only one measure exists, so interpretation is straightforward. A decrease in the level of restriction represents an improvement in the opportunity for unconfined recreation. An increase in the level of restriction represents a decline in the opportunity for unconfined recreation.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 215 What Are the Cautions About This Indicator? Ideally, this indicator would incorporate the spatial extent of different regulations. It makes a difference, for example, if use limits are in place at only one destination as opposed to limits across an entire wilderness. With existing data, however, it is probably too burdensome to ask wilderness managers to compute the precise spatial extent of each regulation. Instead, a compromise was reached in which it will be recorded whether regulations apply to an entire wilderness or a portion of the wilderness.

In addition, scholars continue to debate about whether regulations imposed outside wilderness differ in the way they affect the wilderness experience from regulations that govern behavior once a person enters a wilderness. The measure we use does not take into account whether regulations affect a person before the trip (e.g., use limits) or after they are inside a wilderness (e.g., campfire prohibitions).

This indicator captures an important domain of factors that influence the sense of uncon- fined recreation. The way the measurement is computed takes into account the fact that some regulations are more onerous than others. Many management actions have a con- siderable influence on visitors’ sense of freedom and adventure, and most of these actions are captured well by this indicator. Lack of confinement is also likely to be influenced by other factors, especially the presence and behavior of other visitors. Such influences are not captured with this indicator.

7.4.1.1. Measure 1 for Indicator 1, Question 3—Visitor Restrictions Index Index of restrictions on visitor behavior.

Measure 1 is a weighted index of restrictions on visitor behavior, with scores (0 to 3) for each of 11 categories of regulations weighted by geographic extent (1 equals subarea, 2 equals wildernesswide). Scores on the index can range from 0 to 46.

Why Is This Measure Important? This index incorporates all regulations commonly used that affect recreational visitors. It is tightly linked to the indicator: an increase in the index equates to an increase in management restriction of behavior. The index weights more onerous restrictions more heavily.

What Are the Attributes of This Measure? Table 64 describes the attributes used in calculating the index of restrictions on visitor behavior.

216 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table 64.—Attributes for measuring the index of restrictions on visitor behavior. Attribute Visitor use regulations* Geographical extent of regulations*—select one: • Subarea • Entire wilderness area Purpose of regulations—select all that apply: • Enhance experience quality • Resource protection

* The asterisk denotes the attribute used to compute this measure, and the remaining attributes serve a supporting role necessary to help document or interpret the results.

Information about the purpose of each regulation will be important when interpreting changes in the different indicators for the outstanding opportunity quality (e.g., whether restrictions were imposed to enhance solitude).

This index is composed of the following regulations. The specific labels are derived from the database fields in Infra-WILD. Other regulations may be in place but were not included because they do not present significant confinement of the visitor (such as anti- littering regulations) or are very uncommon. •• Campfire restriction—designated site only. •• Campfire restriction—above designated elevation. •• Campfire restrictions—mandatory setbacks, other. •• Campfire restrictions—mandatory setbacks, water. •• Campfires prohibited. •• Campsite restriction—in designated sites only. •• Campsite restriction—mandatory setback, other. •• Campsite restriction—mandatory setback, sites. •• Campsite restriction—mandatory setback, trails. •• Campsite restriction—mandatory setback, water. •• Fees required. •• Human waste restrictions—must pack out. •• Maximum length of stay. •• Permits required. •• Permits required—day use. •• Permits required—multiple day use. •• Permits required—overnight use. •• Stock use restrictions—grazing prohibited. •• Stock use restrictions—feed restricted.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 217 •• Stock use restrictions—mandatory setback, sites. •• Stock use restrictions—mandatory setback, trail. •• Stock use restrictions—mandatory setback, water. •• Stock use restrictions—no camping with stock. •• Stock use restrictions—no free trailing. •• Stock use restrictions—no hitching or tethering. •• Swimming and/or bathing prohibited. •• Area closures. •• Maximum party size. •• Dogs restricted—leashed/under control. •• Dogs restricted—prohibited.

How Will the Data Be Collected? •• Primary and secondary (if needed) data sources. Infra-WILD includes a description of the regulations, with presence or absence information for each wilderness. Processing and analysis will be done at the Forest Service WO.

•• Frequency of data collection. Because regulations can change quickly, data will be collected and reported every year.

How Complete Are These Data? •• Percentage of Forest Service wildernesses that have these data. Because these data are used for public information purposes, they tend to be up-to-date and complete. As many as one-fourth to one-third of wildernesses report having none of the various categories of regulations in place, but some wildernesses use a range of different regulations.

•• Known spatial, temporal, and other data gaps. Data Gaps should not be a problem for this measure.

•• Data adequacy. Data will be judged to be complete, because all wildernesses report information on regulations via Infra-WILD. Data quality will be ensured by the process of review and certification. That is, data generated centrally will be validated by field managers. Therefore, data quality will be judged high for all wildernesses.

How Will the Data Be Processed and Analyzed? Initially, a score is given within each category of regulation according to the guidelines presented in table 65. If a wilderness has more than one type of regulation within a given

218 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character category, the score will be assigned that corresponds to the most restrictive regulation in place. A higher score indicates a greater degree of restriction on visitor behavior. •• A score of 0 indicates no regulation within the category. •• A score of 1 indicates some restriction but retention of some individual choice. For example, designated site camping policies enable visitors to choose from available sites when they arrive at their destination. A score of 1 is also assigned in cases in which regulations are restrictive but affect only one segment of the population (e.g., group size limits generally will not affect most users, and leash laws affect only those with dogs). •• A score of 2 indicates that no choice is permitted. For example, assigned site policies that require visitors to select campsites before beginning their trip would receive a score of 2. •• A score of 3 is reserved for the most restrictive regulations: use limits, waste pack- out requirements, closures to stock, and area closures to all use.

Table 65.—A list of categories, scores, and types of restrictions for computing the visitor restriction index. Category Score Type of restriction Campfires 0 No regulation 1 Designated site, above designated elevation, or mandatory setback 2 Total prohibition Camping 0 No restriction 1 Any mandatory setback; designated sites 2 Assigned sites Fees 0 No fees 1 Fees charged of selected user type 2 Fees charged of all visitors Permits 0 No permit or registration 1 Voluntary self-registration 2 Mandatory, nonlimiting permit or registration 3 Mandatory; use limited Human waste 0 No regulation 3 Pack out required Length of stay 0 No restriction on length of stay 1 Length of stay limited Stock use 0 No restriction 1 Mandatory setbacks; no hitching, tethering 2 Grazing prohibited or feed restricted 3 No camping with stock; area closures to all stock Swimming/bathing 0 No restrictions 2 Prohibited Area closure 0 No restriction 3 Area closed to use Group size limits 0 No restriction 1 Group size limits in place Dogs/domesticated animals 0 No restrictions 1 Required to be on leash 2 Prohibited

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 219 After the score is assigned for each category of regulation, these scores will be weighted to reflect the geographic coverage of the regulation as follows: •• 1—the regulation applies to a subarea of wilderness. •• 2—the regulation applies to an entire wilderness.

The example in table 66 demonstrates the process for the hypothetical ABC Wilderness.

The scores for each of the 11 types of regulations will be reported for each wilderness along with the total index score.

As described in Chapter 3, Assessing Trend in Wilderness Character, because these restrictions on visitor behavior data will be collected annually, regression analysis will be used to identify if the trend in the number of visiting parties over the 5-year monitoring cycle is significantly increasing, decreasing, or stable.

Table 66.—An example of visitor restriction scoring for the ABC Wilderness. Type of regulation Score Geographic weight Total score

Campfire restriction 1 2 2 Camping 2 1 2 Fees 0 — 0 Permits 1 2 2 Human waste 0 — 0 Length of stay 0 — 0 Stock use 1 1 1 Swimming/bathing 0 — 0 Area closure 0 — 0 Group size limits 1 2 2 Leash requirement 1 1 1 Index total 10

What Are the Cautions About This Measure? Data for the index measure are reliably and accurately reported through Infra. The items tracked encompass the range of management actions likely to affect visitors’ feelings of confinement. Despite these characteristics, the index has a significant drawback in that it can capture only three levels of extent (no regulation, subarea, and total wilderness). Ideally, it would be best to have a more precise measure of spatial extent to better track change over time and to more accurately measure the impact on visitors.

Another limitation is that, although the weighting scheme seems logical, the specific weights are subjectively determined. This limitation can be addressed through simulations using different weighting schemes, however, and, at the wilderness level, the data will be captured in a way that permits disaggregation of the specific components.

220 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendixes

Appendix A. Glossary absorption—The process by which incident light is removed from the atmosphere and retained by a particle. (National Park Service 2000) acidification—The decrease of acid neutralizing capacity in water or base saturation in soil caused by natural or anthropogenic processes. (National Park Service 2000) air-quality–related value (AQRV)—A resource, as identified by the Federal land manager for one or more Federal areas, that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. The resource may include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource identified by the Federal land manager for a particular area. (National Park Service 2000) anthropogenic—Produced by human activities. (Malm 1999) atmospheric deposition—The process whereby airborne particles and gases are deposited on the earth’s surface. (National Atmospheric Deposition Program 2003) attribute—A description of an item of significance; i.e., any detail that serves to classify, quantify, qualify, identify, or express the state of an entity. (Barker and Longman 1992) building—A structure to support, shelter, or enclose persons, animals, or property of any kind. (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 6509.11k, sec. 56.05 and FSH 7309.11, sec. 05)

Class I area—As defined in the Clean Air Act, the following areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977: national parks larger than 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks larger than 5,000 acres, and international parks. (National Park Service 2000) dam—A barrier obstructing the flow of water that increases the water surface elevation upstream of the barrier; usually built for water storage or to increase the hydraulic head. (Armantrout 1998) deciview—A unit of visibility proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction. Under many circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived to be the same on clear and hazy days. (Malm 1999) dry deposition—The fraction of atmospheric deposition deposited in dry weather through such processes as settling, impaction, and adsorption. (National Atmospheric Deposition Program 2003)

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 221 extinction (with regard to light)—The attenuation of light due to scattering and absorption as it passes through a medium. (National Park Service 2000)

extirpated species—A species that formerly occurred within a wilderness but is no longer present there. An extirpated species is different from an extinct species in that extinction is the loss of all the individuals of a species, whereas a species may be extirpated from one area but still living in another area.

extrapolate—To predict by projecting past experience or known data. (Merriam-Webster 2002)

fixed instrumentation site—An unattended measurement device left in place for at least 1 year for the purpose of recording environmental data, such as meteorology or seismic activity. These sites typically contain measuring equipment, a data logger, and a power source. Some even have the facility for transmitting data off site for storage and analysis.

free-flowing condition—A stream or stream reach that flows unconfined and naturally without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway. (Armantrout 1998)

haze—An atmospheric aerosol of sufficient concentration to be visible. The particles are so small that they cannot be seen individually but are still effective at attenuating light and reducing visual range. (National Park Service 2000)

indigenous species—A species that originally inhabited a particular national forest or national grassland. (Forest Service Manual 2605)

injury (with regard to pollution effects on plants)—Any physical or biological response to pollutants, such as a change in metabolism, reduced photosynthesis, leaf necrosis, premature leaf drop, or chlorosis. (National Park Service 2000)

interpolate—To estimate values of a function between two known values. (Merriam- Webster 2002)

invasive species—A species that is nonnative (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Clinton 1999). Invasive species can be plants, animals, or other organisms (such as microbes). Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions. (National Invasive Species Council 2001)

irrigation structure—A device designed to provide water to vegetation, such as a ditch, canal, pipe, sprinkler, or other device. (Armantrout 1998)

222 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character keystone species—(1) A species on which a large number of other species within a given community depend for survival (Meffee and Carroll 1997); (2) A species that affects the survival and abundance of many other species in the community in which it lives. Its removal or addition results in a relatively significant shift in the composition of the community and sometimes even in the physical structure of the environment. (Wilson 1992) major trail feature—A significant constructed feature associated with a system trail. Most commonly, this term refers to a trail bridge, but it also includes a dock, constructed stairs, and a boardwalk, excluding other minor features such as trail signs and culverts. management-ignited fire (also referred to as prescribed fire)—Any fire ignited by management actions under certain predetermined conditions to meet specific objectives related to hazardous fuels reduction or habitat improvement. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Policy Act requirements must be met before ignition. Prescribed fires are ignited and managed within a “window” of very specific conditions, including winds, temperatures, humidity, and other factors specified in the burn plan. (Healthy Forests and Rangelands Interagency Web site 2009) mechanical transport—Any contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, or air, having moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user, and that is powered by a living or nonliving power source. This category includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary medical appliances. It also does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or similar primitive devices without moving parts. (USDA Forest Service 2005) metapopulation—A series of populations (or population subdivisions) with dynamic patterns of local extinctions and recolonizations; gene flow or migration among subunits provides characteristic evolutionary and ecological features that help prevent the extinction of the entire metapopulation. (Fiedler and Jain 1992) motorized equipment—Machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power sources. This category includes, but is not limited to, such machines as chain saws, aircraft, snowmobiles, generators, motor boats, and motor vehicles. It does not include small battery- or gas-powered handcarried devices such as shavers, wristwatches, flashlights, cameras, stoves, or other similar small equipment. (USDA Forest Service 2005)

N100—The number of hourly average concentrations equal to 100 parts per billion. (National Park Service 2000)

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 223 National Inventory of Dams (NID) dam—(1) A dam that is a high or significant hazard potential class dam; (2) A low hazard potential class dam that exceeds 25 ft in height and 15 acre-ft storage; (3) A low hazard potential class dam that exceeds 50 acre-ft storage and 6 ft in height. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005)

natural wilderness lake—A body of water not originally created by human impoundment (such as via a dam or levee).

nitrates—Gases and aerosols that have origins in the gas-to-aerosol conversion of

nitrogen oxides (e.g., nitrogen dioxide); nitric acid and ammonium nitrate are of primary interest. Ammonium nitrate is very hygroscopic, so its contribution to visibility impairment is magnified in the presence of water vapor. (National Park Service 2000)

operational maintenance level—The maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering current needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. This term defines the level to which a road is currently being maintained. (USDA Forest Service 2004a)

perennial stream—A stream, lake, or water body with water present continuously during a normal water year. (Armantrout 1998)

phytotoxic—Poisonous to plants. (National Park Service 2000)

road—A motor vehicle travel way wider than 50 inches, unless classified and managed as a trail. (36 C.F.R. 212.1.)

scattering—The interaction of light with an object (such as a fine particle) that causes the light to be redirected in its path. (National Park Service 2000)

significant manipulation—Exercising control that is important in effect or large in amount or quantity relative to the wilderness resource.

stomata—Small pores in the epidermis of the leaf that provide for the entry of carbon dioxide and the discharge of oxygen and water vapor. (USDA Forest Service 1999)

sulfates—Aerosols that have origins in the gas-to-aerosol conversion of sulfur dioxide; sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate are of primary interest. Sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate are very hygroscopic, so their contribution to visibility impairment is magnified in the presence of water vapor. (National Park Service 2000)

suppression—All the work associated with extinguishing or containing a fire, beginning with its discovery. (Healthy Forests and Rangelands Interagency Web site 2009)

224 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character system trail—A linear feature constructed for the purpose of enabling the free movement of people, stock, or off-highway vehicles. (USDA Forest Service 2003b)

taxon—The name applied to a taxonomic group in a formal system of nomenclature.

trail class—The prescribed scale of development, representing the intended design and management standards of the trail. Each trail class is defined in terms of applicable tread and traffic flow, obstacles, constructed feature and trail elements, signs, typical recreation environment, and experience. Trail classes range from trail class 1 (minimal/undeveloped trail) to trail class 5 (fully developed trail). (USDA Forest Service 2004b)

untrammeled—Wilderness that is unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. (Landres and others 2005)

utility infrastructure—The constructed features used to convey or support basic services such as electricity, telephone, gas, or water.

W126—An ozone index that multiplies each specific concentration by a sigmoidal -(A x Ci) weighted function and then sums all values. Wi = 1/[1 + Me ], where M and A are -1 constants 4403 and 126 parts per million (ppm) , respectively; wi is the weighting factor for ci; and ci is concentration in ppm. (National Park Service 2000)

wet deposition—The fraction of atmospheric deposition contained in precipitation, predominantly rain and snow. (National Atmospheric Deposition Program 2003)

wilderness water developments—Dams, irrigation structures, stock or wildlife ponds, channelization, mining, energy development, urban and suburban development, or alteration of riparian vegetation communities. Other than dams (primarily those more than 6 ft high), wilderness water developments are not addressed in this monitoring guide.

wildland fire—Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in a wildland area. (Healthy Forests and Rangelands Interagency Web site 2009)

wildland fire use—The management of naturally ignited (usually by lightning) wildland fires to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives in predefined areas outlined in fire management plans. (Healthy Forests and Rangelands Interagency Web site 2009)

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 225 226 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix B. Statistical Analysis of Trends in the Measures

This appendix describes how trends in the measures will be statistically analyzed.

This analysis applies only to those measures that have five or more data points. For the measures for which data are gathered annually, this analysis will be performed at the end of the first 5-year monitoring cycle. For the measures for which data are gathered once every 5 years, this analysis will be performed at the end of the fifth monitoring cycle, 20 years after baseline data were first collected, yielding five data points.

To statistically evaluate whether a trend in the data is significant or not, a trigger point or threshold of change needs to be identified. The selection of this trigger point, in statistical terms the “alpha level,” is based solely on managerial and philosophical considerations of how much randomness is acceptable in identifying a significant change. Two polar examples illustrate the implications of choosing different alpha levels:

1. 0.05 Alpha Level. This threshold means that when there is a trend in the data, there is a 5-percent chance that this trend is occurring at random and there is a 95-percent chance that this trend is real. This alpha level reduces what statisticians call Type I error, the risk of calling a change significant when in fact it is not significant. This alpha level implies that managers can be reasonably confident that changes identified as significant are in fact significant and not merely the result of all sorts of random factors. The downside of this alpha level is that, from a managerial perspective, some changes may in fact be important but they will not be statistically significant.

2. 0.20 Alpha Level. This threshold means that when there is a trend in the data, there is a 20-percent chance that this trend is occuring at random and there is an 80-percent chance that this trend is real. This alpha level reduces what statisticians call Type II error, the risk calling a change not significant when in fact it is significant. Although at first this level may seem too low a threshold for identifying significant change, this alpha level implies that no change escapes notice; therefore, managers have more opportunity to intercede and take action before unacceptable changes occur. In other words, even though a manager would be less certain that changes identified as significant are really significant, on-the-ground trends may be caught earlier, enabling corrective actions to be taken sooner.

The Technical Guide Development Team selected an alpha level of 0.1 as an appropriate balance between the need to catch trends early (especially given the relative crudeness of several of the indicators and measures used in this monitoring protocol) while maintaining as much statistical rigor as possible in correctly identifying significant trends.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 227 Trends will be assessed using simple linear regression in which the independent variable X is time (measurement year) and the dependent variable Y is the value of the measure (such as deciview or number of trammelings). Thus the regression model is

Yi = β 0 + β1 X i + ε i where β 0 is the intercept, β1 is the slope, and ε is the error (Greek letters are used to represent true population parameters and roman letters are used

to represent estimates of those population parameters). We can test the hypothesis β1 = 0 via the following test:

H 0 : β1 = 0

H a : β1 ≠ 0 b t * = 1 s{b1}

The test statistic t* is distributed as t distribution with degrees of freedom n-2 (where n is the number of data points). Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected when * t > t(1−α / 2,n − 2). Where b0 and b1 are the point estimates for β0 and β1 respectively and

Some examples appear in tables B.1 and B.2 and in figure B.1. The first example is real air pollution data from Acadia National Park. The second example is hypothetical data loosely derived from the Acadia National Park data.

By examining plots of the two data sets, it appears that a downward trend occurs in visibility for both the true data (example 1) and the modified data (example 2), although more noise occurs in the modified data. Nevertheless, performing the hypothesis test with a 90-percent confidence level (alpha equals 0.1) yields the detection of a statistically significant trend for the true data (example 1) but the failure to detect a statistically significant trend for the modified data (example 2).

228 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table B.1.—Air pollution data from Acadia National Park used to illustrate regression analysis. Example 1 Example 2 Year (true deciview data from (slightly modified data from Acadia National Park) Acadia National Park) 1998 13.89156 13.40000 1999 13.63324 13.63324 2000 13.34949 13.34949 2001 13.42895 13.42895 2002 13.11163 13.11163 2003 12.53548 13.20000

Figure B.1.—True (example 1) and modified (example 2) air pollution data from Acadia National Park plotted to show graphical trend in the data.

Example 1: Visibility at Acadia National Park (true data) Deciview

Year

Example 2: Visibility at Acadia National Park (modified data) Deciview

Year

Table B.2.—Regression test results for the air pollution data from Acadia National Park. Example 1 Example 2 Statistic (true deciview data from (slightly modified data from Acadia National Park) Acadia National Park) – 0.23617 – 0.07101 485.774400 155.410400 0.030058 0.019986 0.041444 0.033794 5.698409 2.101275 t(0.95,4) 2.132000 2.132000 Conclusion if alpha = 0.1 Reject null hypothesis and Fail to reject null hypothesis and conclude conclude a significant trend no significant trend exists exists

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 229 230 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix C. Likely Indicators and Measures

Likely indicators and measures will likely have data available to be included in this national monitoring protocol within 5 years from the time this technical guide is first implemented.

Untrammeled Quality No likely indicators and measures were identified under the untrammeled quality.

Natural Quality The first monitoring question about threats in this quality of wilderness character has two core indicators and two likely measures:

1. Core Indicator. Ozone concentrations. Likely Measure. Ozone concentrations via remote sensing data. These data will be available from a National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellite within 5 years or so. These data, when available, will provide a much more accurate picture of ozone concentrations across the country and will eliminate the need to interpolate ozone data. The data will track temporal (and spatial) trends more accurately for any given location without the smoothing effect of interpolative methods. This measure was not selected because it does not meet the availability criterion. In addition, some concern exists about whether the data will meet the relevance criterion because the data may not be representative of ground-level concentrations of ozone that are relevant to plant uptake and may not be available in the hourly over the growing season format needed to calculate the existing ozone plant response metrics of N100 and W126.

2. Core Indicator. Nonnative species that alter the composition of natural plant and animal communities. Likely Measure. Invasibility index for nonnative plant species. NatureServe has developed a national invasibility protocol for nonnative plant species (Morse and others 2004). Under this approach, invasive species are assessed individually within a geographic area of interest to determine a quantitative rank to categorize their negative impact on native plant communities. The susceptibility of a wilderness to invasion by nonnative plant species depends on many factors, including the life history characteristics of individual nonnative species, the habitat present within individual wildernesses, the resiliency of the system, and other factors. Using this tool, managers are able to design inventories of highest priority nonnative species within their wilderness and to determine

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 231 which nonnative plant species need the most immediate management actions. This tool will also help local, regional, and national wilderness managers in planning and budgeting for nonnative plant species management. This measure is not ready to be incorporated into this monitoring protocol at this time because processing is still needed to make this tool readily available and usable within all Forest Service wildernesses.

The second monitoring question about biophysical conditions and processes sensitive to threats in this quality of wilderness character has two core indicators and two likely measures:

1. Core Indicator. Ecosystems, plant communities, and plant species that are rare or at risk. Likely Measure. National vegetation classification systems. Several broad-scale vegetation classification efforts are under way by both government agencies and nonprofit organizations to develop ecological classification systems to provide baseline data for terrestrial vegetation that could be applied to wildernesses nationwide. For example, the Forest Service is developing a national vegetation classification system using remote sensing imagery from Thematic Mapper data. The U.S. Geological Survey is also working on nationwide remote sensing products that would provide wilderness vegetation information within the context of surrounding ecosystems.

NatureServe biologists are in the process of developing a national vegetation classification that would be useful for monitoring imperiled and at-risk plant communities in wildernesses. This project is an ecological system classification that uses groups of plant communities and evaluates their status and trends as imperiled or at risk within the context of broad geographic areas within the United States. This project also uses remote sensing imagery combined with fieldwork for verification of the classification taxonomy. The taxonomic evaluation has been completed for the lower 48 States, with nationwide mapping currently under way. Work for Alaska occurred in 2005.

2. Core Indicator. Historical fire regime. Likely Measure. Percentage of area of wilderness in Fire Regime Condition Class 3 (FRCC3). The maintenance of the historical fire regime is important in wilderness because fire is one of the primary natural disturbance processes within most ecosystems. The exclusion or interruption of the timing or intensity of the historical fire regime is a threat that will negatively affect the composition, structure, and

232 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character function of native plant communities. The use of the FRCC system provides one of the best measures currently available to assess changes in fire regimes from historical levels. For the purpose of this monitoring, FRCC3, plant communities with conditions that reflect fire regimes that have been significantly altered from their historical range is the most relevant. Modeling techniques to assess FRCCs developed by Schmidt and others (2002) are currently being refined and will be made available under the Federal LANDFIRE program (www.landfire.gov/about_ frcc.html).

Undeveloped Quality The physical development indicator in this quality of wilderness character has two likely measures. Both of these likely measures are related to campsites and are therefore described together: 1. Mean number of campsites per square mile. 2. Maximum number of campsites in any square mile.

Campsites are an important measure of the physical evidence of development because they occur in almost every wilderness and are sensitive to change as a result of altering use levels or management actions. At the present time, it is estimated that 20 to 30 percent of wildernesses have a campsite inventory that meets the standard established in the national campsite monitoring protocol (under development). Because of the inclusion of element 6, recreation site inventory, in the Chief’s 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and the commitment to have all wildernesses meet a baseline level of wilderness stewardship within the decade, it is reasonable to assume that more than 50 percent of wildernesses will have reliable campsite inventories within the next 3 to 5 years.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality No core indicators and likely measures were identified for this quality.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 233 234 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix D. Desired Indicators and Measures

Desired indicators and measures are those that would add significant information to the assessment of trends in wilderness character but data are not likely to be available in the foreseeable future.

Untrammeled Quality No desired indicators and measures were identified under the untrammeled quality.

Natural Quality The first monitoring question about threats in this quality of wilderness character has four desired indicators and associated measures:

1. Desired Indicator. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions.

Desired Measures. SO2 and NOx emissions. The emissions data provide direct information of local sources of these pollutants. This information, in turn, enables managers to evaluate threats to wilderness natural conditions such as visibility, water quality, and soil chemistry. Data could be obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Emissions Inventory. The team decided that the end results of these emissions effects (i.e., visibility measurements and deposition measurements) better met the relevance criterion because they are more direct measures of the impacts of pollutants on wilderness resources, but these emissions could be useful locally in interpreting trend changes in deposition, visibility, or ozone.

2. Desired Indicator. Mercury deposition. Desired Measure. Mercury deposition. Although EPA maps currently being developed will estimate mercury deposition across the country, mercury deposition data are not currently available for most of the western United States. In addition, the relevance of these data is fairly site specific because mercury deposition is a greater risk to fish and wildlife in aquatic areas in which it can be converted to the toxic compound methyl mercury.

3. Desired Indicator. Light pollution that degrades night sky quality and night sky quality values. Desired Measure. Average diminished night sky visibility. Increasing light pollution in the past 50 to 100 years has become an increasing threat to the biology of a variety of wildlife and plant species (Longcore and Rich 2004), affecting the natural quality of wilderness character. Recent research has developed a method for monitoring night sky visibility (Cinzano and others 2000,

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 235 2001) based on broad-scale modeling results. These results could be overlaid on a Geographic Information System map of wilderness boundaries to derive an averaged estimate of diminished night sky visibility within a wilderness.

4. Desired Indicator. Developments that alter natural wilderness lakes. Desired Measure. Number of natural wilderness lakes enlarged or impounded behind dams. The indicator and measure would be used to assess potential changes in the flow timing and lake habitat cycles in which a dam has impounded or enlarged a natural wilderness lake (natural lakes are defined as those not originally created by human impoundment). An increase in the number of natural lakes enlarged or impounded behind dams would be an indicator that human actions are affecting natural lake dynamics.

The second monitoring question about biophysical conditions and processes sensitive to threats in this quality of wilderness character has five desired indicators and associated measures:

1. Desired Indicator. Potential ecological risk metric for air-quality–related values. Desired Measure. The measure would be a Geographic Information System (GIS)- based metric combining ozone concentrations, Palmer Drought Severity Index, the presence of ozone-sensitive species, atmospheric deposition levels of nitrogen and sulfur, and the underlying sensitive bedrock geologies.

The data sources are variable: ozone concentrations from EPA data, Palmer Drought Severity Index available on the Internet (see main text), and nitrogen and sulfur deposition from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network. Lists of ozone-sensitive species and bedrock geology would have to be obtained from local sources and brought into GIS layers if necessary. Although this metric could be useful in giving a wilderness a position on a scale regarding risk from some air pollution sources, the collection and compilation of this information from varying data sources has not been done and could be expensive, so the cost-effectiveness criterion is not met. In addition, significant data gaps likely would exist for more than 50 percent of the wilderness areas, so the availability criterion also is not met.

2. Desired Indicator. Water chemistry. Desired Measure. Acres of wilderness lakes or miles of streams in which water chemistry is unchanged over time. This indicator would be used to assess wilderness lake and streamwater quality related to air pollution impacts. Attributes of this measure would be nitrogen, phosphorus, pH, acid neutralizing capacity, dissolved organic carbon, and conductivity.

236 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Wilderness lake and stream chemistry data are not available for most wilderness areas at this time. Some units have collected water chemistry data related to air pollution impacts, and limited baseline data are available for many States from EPA’s National Surface Water Survey. During the writing of this technical guide, the need to develop standardized water chemistry methods and attributes was identified. Standardization would clearly give the wilderness manager information as to the current state of surface waters with regard to acidification and unnatural fertilization.

3. Desired Indicator. Lichen. Desired Measure. Lichen air-quality index score. The data could be obtained from Forest Health Monitoring plots that are located in many wildernesses throughout the country. A methodology would also need to be developed to incorporate this information into the process for assessing trends in wilderness character.

4. Desired Indicator. Status and trend of water quality. Desired Measure. Miles of wilderness rivers or streams in which Clean Water Act water quality standards and beneficial uses are met. This indicator would be used to assess overall water quality and the ability of wilderness streams to support their designated, beneficial uses. An increase in the miles of impaired rivers or streams would indicate that human actions are affecting wilderness water quality. The attribute of this measure would be miles of wilderness rivers or streams on EPA and State 303(d) lists (identified as impaired through a total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis).

The identification of waters as impaired by the Clean Water Act (Section 303(d)) is an EPA function delegated to each State. Early in the listing process, protocols for listing streams were not clearly identified and some streams were listed without careful review of the data. Currently, most States are writing TMDL reports and restoration plans for all Section 303(d) listed waters. Part of this analysis includes a review of the scientific credibility of the data used for the original stream listing and determining if the designated beneficial use is impaired. Because the TMDL process is applied to currently listed waters, the list of impaired waters will be revised to reflect the true condition of the Nation’s waters. As this process is completed nationwide, this measure will become a valuable tool for monitoring the wilderness aquatic resources.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 237 5. Desired Indicator. Vertebrate species. Desired Measures. Presence and distribution of vertebrate species. The Forest Service’s Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring protocol aims to provide statistically reliable data nationwide on the presence and distribution of a variety of vertebrate wildlife and their habitats. If implemented nationally, this monitoring protocol would provide data that could be used for assessing trends in this important component of wilderness character.

Undeveloped Quality The physical development indicator in this quality of wilderness character has three desired measures. All three measures are related to user-created, nonsystem, or social trails and are therefore described together: 1. Mean length of user-created trails/square mile. 2. Maximum length of user-created trails in any square mile. 3. Total length of user-created trails in each condition class.

To assess change in the physical evidence of modern human occupation or modification, it is important to assess the extent and condition of the official trail system (and associated structures), the campsite system (and associated structures), and the user-created trail system. Measures concerned with the user-created trail system are not included in this protocol, or even as likely indicators, because data do not routinely exist and because it is not realistically expected that they would exist on a consistent, national scale without a significant infusion of additional monitoring funds. Nevertheless, where data do exist locally to support use of these measures, they should be incorporated into the protocol.

Increases in any of the three measures would indicate that user-created trails are proliferating, becoming increasingly dense, and/or having higher impacts. Any of these changes represent increased physical evidence of occupation and/or modification and suggest that wilderness character is declining because wilderness is becoming more developed. All three of these measures require field data collection for each individual wilderness. This process requires a census of all user-created trails in the entire wilderness and the assignment of a condition class rating to each trail. Such data are virtually nonexistent. Protocols are not well established, as they are for campsite monitoring, but could be developed.

238 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality The wilderness visitation indicator under the monitoring question about solitude has two desired measures:

1. Desired Measure. Number of encounters with other groups per day. Most wilderness visitors associate encountering other groups as an impediment to attaining solitude. Degradation of solitude also (probably) relates to the level of jostling or stress caused by interactions among groups and is therefore an integrative measure. Currently, data do not exist for enough wildernesses to be able to monitor this measure.

2. Desired Measure. Number of groups camped within sight and sound. For campers, the presence of other groups nearby is a major impact on the feeling of solitude. Currently, data do not exist for enough wildernesses to be able to feasibly monitor this measure.

The monitoring question about unconfined recreation has one desired indicator:

1. Desired Indicator. Jostling index. It would be ideal to have an indicator that addresses the impact of the presence of other people and on the opportunity for unconfined recreation. In other words, how do wilderness visitors change their behavior in response to other people? Do visitors not stop at a viewpoint when others are there? Do visitors not camp in a certain area because others are there? To what extent are visitors jostled or feel they were forced to take actions they preferred not to? Currently, no accepted measures exist, and any techniques for collecting data would be beyond the realm of what is feasible because they largely rely on surveying visitors.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 239 240 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix E. Dropped Indicators and Measures

Many indicators and measures were considered but eventually dropped for a variety of reasons. Table E.1 summarizes these dropped indicators and measures and the reasons why they were dropped from this monitoring protocol.

Table E.1.—Indicators considered and reasons why they were dropped. (1 of 3)

Reason why indicator was dropped

Insufficient Important in Low relevance Insufficient quality Insufficient data Dropped indicator conceptual less than 50 percent to assessing of data that are coverage across development of Forest Service wilderness currently available all wildernesses of indicator wildernesses character

Natural quality: air

Ecological effects metric for AQRVs X X X X Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm X Carbon monoxide emissions X Volatile organic carbon emissions X Dry deposition X Budget reporting X X X X

Natural quality: aquatic systems

Removal of vegetation and trampling X X X of soils around campsite leading to site erosion and sediment deposition Water quality X X System trail crossings X Introduction of human and animal X X X waste due to campsite location Loss of riparian or lakeside vegetation X X X or bank stability Impervious surfaces X X X Air pollutants that degrade water X X X quality with a measure of acres of wilderness lakes or miles of wilderness streams unaffected by air pollution Flow alteration or water chemistry X X changes due to other wilderness developments Changes in wilderness streamflow with X X a measure based on existing stream gauges Lake clarity X X X Stream surveys X X Miles of perennial streams that go dry X X due to human actions

AQRV = air-quality–related value.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 241 Table E.1.—Indicators considered and reasons why they were dropped. (2 of 3)

Reason why indicator was dropped

Insufficient Important in Low relevance Insufficient quality Insufficient data Dropped indicator conceptual less than 50 percent to assessing of data that are coverage across development of Forest Service wilderness currently available all wildernesses of indicator wildernesses character

Natural quality: wildlife

Composition, distribution, and X X abundance of predator community Composition, distribution, and X X abundance of herbivore community Composition, distribution, and X X abundance of disturbance specialists Composition, distribution, and X X abundance of biophysical modifiers (e.g., beaver) Composition and abundance of lake X X X biota

Natural quality: vegetation

Changes in the composition, X X distribution, and abundance of native plant communities due to human actions Changes in the composition, X X distribution, and abundance of plant species due to human actions Change in the ratio of shade-tolerant X X to shade-intolerant species due to human actions Change in fragmentation and X X aggregation of vegetation (patch distribution and size) due to human actions Change in vertical patterns of X X vegetation within ecosystems due to human actions Anthropogenic alterations to historical X X X disturbance regimes Effects of nonnative disease and X X insects on native plant communities Change in distribution of life forms and X X ecotones due to altered disturbance regimes Resilience of plant communities and X X X ecosystems due to human actions Changes in chlorophyll density due to X X air pollution Changes in primary productivity of X X vegetation due to human actions such as grazing and air pollution

242 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Table E.1.—Indicators considered and reasons why they were dropped. (3 of 3)

Reason why indicator was dropped

Insufficient Important in Low relevance Insufficient quality Insufficient data Dropped indicator conceptual less than 50 percent to assessing of data that are coverage across development of Forest Service wilderness currently available all wildernesses of indicator wildernesses character

Tree mortality X X G-listed species from State Heritage X X X Programs

Undeveloped quality

Commercial grazing infrastructure X

Outstanding opportunities quality

Trail encounters X Campers audible/visible X Visitor reports of disruptions X Night sky visibility X X Proportion of wilderness outside of X electronic communication with the outside world Dangerous situations (acres inhabited X by animals that could kill or eat people) Incidence of motorized or mechanized X uses Visitor reports of displacement or X X behavior change due to management or other visitors Campsite availability X

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 243 244 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix F. Local Indicators and Measures

In the course of developing this national monitoring protocol and reviewing dozens of potential indicators, the different teams identified some indicators that were not applicable at the national level but may be applicable to an individual wilderness. These local indicators provide specific information that may be useful or important for preserving wilderness character in an individual wilderness. The indicators presented in the following text are offered only as suggestions and are in no way a complete list of local indicators. Although a local wilderness may find some of these indicators useful, data may or may not be available to implement monitoring of these indicators.

Untrammeled Quality 1. Local Indicator. Rationale for fire-suppression decisions. This information is tracked as part of all wildland fire implementation plans and trends may provide local managers with insight about the barriers to fire use implementation.

Natural Quality 1. Local Indicator. Water chemistry. Local Measure. Acid neutralizing capacity and nitrate. Ongoing chemical monitoring of wilderness waters for air pollution impacts has occurred under numerous efforts. Nothing in this technical guide is intended to change these ongoing monitoring efforts. Nevertheless, during the development of this technical guide, the need to standardize methods and attributes was identified (see Appendix C, Likely Indicators and Measures). Standardization would provide wilderness managers information as to the current state of their surface waters with regard to acidification and unnatural fertilization.

Undeveloped Quality 1. Local Indicator. Unauthorized use. Any known unauthorized use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport should be tracked locally. The Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Report System database has the potential to help with the tracking of unauthorized use documented through violation notices or incident reports.

2. Local Indicator. Airstrips. Landing strips are not common in wilderness (estimated at less than a half dozen) and were not included as a core indicator for that reason. Where they do occur, however, they can have a significant effect on the undeveloped quality and should

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 245 be included as a local indicator. It is suggested that an estimate of the number of flights yearly be included in this measure.

3. Local Indicator. Commercial grazing infrastructure. Commercial grazing infrastructure includes such items as fences, guzzlers, and water tanks; where present, commercial grazing infrastructure can have a significant negative effect on the undeveloped quality. Although the existence of this infrastructure is known and is recorded in a corporate database (Infra-Range), it was dropped as a suitable indicator because the linking of these many features to the individual wildernesses was determined to be problematic. If presence of these features inside a wilderness is known on a particular forest, this indicator could be used as a local indicator.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality No indicators and measures were identified as local indicators for this quality.

246 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix G. Process Used To Develop Indicators and Measures

The lead for each quality determined the overall process for choosing the indicators and measures in this technical guide.

Untrammeled Quality The process used to develop indicators and measures for the untrammeled quality consisted of working within a small but geographically diverse group of wilderness specialists to gather and evaluate a representative range of activities that take place within wildernesses that manipulate or control ecological systems. Those activities were then combined into like categories using the structure defined by current Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2320). Measures were developed by defining a like quantifier (action) that could be aggregated to represent the untrammeled quality. Members of the technical team for the untrammeled quality included Liese Dean (Sawtooth National Forest), who served as subteam leader; Al McPherson (George Washington and Jefferson National Forests); Rebecca Oreskes (White Mountain National Forest); David Rak (Tongass National Forest); Mike Rowan (Okanogan National Forest); and Diane Taliaferro (Gallatin National Forest). This same team also developed the measures for the mechanized and motorized indicator under the undeveloped quality.

Natural Quality Four separate teams were established to provide technical direction for the different resources included under the natural quality.

Air Quality. A six-member air-quality technical team was assembled for the air-quality and air-quality–related values question. The team was composed of the following individuals: Tamara Blett (National Park Service, Air Resources Division), who served as the subteam leader; Scott Copeland (Forest Service Washington Office and Colorado State University); Bill Jackson (North Carolina national forests); Ann Mebane (Forest Service, Intermountain Region); Andrea Stacy (Monongahela National Forest); and Trent Procter (Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region). The group held two conference calls in May and June 2004 to brainstorm potential indicators and measures and then held a face-to-face meeting in July to refine the indicators for wet deposition, ozone, and visibility and to refine the measures to best reflect changes in wilderness character. A conference call was held between the air-quality technical team leader and the Forest Service regional and national Air Program managers to explain the wilderness character project and the air team role. Three air technical team members then developed draft technical guidance for the indicators. The air technical team reviewed and edited the air

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 247 technical guidance, which was then circulated to the Forest Service Air Program regional and national leaders for review and comment.

Aquatic Systems. A number of aquatic specialists were contacted, often repeatedly, regarding the development of aquatic indicators and measures. These individuals provided support, suggestions, and critical review of the research and information contained in this document. The aquatics technical team was composed of Terry Carlson (Bitterroot National Forest), who served as subteam leader; Steve Glasser (Forest Service, Washington Office); Chris Knopp (Forest Service, Washington Office); Russ Lafayette (Forest Service, Northeast Regional Office); Mark Laker (U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [Alaska]); and David Spildie (Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute). Individuals from the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey were also contacted regarding nationwide aquatic data sets that may be available from other agencies.

Vegetation. A seven-member team of agency and university ecologists and botanists evaluated the vegetation quality. Team members came from widely divergent geographic areas and provided broad ecological knowledge of the various wilderness ecosystems within the United States and Alaska. The team developed its indicators and measures through a series of conference calls in May and June 2004. By the sixth and final conference call, the group had developed an extensive list of ecological indicators and had identified data sources for the indicators. Early on, the team broadly organized the indicators and measures by vegetative composition, structure, and processes. Under these categories, the team recognized the importance of monitoring ecosystem process and function; however, it recognized that these indicators would be difficult to assess and that surrogates would have to be used as measures. Further into the project, the vegetation indicators were refined by threats to the natural quality and by biophysical components being threatened. From there, the vegetation indicators and measures that were finally chosen were based on extent and availability of data.

The vegetation subteam included Susan Rinehart (Forest Service, Northern Region), who served at the subteam leader; Paul Alaback (The University of Montana); Bruce D. Anderson (Superior National Forest); Steve Croy (George Washington and Jefferson National Forests); Karen Dillman (Tongass National Forest); Mark Jensen (Forest Service Northern Region); and Peter Landres (Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute).

Wildlife. A team of wildlife and fisheries specialists was assembled to work on the indicators and measures for wildlife (including both terrestrial and aquatic species) under the natural quality. This technical team consisted of Carol Hardy (George Washington and

248 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Jefferson National Forests), who served as subteam leader; Deborah Bumpus (Sitgreaves National Forest); Peter Landres (Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute); Lance Lerum (Tongass National Forest); Kathleen Mathews (Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station); Jennifer Molesworth (Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests); and Amy Unthank (Forest Service, Southwestern Region). Started in May 2004, this group interacted eight times via conference calls and participated in several e-mail reviews of draft documents.

Undeveloped Quality Both of the indicators under this quality were approached in a similar fashion. The resource subject matter experts on the Technical Guide Development Team took the initial listing of indicators and measures from the Wilderness Monitoring Committee and worked through a number of iterations of the table, relying on their respective tech teams, which consisted of subject matter experts from across the country.

The physical developments tech team consisted of Steve Boutcher (Forest Service, Washington Office), who served as subteam leader; Chris Barns (DOI, Bureau of Land Management [BLM] and Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center); David Cole (Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute); Dave Rak (Tongass National Forest); and Susan Sater (Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region). A number of subject matter experts were also contacted to learn more about specific data sets, including James Demby (Infra-Dams), Bill Hamele (Infra-Buildings), Carol Russell (Infra-Roads), Jaime Schmidt (Infra-Trails), and Bev Thackeray (retired—Infra-Special Uses Database System).

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality Historical and philosophical literature was consulted to determine how the dimensions of solitude, primitiveness, and lack of confinement should be defined. Interviews with 200 wilderness visitors conducted in 2002 were also important in this effort (Johnson and others 2005). Social science research was used to identify how various conditions affect visitor experiences of each dimension. Following this review, a 3-day workshop was convened of scholars from around the country who specialize in understanding the wilderness experience. These scholars were charged with describing and defining the outstanding opportunity quality, identifying the full range of possible indicators, and prioritizing recommended indicators. The outcome of that workshop was published as a special issue of the International Journal of Wilderness (Volume 10(3), December 2004).

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 249 The workshop led to a large list of potential indicators, at that point unconstrained by considerations such as data availability. Subsequently, discussions with the Wilderness Monitoring Committee, a small informal group of specialists, and review of available data led to the refinement of the indicators to a list of six. Protocols for monitoring were developed by the subteam leader, with review from field specialists. The team included Troy Hall (University of Idaho), who served as subteam leader; Chris Barns (DOI, BLM and Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center); David Cole (Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute); Denis Davis (DOI, National Park Service); Brad Hunter (Tongass National Forest); Al McPherson (George Washington and Jefferson National Forests); and Mike Rowan (Okanogan National Forest).

250 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Appendix H. Literature Cited

Aplet, G.H. 1999. On the nature of wildness: exploring what wilderness really protects. Denver University Law Review. 76: 347-367.

Armantrout, N.B., comp. 1998. Glossary of aquatic habitat inventory terminology. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 136 p.

Barker, R.; Longman, C. 1992. Case*method: function and process modelling. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Publishing. 400 p.

Belsky, A.J.; Blumenthal, D.M. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology. 11: 315-327.

Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54: 419-431.

Borrie, B. 2004. Why primitive experiences in wilderness? International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 18-20.

Borrie, W.T.; Roggenbuck, J.W. 1998. Providing an authentic wilderness experience? Thinking beyond the Wilderness Act of 1964. In: Kulhavy, D.L.; Legg, M.H., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in Eastern North America: research, management, and planning. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University: 34-44.

Carver, S.; Evans, A.; Fritz, S. 2002. Wilderness attribute mapping in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Wilderness. 8(1): 24-29.

Cinzano, P.; Falchi, F.; Elvidge, C.D. 2001. The first world atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 328: 689-707.

Cinzano, P.; Falchi, F.; Elvidge, C.D.; Baugh, K.E. 2000. The artificial night sky brightness mapped from DMSP satellite Operational Linescan System measurements. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 318: 641-657.

Clinton, W.J. 1999. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999—invasive species. Federal Register. 64(25): February 8, 1999.

Code of Federal Regulations. 36 C.F.R. 261.16 and 293.6.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 251 Cole, D.N. 2002. Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. In: Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P., eds. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resources and values. 3rd ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing: 413-459.

Cole, D.N.; Landres, P.B. 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs. Ecological Applications. 6: 168-184.

Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources. 1997. Integrating the Nation’s environmental monitoring and research networks and programs: a proposed framework. Washington, DC: U.S. National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science & Technology Policy. 82 p.

Cordell, H.K. 2004. Outdoor recreation for 21st century America: a report to the Nation: the national survey on recreation and the environment. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 316 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Bowker, J.M., eds. 2005. The multiple values of wilderness. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 297 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Tarrant, M.A.; McDonald, B.L.; Bergstrom, J.C. 1998. How the public views wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 4(3): 28-31.

Corn, M.L.; Buck, E.H.; Fawson, J.; Fischer, E. 1999. Harmful non-native species: issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service Rep. RL30123. Washington, DC: National Council for Science and the Environment. 50 p. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/ Biodiversity/biodv-26a.cfm. (June 2006).

Dawson, C. 2004. Monitoring outstanding opportunities for solitude. International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 12-14, 20.

Dustin, D.L.; McAvoy, L.H. 2000. Of what avail are forty freedoms? The significance of wilderness in the 21st century. International Journal of Wilderness. 6(2): 25-26.

Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries. 1992. The American heritage dictionary of the English language, third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2140 p.

Failing, L.; Gregory, R. 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. Journal of Environmental Management. 68: 121-132.

Fiedler, P.; Jain, S.K. 1992. Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation and management. New York: Chapman and Hall. 507 p.

252 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology. 8: 629-644.

Fritz, S.; Carver, S.; See, L. 2000. New GIS approaches to wild land mapping in Europe. RMRS-P-15. In: McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Proceedings, Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference: Wilderness Within the Context of Larger Systems. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 120-127. Vol. 2.

General Accounting Office. 1989. Wilderness preservation: problems in some national forests should be addressed. GAO/RCED-89-202. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 91 p.

Hall, T.E. 2001. Hikers’ perspectives on solitude and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 7(2): 20-24.

Hammitt, W.E.; Madden, M.A. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness privacy: a field test and further explanation. Leisure Sciences. 11: 293-301.

Hammitt, W.E.; McDonald, C.D.; Noe, F.P. 1984. Use level and encounters: important variables of perceived crowding among non-specialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research. 16: 1-8.

Hammitt, W.E.; Rutlin, W.M. 1995. Use encounter standards and curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17: 245-262.

Havlick, D. 2006. Reconsidering wilderness: prospective ethics for nature, technology, and society. Ethics, Place and Environment. 9: 47-62.

Healthy forests and rangelands interagency Web site. 2009. http://www. forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/glossary. (February).

Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P. 2001. Stewardship to address the threats to wilderness resources and values. International Journal of Wilderness. 7(3): 4-9.

———. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resources and values. 3rd ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 640 p.

Hollenhorst, S.J.; Jones, C.D. 2001. Wilderness solitude: beyond the social-spatial perspectives. In: Freimund, W.A.; Cole, D.N., comps. Proceedings, Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 56-61.

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 253 Hollenhorst, S.J.; Whisman, S.A.; Ewert, A.W. 1992. Monitoring visitor use in backcountry and wilderness: a review of methods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-134. Fresno, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 10 p.

Johnson, B.J.; Hall, T.E.; Cole, D.N. 2005. Naturalness, primitiveness, remoteness and wilderness: wilderness visitors’ understanding of Wilderness Act concepts. Unpublished report. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Kaye, R.W. 2000. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: an exploration of the meanings embodied in America’s last great wilderness. In: McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N.; Borrrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Proceedings, Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference: Wilderness Within the Context of Larger Systems. RMRS-P-15. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 73-80. Vol. 2.

———. 2002. Wilderness character: the historical basis, meaning, and function of the concept in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service draft wilderness stewardship policy of 2001. Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. Manuscript on file. 8 p.

Knapp, R.A.; Corn, P.S.; Schindler, D.E. 2001. The introduction of nonnative fish into wilderness lakes: good intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended consequences. Ecosystems. 4: 275-278.

Landres, P. 2003. Database of wilderness laws and their management language. Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. Excel database on file.

Landres, P.; Boutcher, S.; Merigliano, L.; Barns, C.; Davis, D.; Hall, T.; Henry, S.; Hunter, B.; Janiga, P.; Laker, M.; McPherson, A.; Powell, D.S.; Rowan, M.; Sater, S. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character: a national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 38 p.

Landres, P.; Marsh, S.; Merigliano, L.; Ritter, D.; Norman, A. 1998. Boundary effects on national forest wildernesses and other natural areas. In: Knight, R.L.; Landres, P.B., eds. Stewardship across boundaries. Washington, DC: Island Press: 117-139.

Lodge, D.M.; Williams, S.; MacIsaac, H.J.; Hayes, K.R.; Leung, B.; Reichard, S.; Mack, R.N.; Moyle, P.B.; Smith, M.; Andow, D.A.; Carlton, J.T.; McMichael, A. 2006. Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applications. 16: 2035-2054.

254 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Longcore, T.; Rich, C. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2(4): 191-198.

Lucas, R.C. 1973. Wilderness: a management framework. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 28: 150-154.

———. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes, and preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. Res. Pap. INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 89 p.

Malm, W.C. 1999. Introduction to visibility. Cooperative Agreement CA2350-97- 001: T097-04, T098-06. Fort Collins, CO: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, National Park Service Visibility Program, Colorado State University.

Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilderness. Scientific Monthly. 30: 141-148.

McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what the wilderness system is all about. Denver University Law Review. 76: 369-381.

McCool, S.F. 2004. Wilderness character and the notion of an “unconfined” experience. International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 15-17.

Meffee, G.K.; Carroll, C.R. 1997. Principles of conservation biology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 729 p.

Merriam-Webster. 2002. Webster’s third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. 2816 p.

Morse, L.E.; Randall, J.M.; Benton, N.; Hiebert, R.; Lu, S. 2004. An invasive species assessment protocol: evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity. Ver. 1. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/library/ invasiveSpeciesAssessmentProtocol.pdf. (June 2006).

Nash, R.F. 2004. Celebrating wilderness in 2004. George Wright Forum. 21(3): 6-8.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 2003. National atmospheric deposition program quality management plan. NADP QA Plan 2003-01. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, National Atmospheric Deposition Program Office.

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Management plan. http://www. invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/main.shtml. (June 2006).

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 255 National Park Service. 2000. Federal land managers’ air quality related values workgroup (FLAG) phase I report. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Air Resources Division. 210 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA-F-S65. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 392 p.

Ortega, Y.K.; Pearson, D.E.; McKelvey, K.S. 2004. Effects of exotic plant invasion and introduced biological control agents on native deer mouse populations. Ecological Applications. 14: 241-253.

Peine, J.; Burde, J.; Hammitt, W. 1989. Threats to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-51. In: Freilich, H.R., comp. Wilderness benchmark 1988. Proceedings, National Wilderness Colloquium. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 21-29.

Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2001. Ensuring the stewardship of the National Wilderness Preservation System: a report to the USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, US Geological Survey. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 31 p.

Pohl, S. 2006. Technology and the wilderness experience. Environmental Ethics. 28: 147-163.

Powell, D.S. 2000. Forest Service framework for inventory and monitoring. White paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Corporate Team. 32 p.

Putney, A.D.; Harmon, D. 2003. Intangible values and protected areas: towards a more holistic approach to management. In: Harmon, D.; Putney, A.D., eds. The full value of parks: from economics to the intangible. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: 311-326.

Roggenbuck, J.W. 2004. Managing for primitive recreation in wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 21-24.

Rohlf, D.; Honnold, D.L. 1988. Managing the balance of nature: the legal framework of wilderness management. Ecology Law Quarterly. 15: 249-279.

256 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; Hann, W.J.; Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 50 p.

Schroeder, H.W. 1992. The spiritual aspect of nature: a perspective from depth psychology. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-16. In: Vander Stoep, G.A., tech. ed. Proceedings, 1991 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 25-30.

———. 2007. Symbolism, experience, and the value of wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 13(1): 13-18.

Scott, D.W. 2002. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness character,” and the challenges of wilderness preservation. Wild Earth. 11(3/4): 72-79.

Stewart, W.P.; Cole, D.N. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon backcountry: consistently negative and weak relationships. Journal of Leisure Research. 33(1): 106-120.

Sutter, P. 2004. Driven wild: how the fight against automobiles launched the modern wilderness movement. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 343 p.

Tempel, D.J.; Cilimburg, A.B.; Wright, V. 2004. The status and management of exotic and invasive species in National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Areas. Natural Areas Journal. 24: 300-306.

United States Congress. 1983. U.S. House Report 98-40 from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March 18: 43.

Urquhart, N.S.; Paulsen, S.G.; Larsen, D.P. 1998. Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends over time. Ecological Applications. 8: 246-257.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. National inventory of dams data dictionary. http:// crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/niddatadictionary.html. (June 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1999. An assessment of the effects of human-caused air pollution on resources within the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-447. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

———. 2000. A wilderness agenda: thinking like a mountain. http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/ rhwr/wilderness/key_documents/Thinking_Mountain_final_5_9_2000.shtml. (June 2006).

Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character 257 ———. 2003a. Official trail definitions. Recreation and heritage resources integrated business systems Web site. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/measures/Inventory/Trails.htm. (June 2006).

———. 2003b. Recreation & heritage resources integrated business systems Web site. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/measures/Inventory/Trails.htm. (June 2006).

———. 2004a. GIS data dictionary, transportation theme, roads and trails layer. Ver. 30. Transportation section. Document on file: 1-14.

———. 2004b. Recreation, heritage, & volunteer resources integrated business systems Web site. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/measures/Inventory/Trails.htm. (June 2006).

———. 2005. Minimum requirements decision guide. Forest Service Manual 2320.6. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=MRDG. (June 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of the Interior (USDA/DOI). 2005. Wildland fire use implementation procedures reference guide. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/ wfsa/wildland_fire_use_guide.pdf. (June 2006).

Watson, A.E.; Cole, D.N.; Turner, D.; Reynolds, P.S. 2000. Wilderness recreation use estimation: a handbook of methods and systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-56. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 198 p.

Wilson, E.O. 1992. The diversity of life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 424 p.

Yuan, S.; Maiorano, B.; Yuan, M. 1995. Techniques and equipment for gathering visitor use data on recreation sites. Rep. No. MTDC-9523-2838. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technical Development Center. 78 p.

Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness. 59(winter to spring): 37-43.

———. 1961. Editorial: managed to be left unmanaged. The Living Wilderness. 76(spring to summer): 2.

———. 1963. Editorial: guardians not gardeners. The Living Wilderness. 83(spring to summer): 2.

Additional Reading McCloskey, M. 1966. The Wilderness Act of 1964: its background and meaning. Oregon Law Review 45(4): 288-321.

258 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character United States Department of Agriculture Monitoring Conditions Forest Service Related to Wilderness November 2012 Character:

National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses

2007–12

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data This supplement shows example reports developed with hypothetical data to illustrate the elements that would or could be used in reporting trends in wilderness character at the national, regional, and local levels. The reports in this supplement are for illustrative purposes only and were developed by a technical working group solely representing the views of its authors. These reports do no represent and should not be construed to represent any Forest Service determination or policy.

Disclaimer

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Photo credit: National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Wilderness Information Center Wilderness: Olympic Wilderness National Summary of Trends in Wilderness Character Across 407 Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12

National Trends in Wilderness Character National trends are derived by compiling a trend in wilderness character and the qualities of wilderness character across all 407 Forest Service wildernesses from 2007 through 2012.

= % of 407 wildernesses with wilderness character preserved = % of 407 wildernesses with wilderness character degraded “This protocol provides a scientifically defensible basis for demonstrating 65% preserved 35% degraded the changes to wilderness character we intuitively know are occurring.” —Deb Gale, Wilderness Manager, National Trends in Four Qualities of Wilderness Character West Fork Ranger District, Bitterroot National Forest Untrammeled Natural 20% “I find this new protocol 50% 50% 80% to be a great tool to capture a picture of present condition. With periodic monitoring, we Undeveloped Outstanding Opportunities can track changes over time and actually practice 10% adaptive management.” 30% —Gabe Garcia, 90% 70% District Ranger, San Bernardino National Forest

Narrative About These National Trends The central mandate for wilderness stewardship is the Wilderness Act of 1964’s assertion that “each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area” (Sec. 4b). This moni- toring provides a national summary of trends in wilderness character and the four qualities that make up wilderness character: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. The trends seen in the past 5 years yield the following observations: • Wilderness character is being preserved in a majority of Forest Service wildernesses. • Suppression to fight extraordinarily intense fires has caused degradation of the untrammeled quality. • Focused efforts to restore fire-adapted forests contributed to this degradation. • New policy direction to control nonindigenous invasive species has improved the natural quality.

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data iii Regional Trends in Wilderness Character, 2007–12

Narrative About These National Trends These regional trends reflect the following conditions that influenced the trend in wilderness character: • An increase in fire suppression efforts because of accelerating climate changes. • The spread of nonindigenous insects harming forest health throughout eastern wildernesses in this region, requiring aggressive control efforts to prevent severe forest dieback. • The population in the region has increased by 12 percent during the past 5 years, and recreation use of the wilderness has increased by a similar amount. This increased use has required a new permit system and various restrictions in the use of specific locations to reduce recreation impacts. These changes have led to a decline in the outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation quality of wilderness character.

iv Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Regional Summaries of Trends in Wilderness Character, 2007–12

Contents*

(This contents page is an example only.)

Introduction...... 0 Region 6...... 00

Region 1...... 0 Region 8...... 00

Region 2...... 00 Region 9...... 00

Region 3...... 00 Region 10...... 00

Region 4...... 00 Appendix. Methods Used To Derive Trends in Wilderness Character...... 00 Region 5...... 00

*The following pages show an example of a regional report only for Region 1 to give readers an idea of what the report would “look and feel” like. The real report would include a separate report similar to the one for Region 1 provided here for each of the regions and would include the appendix as well.

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data v vi Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Introduction

This report summarizes the results from 5 years of monitoring within each wilderness, and these results were compiled to selected conditions related to wilderness character across assess regional and national trends. all 407 wildernesses managed by the Forest Service. The • The conceptual foundation for this monitoring was published information generated by this monitoring is intended to as a Forest Service General Technical Report in April 2005, improve wilderness stewardship by assessing trends in agency pilot testing in all nine Forest Service regions was completed efforts to preserve wilderness character and fulfilling a primary in June 2006, and the monitoring protocols were published in legislative and policy mandate on 18 percent of National Forest the Technical Guide in September 2007. System lands. What Are the Benefits of Monitoring Why Monitor Wilderness Character? Wilderness Character? • The Wilderness Act of 1964 and all subsequent wilderness The monitoring effort yields the following benefits: legislation require the agencies responsible for managing wilderness to preserve wilderness character. Forest Service • It gives line officers unique information on the outcomes Manual section 2320.2 (4), directs the agency to “protect of stewardship actions on wilderness character, which is and perpetuate wilderness character.” critical because nearly half of all agency line officers have wilderness responsibilities. • Despite 40 years of wilderness management experience and managers calling for better monitoring of outcomes, • It increases agency defensibility in litigation involving the wilderness character has never been defined in terms that preservation of wilderness character (to date, 54 district court enable the agency to evaluate trends in wilderness character. and court of appeals cases have involved statutory citations about wilderness character). How Was Wilderness Character • It provides accountability at all administrative levels for the Monitored? mandate to “preserve wilderness character.” • This protocol used the statutory language of the Wilderness • It builds internal agency integration and makes information Act of 1964 to identify and monitor four qualities of from other program areas more accessible to wilderness wilderness: (1) untrammeled, (2) natural, (3) undeveloped, managers. and (4) outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. • It creates legacy information that spans the careers of individual managers and provides an institutional memory • Existing corporate data were used and integrated across staff for future managers to improve wilderness stewardship areas with wilderness responsibilities, such as air quality, by making decisions based on better knowledge of past fish and wildlife, botany, engineering, range management, conditions and actions. and recreation; additional existing national data sets were used as appropriate. No new field data were collected, which • It continues the rich tradition of Forest Service national significantly reduced implementation costs and fulfilled the wilderness leadership started by early agency pioneers Aldo agency call for “data collected once, used many times.” Leopold, Arthur Carhart, and Bob Marshall.

• This monitoring is nationally consistent and locally relevant. A standard process was used to assess trends relative only

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 1 2 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

What Is Wilderness Region 1 Trends In Wilderness Character Character? Regional trends are derived by compiling trends in wilderness For this monitoring, wilderness character is character and the qualities of wilderness character across all described as four mutually reinforcing qualities 14 Forest Service wildernesses from 2007 through 2012. derived from the Wilderness Act of 1964. = % of 14 wildernesses with wilderness character preserved

Untrammeled = % of 14 wildernesses with wilderness character degraded The intentional management actions that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside 70% preserved 30% degraded wilderness.

Natural The effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness since the time the area Region 1 Trends in Four Qualities of was designated. Wilderness Character Untrammeled Natural Undeveloped 20% The presence of structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human 50% 50% presence or occupation. 80%

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and Undeveloped Outstanding unconfined type of recreation Opportunities 10% The conditions that affect the opportunity for 30% people to experience solitude or primitive, 90% 70% unconfined recreation.

Narrative About These Regional Trends Significant findings and key interpretations: • ……. • ……. • ……. • ……. • …….

Data adequacy in the region: Data quantity (percentage of wildernesses reporting data and explanations). Data quality (problems local wildernesses reported with collecting data and trends shown).

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 3 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Summary of Trends in Wilderness Character Across the 14 Wildernesses in the Region

Name of Wilderness Trend in Wilderness Character

Selway-Bitterroot Gospel-Hump Gates of the Mountains Absaroka-Beartooth Improving Rattlesnake Mission Mountains Lee Metcalf or Anaconda Pintler Bob Marshall Stable Offsetting Great Bear Stable Frank Church-River of No Return Cabinet Mountains Scapegoat Welcome Creek Degrading

Untrammeled Quality Trends in the Untrammeled Quality Across Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern the 14 Regional Wildernesses human control or manipulation.

Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,” and “generally appears to have 30% been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” degraded

Howard Zahniser, the primary author of the Wilderness Act, noted that the inspiration for wilderness preservation “is to use 70% ‘skill, judgment, and ecologic sensitivity’ for the protection of preserved some areas within which natural forces may operate without man’s management and manipulation.”

This quality monitors management activities that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness.

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo credit: Dennis Schramm Wilderness: Okefenokee Wilderness Wilderness: Lava Beds Wilderness

4 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Untrammeled Quality (continued)

Trends in the Indicator and Measures Across the 14 Regional Wildernesses Percent of 14 wildernesses that are improving , stable or offsetting stable , or degrading

Indicator Trend Measure Trend

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in actions that control the “community of life” in wilderness?

Number of actions undertaken to manage Agency actions that vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and 10% 35% 55% control or manipulate disease; soil and water; and fire plant communities, 30% Percentage of lightning fires that are animal populations, soils, 50% 60% 10% 30% suppressed water bodies, or natural 20% disturbance processes Number of lakes and other water bodies 15% 80% 5% stocked with fish

Narrative About the Untrammeled Quality • What are the significant findings and key interpretations regarding trends in this quality? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trends?

Natural Quality This statement means that the indigenous species composition, structures, and functions of ecological systems in wilderness Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the are protected and allowed to function and change on their own, effects of modern civilization. without the planned intervention or the unintended effects of Wilderness Act of 1964 modern civilization. Trends are ideally monitored from the time Wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its of wilderness designation. natural conditions.” Only through such protection may wilderness truly serve as “a laboratory for the study of land-health” and as an ecological baseline for understanding the effects of modern civilization on Trends in the Natural Quality Across natural systems. the 14 Regional Wildernesses

25% degraded

75% preserved

Photo credit: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Tom Flowers Wilderness: Bob Marshall Wilderness

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 5 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Natural Quality (continued)

Narrative About the Natural Quality • What are the significant findings and key interpretations regarding trends in this quality? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trends?

Photo credit: Peter Landres Wilderness: Anaconda Pintler Wilderness

Trends in the Indicators and Measures Across the 14 Regional Wildernesses Percent of 14 wildernesses that are improving , stable or offsetting stable , or degrading

Indicator Trend Measure Trend

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in human threats to natural conditions?

Ozone exposure statistic N100 episodic 10% 35% 55% concentration Pollutants that degrade 10% Ozone exposure statistic W126 chronic air quality and air quality- 5% 35% 60% related values such as 20% concentration plants, animals, soil, and 70% 10% 45% 45% water Concentration of sulfur in wet deposition

Concentration of nitrogen in wet deposition 15% 25% 60%

15% Developments that degrade 25% the free-flowing condition of Number of dams inside wilderness 25% 60% 15% rivers and streams 60%

Percentage of wilderness acre category 60% 20% 20% with invasive plant species Nonindigenous species that alter the composition 30% Number of nonplant species of concern 50% 30% 60% 10% of natural plant and animal that are not indigenous to the wilderness 20% communities Number of acres of active grazing 5% 35% 60% allotment

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in selected biophysical conditions that are sensitive to human threats?

10% Average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate 5% 35% 60% and sulfate Visual air quality 15% 75% Average deciview 10% 35% 55%

Indigenous ecosystems, 35% 30% plant communities, and Number of indigenous plant and animal 30% 35% 35% plant and animal species species that have been extirpated 35% that have been extirpated

6 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Undeveloped Quality Trends in the Undeveloped Quality Across the 14 Regional Wildernesses Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation. 10% Wilderness Act of 1964 degraded Wilderness is “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation…where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” 90% preserved Some evidence of occupancy and use is acceptable because of special provisions in legislation or because it is considered the “minimum necessary for administration of the area for the purpose of the Act” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Sec. 4(c)). Regardless, managers must exercise restraint so that a This quality monitors the number and development level of wilderness does not increasingly appear developed, occupied, structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of and modified. modern human presence or occupation.

Photo credit: Lisa Eidson Photo credit: http://wilderness.net Wilderness: Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Wilderness: Not identified

Narrative About the Undeveloped Quality • What are the significant findings and key interpretations regarding trends in this quality? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trends?

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 7 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Undeveloped Quality (continued)

Trends in the Indicators and Measures Across the 14 Regional Wildernesses Percent of 14 wildernesses that are improving , stable or offsetting stable , or degrading

Indicator Trend Measure Trend

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in physical evidence of modern human development or modification?

10% Physical evidence of 15% Index of physical development 10% 55% 35% development 75%

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport?

Number of mechanical transport use days 30% 35% 35% Motorized equipment and authorized 35% 30% mechanical transport use Number of motorized equipment use days authorizations 35% 20% 35% 45% authorized

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in inholdings?

10%

Inholdings 55% 35% Acres of inholdings 10% 55% 35%

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude Trends in the Outstanding Opportunities or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Quality Across the 14 Regional Wildernesses Recreation Quality Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge. 35% degraded Wilderness Act of 1964 65% Wilderness “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a preserved primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”

The meaning of solitude in wilderness encompasses separation from people and civilization, inspiration, and a sense of timelessness. Primitive recreation encompasses travel by nonmotorized and nonmechanized means and also includes reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area rather than reliance on facilities or outside help. This quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity Unconfined recreation encompasses self-discovery, for people to experience solitude or primitive, unconfined exploration, and freedom from societal or managerial controls. recreation; it does not monitor visitor experiences directly.

8 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality (continued)

Photo credit: Peter Landres Photo credit: National Park Service Wilderness: Selway/Bitterroot Wilderness Wilderness: Not identified.

Narrative About the Outstanding Opportunities Quality • What are the significant findings and key interpretations regarding trends in this quality? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trends?

Trends in the Indicators and Measures Across the 14 Regional Wildernesses Percent of 14 wildernesses that are improving , stable or offsetting stable , or degrading

Indicator Trend Measure Trend

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude?

15% 25% Remote, trailless Number of acres of wilderness away from 25% 60% 15% wilderness 60% access and travel routes

Number of parties visiting a wilderness 30% 35% 35% 35% 30% during the primary use season Wilderness visitation Number of National Visitor Use Monitoring 35% 20% 35% 45% visits per region

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation?

35% Recreation facilities 50% Index of recreation amenities 35% 15% 50%

15%

35% 30% Number of trail miles in developed condition Trail development level 30% 35% 35% classes (classes 3 to 5) 35%

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in opportunities for unconfined recreation?

Management restrictions 35% 50% Index of restrictions on visitor behavior 35% 15% 50% on visitor behavior 15%

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 9 Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A Report on Trends in the XXXX Wilderness From 2007 Through 2012

What Is Wilderness Character? For this monitoring, wilderness character is described as four mutually reinforcing qualities derived from the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Untrammeled The intentional management actions that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness.

Natural The effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness since the time the area was designated.

Undeveloped The presence of structures, construction, habitations, and other The overall trend in wilderness evidence of modern human presence or occupation. character is improving Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation The conditions that affect the opportunity for people to Photo credit: Andrea Davidson Wilderness: Bridger Wilderness experience solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation. Trends in the Qualities of Wilderness Character Why Monitor Wilderness Character? Quality of Trend • To fulfill legal and policy mandates to preserve wilderness wilderness character 2007–12 character.

• To assess the outcomes of wilderness stewardship. Untrammeled Offsetting stable

• To improve wilderness stewardship. Natural Degrading • To establish information that will endure as personnel and conditions change. Undeveloped Improving

Outstanding opportunities Improving “…each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” Trend in wilderness character Improving —Wilderness Act of 1964, (Sec. 4b)

10 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Summary of Trends in the XXXX Wilderness, 2007–12

Trend in Trend in Trend in Trend in Measure Trend in measure wilderness indicator question quality character

Untrammeled quality:

Management actions

Fires suppressed

Fish stocking

Natural quality:

Ozone N100

Ozone W126

Sulfur deposition

Nitrogen deposition

Dams

Nonindigenous plants

Other nonindigenous species

Grazing allotments

Fine nitrate and sulfate

Deciview

Extirpated species

Undeveloped quality:

Physical development index

Mechanical transport use

Motorized equipment use

Inholdings

Outstanding opportunities quality:

Area away from access or travel

Visiting parties *

Users residing in service area

National Visitor Use Monitoring visits per region

Recreation facilities index

Developed trail miles

Visitor restrictions index

* One trend is identified for these two measures because only one of these measures will be used.

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 11 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Untrammeled Quality Trend in This Quality Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation.

Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,” and “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” Offsetting stable

Howard Zahniser, the primary author of the Wilderness Act, noted that the inspiration for wilderness preservation “is to use ‘skill, judgment, and ecologic sensitivity’ for the protection of This quality monitors management activities that directly some areas within which natural forces may operate without control or manipulate the components or processes of man’s management and manipulation.” ecological systems inside wilderness.

Photo credit: Tom Kogut Photo credit: Tom Kogut Forest: Gifford Pinchot Forest Forest: Gifford Pinchot Forest

Trends in Indicators and Measures for the Untrammeled Quality

Indicator Trend Measure Trend Data adequacy*

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in actions that control the community of life in wilderness?

Number of actions to manage vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects and disease; soil and water; and fire Agency actions that control or manipulate plant communities, animal populations, Percentage of lightning fires that are soils, water bodies, or natural disturbance suppressed processes Number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish *Left half of circle = data availability: filled in = complete; thick line = partial; empty = insufficient. Right half of circle = data quality: filled in = high; thick line = moderate; empty = low.

Narrative About the Untrammeled Quality • Why is this trend in the untrammeled quality an accurate reflection of recent conditions in the wilderness? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trend?

12 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Natural Quality Trend in This Quality Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.

Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Degraded This statement means that the indigenous species composition, structures, and functions of ecological systems in wilderness are protected and allowed to function and change on their own, Only through such protection may wilderness truly serve as without the planned intervention or the unintended effects of “a laboratory for the study of land-health” and as an ecological modern civilization. Trends are ideally monitored from the time baseline for understanding the effects of modern civilization on of wilderness designation. natural systems.

Photo credit: Andrea Davidson Photo credit: Jann Williams Wilderness: Bridger Wilderness Forest: Eldorado Forest

Narrative About the Natural Quality • Why is this trend in the natural quality an accurate reflection of recent conditions in the wilderness? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trend?

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 13 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Natural Quality (continued)

Trends in Indicators and Measures for the Natural Quality

Indicator Trend Measure Trend Data adequacy*

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in human threats to natural conditions?

Ozone exposure statistic N100 episodic concentration

Ozone exposure statistic W126 chronic Pollutants that degrade air quality and concentration air quality related values such as plants, animals, soil, and water Concentration of sulfur in wet deposition

Concentration of nitrogen in wet deposition

Developments that degrade the free-flowing Number of dams inside wilderness condition of rivers and streams

Percentage of wilderness acre category with invasive plant species Nonindigenous species that alter the composition of natural plant and animal Number of nonplant species of concern communities that are not indigenous to the wilderness

Number of acres of active grazing allotment

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in selected biophysical conditions that are sensitive to human threats?

Average sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate Visual air quality Average deciview

Indigenous ecosystems, plant communities, Number of indigenous plant and animal and plant and animal species that have species that have been extirpated been extirpated

*Left half of circle = data availability: filled in = complete; thick line = partial; empty = insufficient. Right half of circle = data quality: filled in = high; thick line = moderate; empty = low.

14 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Undeveloped Quality Trend in This Quality Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation.

Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness is “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation…where man himself is a Improving visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”

Some evidence of occupancy and use is acceptable because of special provisions in legislation or because it is considered the “minimum necessary for administration of the area for the purpose of the Act” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Sec. 4(c)). Regardless, managers must exercise restraint so that a wilderness does not increasingly appear developed, occupied, and modified.

This quality monitors the number and development level of structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human occupation.

Photo credit: Deborah Caffin Photo credit: Gordon Ash Wilderness: Raven Cliffs Wilderness Wilderness: Great Bear Wilderness

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 15 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Undeveloped Quality (continued)

Trends in Indicators and Measures for the Undeveloped Quality

Indicator Trend Measure Trend Data adequacy*

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in physical evidence of modern human development or modification?

Physical evidence of development Index of physical development

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport?

Number of mechanical transport use days authorized Motorized equipment and mechanical transport use authorizations Number of motorized equipment use days authorized

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in inholdings?

Inholdings Acres of inholdings

*Left half of circle = data availability: filled in = complete; thick line = partial; empty = insufficient. Right half of circle = data quality: filled in = high; thick line = moderate; empty = low.

Narrative About the Undeveloped Quality • Why is this trend in the undeveloped quality an accurate reflection of recent conditions in the wilderness? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trend?

16 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12

Outstanding Opportunities for Trend in This Quality Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge. Improving Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”

The meaning of solitude in wilderness encompasses separation from people and civilization, inspiration, and a sense of timelessness. Primitive recreation encompasses travel by nonmotorized and nonmechanized means and also includes reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area rather than reliance on facilities or outside help. Unconfined recreation encompasses self-discovery, exploration, and freedom from societal or managerial controls.

This quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation; it does not monitor visitor experiences directly.

Photo credit: Kevin Hood Photo credit: Kirk Johnson Wilderness: Tracy Arm-Ford’s Terror Wilderness Wilderness: Lake Clark Wilderness

Narrative About the Outstanding Opportunities Quality • Why is this trend in the outstanding opportunities quality an accurate reflection of recent conditions in the wilderness? • If problems occurred with the data used to generate trend information for this quality, what did they consist of? • What is the explanation for the observed trend?

Supplement—National Report With Hypothetical Data 17 Region 1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Results, 2007–12 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality (continued)

Trends in Indicators and Measures for the Outstanding Opportunities Quality

Indicator Trend Measure Trend Data adequacy*

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude?

Number of acres of wilderness away from Remote, trailless wilderness access and travel routes

Number of parties visiting a wilderness during the primary use season Wilderness visitation National Visitor Use Monitoring visits per region

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation?

Recreation facilities Index of recreation amenities

Number of trail miles in developed Trail development level condition classes (class 3 to 5)

Monitoring Question: What are the trends in opportunities for unconfined recreation?

Management restrictions on visitor behavior Index of restrictions on visitor behavior

*Left half of circle = data availability: filled in = complete; thick line = partial; empty = insufficient. Right half of circle = data quality: filled in = high; thick line = moderate; empty = low.

18 Monitoring Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: National Report on Trends Across Forest Service Wildernesses, 2007–12 United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HOPPER MOUNTAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX CALIFORNIA CONDOR RECOVERY PROGRAM P.O. Box 5839 Ventura, CA 93005 Tel: (805) 644-5185 Fax: (805) 644-1732

May 15, 2013

William Metz, Forest Supervisor Cleveland National Forest 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road San Diego, CA 92127-2107

Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Southern California National Forest Land Management Plan Amendments

Dear Mr. Metz:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment (DSEIS). The Proposed Alternative, Alternative 2, would convert areas currently designated as Back Country Motorized use areas to Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) use areas. Alternative 3 would provide for additional areas of recommended wilderness.

Our comments on the DSEIS are specific to the California condor. The California condor historically, and currently occupies National Forest lands contemplated in the DSEIS; primarily areas of the Los Padres National Forest and Angeles National Forest. In the future, as the California condors continue to expand their range, use of the other Southern California National Forests may also increase.

As recognized in the DSEIS, the 1996 Recovery Plan for the California condor does not recommend the designation of additional wilderness areas as a means of promoting recovery. However, earlier versions of the recovery plan did focus on the conservation of condor habitat and protection from disturbance. For example the 1974 Recovery Plan for the California condor includes a recommendation to prohibit motorized vehicles between Mount Pinos and Mount Able in the Los Padres National Forest, as well as the closure of this area to mining and mineral leasing. As the population of condors and use of the Los Padres National Forest has increased substantially as a result of recovery actions, recommendations made in earlier versions of the recovery plan regarding the protection of habitat should be reconsidered and expanded to accommodate, and protect, the growing condor population.

Existing wilderness areas have proved to be beneficial to the recovery of the California condor including but not limited to the Sespe, Chumash, Dick Smith, Matilija, San Rafael, Machesna, and Garcia, Ventana Silver Peak Wilderness areas. These and other Wilderness designations within the range of the California condor provide protection from development 2 to important historical nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat that are now being used by the recovering population.

The potential for allowing mechanized use in BCNM areas proposed in Alternative 2, by exception, could expose important condor habitat to the wind energy development and oil and gas exploration and development. Condors are currently occupying areas that support existing oil and gas development, including private lands and areas of the Los Padres National Forest, particularly in and around the Sespe and Lake Piru areas.

Oil and gas development poses a threat to California condors if they are exposed to environmental contaminants, loose rope or strapping material in which they may become entangled, and micro-trash (small pieces of glass, metal, plastic collected and ingested by condors and fed to their chicks). The ingestion of micro-trash can result in the chick's inability to process and digest food provided by their parents in the nest, potentially leading to starvation. Condors have also been injured or killed as a result of becoming entangled or entrapped in human structures, loose ropes or similar strapping material, and through the ingestion of harmful items, including chemicals such as ethylene glycol.

Wind energy is a threat to California condors as they expand their range into areas with existing and proposed wind development. In 2010 the Service established a California Condor Wind Energy Work Group (Work Group). The Work Group is an appointed recovery team per section 4(±)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, to assist the Services recovery efforts by assessing the risks of wind energy development andrecommending actions that can be taken to minimize these risks. The work group includes a representative from Los Padres National Forest.

Condors are gregarious and often travel in groups. Thus, the potential for wind energy development to kill or injure multiple condors at the same time is a substantial threat. The Los Padres National Forest currently supports nesting California condors that regularly travel between nesting areas in in and around Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge and the Sespe Condor Sanctuary to Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tehachapi Mountains. Expanding wind development to National Forest lands currently used by condors in the Los Padres National Forest, or that are within their historic range in on other National Forest Lands contemplated in the DSEIS, and likely to be used by condors in the future, would further expose condors the to this threat.

Additionally, Condors that have become overly comfortable around human activity and human structures are at greater risk to behavioral conditioning, which ultimately may affect their ability to survive in the wild because they may associate humans with food or exposed to the risks described previously including entanglement, poisoning, and micro-trash. A condor that is accustomed to being in close proximity human activity and human structures may also teach these behaviors to other condors given the social nature of the species. Condors that become comfortable perching on human structures and remain in close contact with humans may become habituated and need to be removed from the wild for their own protection and the protection of the free-flying population. 3

Although the Proposed Alternative would result in increased protection of important California condor habitat beyond that which is protected under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 3 (Recommended Wilderness Emphasis) would provide the greatest protections to the California condor and its habitat within the four Southern California forests. Because recovery actions would focus on activities compatible with the Wilderness Act including the potential to use motorized access if necessary to support species recovery consistent with wilderness objectives would be allowed to continue under recommended wilderness, expanded wilderness designations would not negatively affect California condor recovery efforts. For these reasons, we recommend the Forest Service choose Alternative 3.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please contact me at (805) 644- 5185, extension 294.

Sincerely,

Steve Kirkland California Condor Field Coordinator Special Status Plants with potential to occur on the Antimony and Quatal IRAs, prepared by Pam DeVries on 3/7/14 Taxon Status Potential to occur Potential based on** Documented at several locations in and around Lockwood Valley; also Moderate potential ot occur on documented in the mountains west of the Carrizo Plain (CCH); an Acanthomintha obovata subsp. cordata CNPS 4.2 Antimony, Quatal, and others Acanthomintha taxon was reported on Bitter Creek NWR, but no subsp. was indicated (M. Werner report) Reported on Antimony along the road (Trail 118); high potential to occur on Documented in Ballinger Canyon, Nettle Springs Campground and Apache Allium howellii var. clokeyi CNPS 1B.3 elsewhere on the Antimony, Quatal Canyon (CCH); reported on Trail 118 in the Antimony and others High potential to occur on Antimony, Amsinckia douglasiana CNPS 4.2 Documented on Windwolves and just south of Bitter Creek NWR (CCH) Quatal, others. Occurs on Antimony (?..it's along the Documented on Bitter Creek NWR, on Antimony at east end of Cowhead road so it may be 'out'); high potential Androsace elongata var. acuta CNPS 4.2 Potrero (both sides of Cerro Noroeste Rd.), Timba Creek in the Upper to occur elsewhere on the Antimony, Cuyama Valley, and on Windwolves (CCH) on Quatal and others High potential to occur on Antimony, Antirrhinum ovatum CNPS 4.2 Documented in Ballinger Canyon (CCH). Quatal, others. High potential to occur on Antimony California macrophylla CNPS 1B.1 Documented (CCH) on Windwolves and Quatal High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented near the Chuchupate Ranger station on Frazier Mtn. and on Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri CNPS 1B.2 Quatal and others Alamo Mountain (CCH) Occurs on Quatal (?); high potential to Documented on Bitter Creek NWR and on a ridgetop between Ballinger Castilleja plagiotoma CNPS 4.3 occur on Antimony, Quatal and others and Quatal Canyons (CCH) High potential to occur on Antimony Documented on Bitter Creek NWR, Ballinger Canyon (FS), Long Canyon Caulanthus lemmonii CNPS 1B.2 and Quatal Wash (FS), and near Windwolves (all CCH) Moderate potential to occur on Documented (historic) in Cuddy Valley (CCH); reported on Bitter Creek Delphinium inopinum CNPS 4.3 Antimony NWR (M. Werner doc) Moderate potential to occur on Several records documented around Mt. Pinos and Cuddy Canyon; Delphinium parryi subsp. purpureum CNPS 4.3 Antimony, Quatal, others reported on Bitter Creek NWR (M. Werner doc) High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented on Windwolves (CCH); reported on Bitter Creek NWR (M. Eriastrum hooveri CNPS 4.2 Quatal and others Werner doc) Low to moderate potential to occur on Documented on Tejon Ranch on rocky limestone soils. Some limestone Eriogonum callistum CNPS 1B.1 Antimony soil outcrops apparently occur on the Antimony around Tecuya Mountain. High potential to occur on Quatal, Documented In Ballinger Canyon (CCH); reported on Bitter Creek NWR Eriogonum gossypinum CNPS 4.2 Antimony, others (M. Werner doc) Documented on Mt. Pinos (CCH); marginal habitat may occur in the San Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum CNPS 1B.3 Low potential to occur on Antimony Emigdios (sub‐alpine coniferous; lowest elevation documented for this taxon is about 6,600 ft; San Emigdio Mountain is 7,495 ft (FS)). Documented in the Temblor Range (several records) (CCH); reported on Eriogonum temblorense CNPS 1B.2 High potential to occur on Antimony Bitter Creek NWR (M. Werner doc); reported on Windwolves (Windwolves plant list) Documented on Old Ft. Tejon (CCH); reported on Windwolves in the Blue High potential to occur on Antimony Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii CNPS 1B.1 Ridge area (Windwolves plant list); I personally observed this taxon at and Quatal Windwolves on Blue Ridge in 2013 moderate potential to occur on reported on Bitter Creek (but not documented in 2009/2010 surveys; this Eriophyllum lanatum var. obovatum CNPS 4.3 Antimony was noted on Misa Werner's plant list but is possibly a misidentification) High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented on Old Ft. Tejon, on Tejon Ranch, and just north of Eschscholzia lemmonii subsp. kernensis CNPS 1B.1 Quatal, others. WindWolves (CCH) Occurs on Antimony (?...it's on the road, so may be 'out'); high potential to Documented 1 mile south of the Marion Campground along the road Frasera neglecta CNPS 4.3 occur elsewhere on Antimony, on (CCH); documented at several other locations in the MPRD Quatal, and others High potential to occur on Antimony Fritillaria agrestis CNPS 4.2 Documented on Bitter Creek NWR and on Windwolves (CCH) and Quatal High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented on Mt. Pinos, Lockwood Valley, Reyes Peak, and Sewart Fritillaria pinetorum CNPS 4.3 Quatal, others. Mountain on the LPNF (CCH) High potential to occur on Antimony, Gilia latiflora var. cuyamensis CNPS 4.3 Documented on Bitter Creek NWR and on Windwolves (CCH) Quatal and others High potential to occur on Antimony, Lupinus elatus CNPS 4.3 Documented in Bitter Creek NWR and along Cuddy Valley Road (CCH) Quatal, others. Reported on Windwolves (D.Clendenen, personal conversation). Closest Mimulus pictus CNPS 1B.2 High potential to occur on Antimony documented occurrences are on Tejon Ranch (substrates and habitat types in the east portion of the Antimony are similar to those on Tejon) High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented in many locations around Mt. Pinos and Lake of the Woods; Monardella linoides var. oblonga CNPS 1B.3 Quatal and others Reported on Bitter Creek NWF (M. Werner report). High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented on FS land at junction of Mt. Pinos & Cuddy Valley Roads and Navarretia penninsularis CNPS 1B.2 Quatal and others also about 1 mi south of Chuchupate Ranger station (CCH) High potential to occur on Antimony, Navarretia setiloba CNPS 1B.1 Documented onWindwolves and Old Ft. Tejon State Park (CCH) Quatal and others High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented in Ballinger Canyon (FS), on Bitter Creek NWR, and along Perideridia pringlei CNPS 4.3 Quatal, others. Cuddy Road (CCH) High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented on Sawmill Mountain (CCH); personally observed and Phacelia exilis CNPS 4.3 Quatal and others reported on Frazier Mountain 2012 High potential to occur on Antimony Many documented records in Cuyama, Lockwood Valley and 'Mt. Pinos' Sidalcea neomexicana CNPS 2B.2 and Quatal (CCH); High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented in the township of Pine Mountain Club and near Piano Box Thermopsis macrophylla var. argentata CNPS 4.3 Quatal and others Loop (CCH) High potential to occur on Antimony, Documented in Ballinger Canyon (CCH); reported on Windwolves Trichostema ovatum CNPS 4.2 Quatal, others. (Windwolves plants list)

** 'Documented' means there is a record in the CCH; 'Reported' means someone put it on a list or said they saw it, but there is no voucher for the report Jeff Kuyper

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Update are you around tomorrow to talk about this? - mg

In a message dated 12/20/2010 1:59:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Michael,

I have some updates for you. First, as to the issue of the roads to be included in the programmatic consultation, we would be fine if the provision (which I believe is 9(b)) stated:

In addition, the Forest Service will initiate programmatic consultation with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries for all ongoing activities relating to the road system, and maintenance thereof, on the Los Padres National Forest. Such consultation will include system roads and any non-system roads maintained by the forest service as well as local and county roads that cross National Forest lands, for which the Forest Service has a shared interest or responsibility for maintenance. The Forest Service shall initiate this programmatic consultation within 180 days. As part of this consultation, the Forest Service shall prepare a Biological Assessment in accordance with the Forest Plan.

The FS believes that it could implement terms and conditions that would be mandatory for state and local governments in terms of road maintenance. So we will no longer object to this portion of the agreement.

As to the survey to protocol requirement, there is no obligation to perform these surveys in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan only directs that surveys, if performed, be performed to the established protocol (to the extent one exists). The Forest Plan also directs that if there is a need to determine presence or absence, then a survey to protocol be performed. The standard practice as established by FWS is two tier. First, the Forest Service is obligated to determine if there is suitable habitat for a listed species. If such habitat exists, then the FS has two options. First, it can assume that the habitat is occupied and forego the need for the survey, or it can perform a survey to determine the presence/absence of that species in the identified habitat. If it is assumed that a listed species is in the habitat and the FS adopts mitigation measures (like was done in this case), then there would be no need to perform a survey to determine presence/absence. This is standard practice across the nation. (For example, there would be no need to conduct a survey for the Marbled Murrelet in this case because there is no suitable habitat for this species in the project area. Therefore, there would be no habitat to survey for presence/absence.)

1

As for the Fire Management Plan portion, I double checked with the Forest on what this documents includes. This is the language that comes from one of the FMP documents:

“The revised FMP is a decision-support document that provides the necessary background information to help fire personnel and decision makers determine the appropriate management response (AMR) to an unplanned ignition. All fire program documents and information were carefully evaluated and categorized for inclusion in either the revised FMP or in an electronic filing system.

Forest Service FMPs do not contain information about budget, prevention, pre suppression, and dispatch. Instead, Forest Service FMPs are a compilation of guidance and direction from the Land and Resource Management Plan and other sources including recovery plans, national policy, and national and regional directives.”

I did ask about whether there was s cumulative effects study of fuels reduction projects, and the FS said there was not one. the reasoning behind this is that every area of the forest is different. There are different communities that have different fire suppression needs and objectives in accordance with the various levels of risk. The FS stated that what you do in one community would be different for another one 30 miles away. On account of the different circumstances for each community, it would not make sense to have one cumulative management approach document. The FS also said that the decisions as to whether to approve a fuels management project are pretty black and white, and that there are not many areas where they would do fuels reduction if not needed.

The difficulty about including anything additional in the FMP is the size of the task. The FMP is an inter-agency document. It also appears that the new FMP was prepared to apply to all forests, it was not drafted just for the Los Padres, so the FS might be wary of changing or adding portions to a document that has nationwide policy implications. I understand that your client is interested in having fewer fuels reduction project approved, but I am not sure that this document provides an opportunity for his interests to be addressed.

Lastly, you sent an email with identified no-go areas that were described as areas of high ecological significance, where your client wanted no activities to take place. There was no specific reason attached to any of those areas as a basis to forego project activity. Did your client have a reason to believe that the current protections approved by FWS were not adequate enough to protect the habitat and/or TSE species in those particular areas? Because the FS believes the protections it is using for the project are more than sufficient to protect species/habitat the FS is not willing at this point to remove those areas.

2 I’m in all week to discuss if necessary, please let me know if you have any additional questions. Hopefully we can get to a final resolution on these issues this week so I can work on getting it approved by the necessary people in my office.

Thanks,

Peter

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:53 PM To: Whitfield, Peter (ENRD) Subject: Update

Peter, are you around this week to make any progress on the Los Padres settlement process? I am around if you want to talk.

mg

3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213

MAY 0 9 2013 In response, refer to: 2012/00674:BMS

William Metz Forest Supervisor Cleveland National Forest I 0845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92 I 27-2107

Dear Mr. Metz:

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposed Southern California Land Management Plan (LMP) Amendment (for Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests, hereinafter termed the " Forests"). The proposed action is to amend LMP land-use zone allocations for select Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and to amend LMP monitoring and evaluation protocols. The scope of the proposed action is within the range of the endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the threatened South-Central California DPS of steel head, and designated critical habitat for both species. Accordingly, the following comments on the DSEIS are provided to assist the Forests' ongoing development of land-use zones that are commensurate with the I ife history and habitat requirements of steel head. The comments contained herein supplement and extend NMFS' November 27, 20 I 2, comments on the October 29, 20 I 2, administrative DSEIS.

NMFS recognizes the Forests' Alternative 2 includes restrictive land-use zones (e.g., Back Country Non-Motorized, BCNM). This provides some level of habitat protection and remains central for improving and restoring natural watershed function and values on Forest land, which contain the majority of historical spawning and rearing habitats for steel head. The BCNM land-use designation does limit future activit.ies, such as roads, developed recreation, special uses, and energy developments that can impair the function and quality of essential habitats on which the life history and ontogeny of endangered steelhead depend. However, based on NMFS' understanding of the current LMP, oil development, energy development, communication facilities, mining, and disposal of national forest lands are all allowed "by exception" in the BCNM land-use zone. To further minimize impacts to steelhead and designated critical habitat, NMFS recommends the Forests develop Alternative 2 so that IRAs containing or bordering critical habitat are designated as recommended wilderness (RW). Furthermore, there is ecological value in protecting tributaries to designated critical habitat streams on Forest lands, thus NMFS recommends that the Forests designate IRAs that contain tributaries to critical habitat streams, as RW (displayed in the enclosure). 2

Specifically, NMFS recommends that portions of the following specific zones be designated as RW: Tequepis, White Ledge, Dry Lakes, and Sespe-Frazier (see enclosure)'.

NMFS appreciates this opportunity to review the publically released DSEIS for the proposed action. Please contact Brittany Struck at 562-432-3905, or via email at [email protected] if you have a question concerning this letter, or if you require additional information.

Sincerely,

Penn elas Southern California Area Office Supervisor for Protected Resources

Enclosure cc: Alice Berg, NMFS, Sacramento Michael Kellett, USFS, Vellejo Kirsten Winter, USFS, Cleveland Kevin Cooper, USFS, Los Padres Administrative File: 151422SWR2011 PR00328

1 This recommendation was developed based on review of available Geographic Information Systems layers, which include shape files that display the spatial extent of different land use zones and the proposed changes to these zones. This information was provided on November 15 , 2012, from Bob Hawkins (Consulting Natural Resource Planner for the U.S. Forest Service). 3

SoCal CH_BCNM_Los Padres In regards to re-zoning the Antimony IRA, the Wildlands Conservancy supports a recommended wilderness designation.

The IRA Evaluation demonstrates that private land incursions do exist, however, Black Bob Canyon, San Emigdio Canyon, Blue Ridge, Pleito Creek, and Salt Creek, lie within the boundary of The Wildlands Conservancy’s Wind Wolves Preserve. Currently the only area publicly accessible inside of Wind Wolves boundary is the mouth of San Emidgio Canyon. All other parts of the preserve are treated effectively as back country wilderness, where, the only human interaction is by guided tour, cattle lessees assisting in non-native grass management via grazing, ranger patrols, and ranger led restoration projects. Some oil developments do exist; however, these areas are all accessed from the northern boundary, are well contained inside of the preserve, and have very limited impact on the vast majority of the property.

Wind Wolves would benefit significantly from the Alternative 3 (RM) designation because the wilderness regulations effectively go hand in hand with our management goals. More specifically, our mission to restore large land tracts to native vegetation and ecology and maintain their biological integrity via detailed management regimes based on the best scientific evidence available. The current Forest Service land management has impacted our goals as a nature preserve in multiple negative ways, the most prominent result occurs in the form of hunter trespass. Other trespass incidents do occur, most often, OHV trespass or hikers at culturally significant Chumash rock art locations. The indigenous rock art is drawn on sandstone mediums that are extremely sensitive to vandalism and acts of negligence.

Hunter trespass and OHV off-road use would be curbed via a RM designation. Currently, the back country cherry stem trails terminate exactly at the Southern boundary of the preserve at Pleito Creek, Salt Creek, and Blue Ridge. These roads act as trespass corridors with ending vistas of pristine habitats tempting the recreational users. Deer poaching incidents, including 2 poached bucks in the 2012 season, nearly 2 miles inside of the preserve boundary, with footprints and ATVs found at the Pleito Creek boundary fences, are documented on an annual basis. Last season, another trespassing hunter was found carrying a map designating a meeting point multiple miles within the Blue Ridge Boundary (SW-portion) on Wildland property. He ultimately needed evacuation with Search and Rescue via horse and foot patrols. Currently, Wind Wolves does not allow any form of recreational hunting, and acts as a sanctuary for wildlife.

OHV off-road use often accessed in the Black Bob Canyon remains to be an ongoing management concern. Post and cable has provided some level of protection, however, access still occurs and dirt-bikes frequently access via FS lands. Last weekend, 5/12/2013, a Wind Wolves employee observed fresh dirt-bike tracks across numerous preserve roads, including riding up grassy hills and through native habitats. The fire risk from off-road trespass is immense and capable of long- term habitat destruction. These activities undermine the mission of our organization and invite further trespass and potential Fish and Wildlife code section violations and acts of vandalism on protected property.

Many more documented forms of trespass incidents are contained on file. As discussions continue and evolve regarding the status of the Antimony IRA, Wildlands appreciates opportunities to provide additional input, as any outcome has a direct impact on the management of the 95,000 acre preserve. Please contact us by phone at (661) 858-1115 if any questions or concerns do arise.

Figure 1. Map of Wind Wolves Preserve encompassing 95,000 acres.